Equities

Highlights Surging Covid-19 cases to unprecedented levels have unsettled India’s equity and currency markets. Worryingly, the number of new cases in India might stay exceptionally high for a while due to several potential ongoing super-spreader events. Yet, the country’s medium- and longer-term outlooks remain positive. Asset allocators with less tolerance for volatility may tactically downgrade India to neutral in an EM equity portfolio. Long-term investors should continue overweighting the Indian bourse. Feature New COVID-19 cases in India have skyrocketed in the past few weeks – far surpassing previous peaks. The country now accounts for 40% of daily new cases globally (Charts 1 and 2). This has raised the possibility of fresh lockdowns and, as a result, Indian stocks and the currency have begun to sell off. Chart 1Daily COVID-19 Cases Have Lately Skyrocketed In India … Chart 2… Accounting For 40% Of Global Cases And 20% Of Deaths … We have been overweight India in an EM equity portfolio because of the country’s positive cyclical and structural outlook. Even though our views have not changed, we believe the parabolic surge in COVID-19 cases is likely to cause near-term volatility in Indian equity and currency markets. As such, we recommend that asset allocators who have less tolerance for volatility tactically downgrade Indian equities to neutral for the next couple of months. Below we elaborate the reasons for this near-term downgrade, as well as the reasons for our more upbeat view over the medium to long term. New Cases Might Stay High Chart 3… And Raising The Specter Of Another Stringent Lockdown Being a densely populated country with less than ideal living conditions, the attempts to control the spread of COVID-19 via social distancing measures is extremely difficult in India. Yet, the authorities tried to do exactly that last spring by imposing the most stringent lockdown measures anywhere in the world (Chart 3). The result was a complete collapse in economic activity: year-over-year industrial production fell by a half, and GDP contracted by 22% in the second quarter of 2020 from a year ago. Now facing an unprecedented surge in new cases, markets are apprehensive that even a partial lockdown will scuttle the nascent recovery in the economy. Worryingly, the number of new cases in India might stay exceptionally high for a while. The reason is that there are several potential super-spreader events going on. The country is undergoing state-level elections in five states where the candidates are canvassing in front of gatherings of tens of thousands of people. Currently, there is also a religious congregation taking place where up to three million pilgrims have assembled. Chart 4Should Morbidity And Mortality Rates Rise, A Harsh Lockdown May Become Inevitable The morbidity and mortality rates have not yet risen (Chart 4). This is a key metric and will likely determine the stringency of the authorities’ lockdown measures. Even though the Prime Minister has declared that stern lockdowns would be last-resort measures, the possibility cannot be excluded if hospitalization and mortality rates begin to rise. The following has also added to investor concerns: The fact that equity valuations are much higher now than they were last spring makes the market even more prone to a setback (Chart 5). Indian stocks have benefitted from a record amount of foreign portfolio inflows over the past 12 months – totaling $ 34 billion. The risk is therefore high that some of these flows might reverse in the near term if the threat of renewed lockdowns is realized. That will be a headwind for both stock market and the rupee (Chart 6). Finally, a rising US dollar, and a likely general underperformance of EM stocks over the next several months, will also encourage outflows from India. Chart 5Elevated Valuations Have Added To The Vulnerability Of Indian Stocks Chart 6A Reversal In Foreign Portfolio Inflows Will Cause Both Stocks And The Rupee To Fall Cyclical Outlook Remains Positive Beyond the near-term jitters, India’s cyclical outlook remains positive. The recovery has been solid as indicated by the following metrics: The number of E-way bills issued (a barometer of business activity) as part of the Goods & Services Tax (GST) collection mechanism keeps rising steadily. GST collection itself has also been strong – validating the same message (Chart 7). Manufacturing and Services PMIs printed over 55 in March – indicating robust expansion of activity. Order books of companies, as indicated by both RBI and Dun & Bradstreet surveys, look strong. These indicators herald an improvement in industrial production going forward (Chart 8). Chart 7Underlying Economic Recovery In India Has Been Robust So Far … Chart 8… Supported By Strong Order Books … In short, all of the above points to an ameliorating top lines (sales) for the corporates in the coming months, barring stringent lockdowns. Meanwhile, firms’ profits margins have also recovered meaningfully. An RBI survey of over 2600 companies shows that both gross and net profit margins had risen to above pre-pandemic levels by December 2020 (Chart 9). Given the wide margins, a recovery in sales levels will lead to accelerating profits in the quarters ahead. In a sign that profit re-acceleration is not far off, firms have begun to invest in new plants and machinery. Capital spending had already turned positive during the last quarter of 2020 versus the same period of 2019. Imports of capital goods have also begun to rise – corroborating new capex plans of the firms (Chart 10). Chart 9… And Healthy Profit Margins … Chart 10… Which Have Encouraged Firms To Resume Capital Spending New capital expenditure is undertaken only when firms are confident of strengthening demand. Besides, capex usually comes on the heels of rising profits. Higher capital goods imports and capital spending therefore indicate that the companies are optimistic of both sales and profits going forward. On its part, the central bank has ensured that the liquidity in the banking system remains abundant by engaging in plenty of open market operations. Bank credit growth, at 6.3%, is still low, but appears to have bottomed. Excluding the credit to large corporations – who have in recent years been replacing bank credit by local currency debt issuances – the credit growth rate is 9% (Chart 11). Odds are that beyond the near-term jitters due to rising COVID-19 cases, credit will accelerate in line with recovering economic activity. That will be bullish for bank stocks. Incidentally, banks make up the largest chunk of Indian equity index. Finally, Indian small caps continue to outperform their large cap counterparts (Chart 12). Smaller firms in India are much more vulnerable to a slowdown in growth and tighter credit conditions. The fact that they keep outperforming suggests that investors do not expect a major or lasting impact of the latest pandemic outbreak on the economy. Chart 11Bank Credit Will Rise As The Expansion Continues Chart 12Small Caps Outperformance Suggest Investors Are Sanguine About Growth And Credit Conditions Beyond the cyclical recovery, we are bullish on India’s longer-term outlook as well. The reason for that is India is one of the rare EM countries undertaking meaningful structural reforms. The country’s demographics are also highly favorable. We will elaborate on these and other structural issues in greater detail in our future reports. Investment Conclusions Indian stocks and the currency have entered a period of turbulence as surging COVID-19 cases prompt profit taking/selling. EM equity portfolios with low tolerance for volatility should therefore consider tactically downgrading this bourse to neutral for a couple of months. Absolute return investors (in US$ terms) should also brace for near-term volatility in Indian share prices. Over the medium-to-long term however, Indian stocks will likely outperform their EM peers as well as rally in absolute terms (Chart 13). Indian bank stocks are also suffering from the ongoing volatility. However, given Indian private banks’ higher efficiency and better balance sheets vis-à-vis banks elsewhere in the EM, long-term investors should continue to stick with our recommended trade of long Indian banks/ short EM banks (Chart 14). Chart 13Beyond The Near-Term Volatility, Indian Stocks Will Outperform Their EM Peers … Chart 14… So Will Indian Bank Stocks Vis-à-vis EM Banks Fixed income investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates in India. With the abundant rainfall, food prices will decline. This will keep inflation under check. The rising COVID-19 cases and a potential lockdown are disinflationary in nature and will push down swap rates.   Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com

In lieu of next week’s strategy report, I will be presenting the first Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Mega-Themes, Coming Shocks, And Top Trades’. I hope you can join. Highlights Standard economic theory assumes that money is perfectly fungible. But in practice, money is not fungible, because people attach different emotions to their income and savings mental accounts. This is known as ‘mental accounting bias.’ Mental accounting bias means that we are more likely to use the massive stockpile of savings accumulated during the pandemic to pay down debt than to spend. Mental accounting bias also means that we are overpaying for high-yielding equities. Long-term investors should avoid banks, and they should avoid ‘value.’ Correctly calculated, the equity risk premium is now almost non-existent. US long-term bond yields have much more scope to move down than to move up. Fractal trade shortlist: equities versus bonds, PKR, and New Zealand equities. Feature Chart of the WeekConsumption Is Explained By Wages... Chart of the Week...Not By Stimulus Checks Many economists predict that, once economies fully reopen, the massive stockpile of household savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of household spending. But economists are not the right people to make this prediction. The answer to whether households will, or will not, spend their stockpile of accumulated savings does not fall into the realm of Economics. It falls into the realm of Psychology. Whether We Spend Money Depends On Which ‘Mental Account’ It Occupies In A Major Anomaly In The Bond Market we pointed out that the propensity to spend out of income is high, but the propensity to spend out of wealth is low. Meaning that whether unspent income gets spent depends on whether households categorise it as additional income or additional wealth. This raised a follow-up question. How can the decision to spend money depend on whether someone categorises it as income or wealth? The answer comes from Psychology, and a phenomenon known as ‘mental accounting bias.’ Nobel Laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman points out that we categorise our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental – and that there is a clear hierarchy in our willingness to draw on these accounts for spending. There is a clear hierarchy in our willingness to spend from our ‘mental accounts’. At the top of the hierarchy comes our monthly wage check, followed by the money in our current (checking) account. These ‘income’ accounts we are willing to spend. Further down the hierarchy comes our savings account and our investment portfolio. These ‘savings’ or ‘wealth’ accounts we are unwilling to spend. Standard economic theory assumes that money is perfectly fungible, so that a pound in a current account is no different to a pound in a savings account. But in practice, money is not fungible, because people attach different emotions to their income and savings mental accounts. When we move money from our wages or our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption closely tracks the wages that dominate our income mental account, but has no meaningful connection with stimulus checks which largely end up in our savings mental account (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Chart I-2Stimulus Checks Had No Meaningful Impact On Consumption Trends Yet while we are unwilling to spend our savings mental account, we are willing to pay down debt with it. Indeed, realising this emotional connection between our savings and our debt, many lenders offer mortgages which ‘offset’ a savings account against the mortgage debt. Pulling all of this together, the stockpile of household savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to boost consumption trends. More likely, it will be used to reduce household debt. In which case, part of the recent rise in public debt will just end up paying down private debt, as happened in Japan during the 1990s (Chart I-3). Chart I-3In Japan, Public Debt Ended Up Paying Down Private Debt This spells trouble for bank asset growth. ‘Value’ Offers No Value Mental accounting bias also explains the dominant phenomenon in the financial markets of recent years – the so-called ‘search for yield’. At first glance, the search for yield makes sense, but on deeper thought the distinction between yield and capital appreciation is irrational. Just like income and wealth, the money that comes from an investment’s yield and the money that comes from its capital appreciation is perfectly fungible (assuming am equal tax treatment). Yet, in practice, many investors put yield and capital appreciation into separate mental accounts, categorising an investment’s yield as spending money, and its capital as saving money. Hence, those investors – say retirees – who want their assets to generate money for their spending mental account have an irrational bias towards investments that generate yield. Whereas those investors that want their assets to boost their saving mental account have a bias towards investments that generate capital growth. To reiterate, given that money is perfectly fungible, these mental accounts are irrational.  Under normal circumstances, these irrational biases are not a problem because there are enough investments available for both the spending and the saving mental accounts. But in recent years, the assets that would normally generate the safe income for the spending account – cash and government bonds – are no longer doing so. Hence, in the ensuing stampede for yield, income fixated investors have suffered a dangerous tunnel vision. By fixating on an equity’s yield rather than on its prospective total return, yield seeking investors are overpaying for high-yielding equities, and thereby sacrificing their long-term wealth. By fixating on an equity’s yield rather than on its prospective total return, investors are overpaying for high-yielding equities. Case in point. The 8 percent forward earnings yield on global financials appears to offer considerably more value than the 5 percent on healthcare and the 3.5 percent on technology. But what really matters is how that forward earnings yield translates into prospective total return. On this basis, the apparent value in financials turns out to be a mirage. Using the post financial crisis relationship between forward earnings yield and prospective return, high-yielding financials were, until very recently, priced to deliver a lower return than low-yielding technology. And financials are still priced to deliver a lower return than lower-yielding healthcare. To deliver the same long-term return as healthcare, the valuation of financials would have to decline by 20 percent (Chart I-4 - Chart I-6). Chart I-4Financials' 8 Percent Earnings Yield = A 2 Percent Prospective Return Chart I-5Healthcare's 5 Percent Earnings Yield = An 8 Percent Prospective Return Chart I-6Tech Is Expensive Therefore, mental accounting bias is a double whammy for banks. It spells trouble for bank asset growth, and it makes investors overpay for high-yielding equities. This creates the ultimate paradox of investment. The defining feature of ‘value’ is that it offers no value! Long-term investors should avoid banks, and they should avoid value. US Bond Yields Have More Scope To Move Down Than Up The foregoing analysis also carries important implications on the correct approach to value equities, and specifically the equity risk premium – meaning, the prospective excess return on equities versus high-quality bonds. The common incorrect approach is to take the forward earnings yield on equities and subtract the 10-year bond yield. Using a US forward earnings yield of 4.5 percent, this would suggest the equity risk premium is a comfortable 3 percent versus the nominal bond yield of 1.5 percent. Or a very comfortable 5.5 percent versus the real bond yield of -1 percent. The glaring error with this approach is that it is subtracting apples from oranges. The 10-year bond yield is the return you will receive from the bond over the next 10 years. But as you have just seen, the forward earnings yield is not the return you will receive from equities over the next 10 years. To subtract apples from apples we must first translate the forward earnings yield into a prospective 10-year total return. The current translation turns out to be a 2 percent nominal return (Chart I-7 - Chart I-8) or a 0 percent real return (Chart I-9 - Chart I-10). Comparing these with the nominal or real bond yields, we find that the equity risk premium is almost non-existent. Chart I-7Convert The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Nominal Return... Chart I-8…To Find That The Equity Risk Premium Is Almost Non-Existent Chart I-9Convert The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Real Return... Chart I-10...To Find That The Equity Risk Premium Is Almost Non-Existent The almost non-existent equity risk premium means that equities are richly valued, and that this rich valuation is contingent on bond yields not rising significantly. Moreover, it is not just equities that are richly valued. As we pointed out in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation the valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate is also highly contingent on bond yields not rising significantly. Equities are richly valued, and this rich valuation is contingent on bond yields not rising significantly. We conclude that, from current levels, US long-term bond yields have much more scope to move down than to move up. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal The strong rally in equities versus bonds since the pandemic low has reached a point of fractal fragility like that seen at the end of the 2013 bull run and the end of the early 2020 bear run (Chart I-11). As such, the current rally is due a breather. Chart I-11The Rally In Equities Versus Bonds Is Due A Breather In the Asia Pacific region, we note that the recent strong performance of the Pakistan rupee is susceptible to a countertrend sell-off (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Underweight The PKR Lastly, the ultra-defensive New Zealand stock market has massively underperformed over the past year. But fragility on both its 130-day and 65-day fractal structures suggests that it is ripe for a countertrend outperformance (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Overweight New Zealand Accordingly, this week’s recommendation is to overweight New Zealand versus the world, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

US equity market euphoria got a jab in the arm yesterday and started to test the resolve of late-comers to the rally. While the self-reinforcing cycle of ultra loose financial conditions along with easy fiscal and monetary policies will continue to underpin markets on a cyclical time horizon, any let up in the near-term in any of these buoyant macro forces can have far reaching effects, especially given lofty valuations and rising complacency. Thus, we remain cautious in the short-term. Not only is this market in a desperate need of a breather given that it once again sits two standard deviations above the 20-month moving average (top panel) – a technical signal that allowed us to caution clients of extreme overbought conditions right before the September 2nd correction – but also a number of other factors are waving yellow flags. First, the US smart money flow index is revealing the fragility hidden beneath the SPX surface. The divergence between this index and the S&P 500 is reminiscent of the 2018 “Volmageddon” correction (third panel). Second, the total US equity call / put ratio is significantly diverging with equity prices, likely as a result of both smart money hedging their longs (second panel) and retail call buying frenzy going on a hiatus. Finally, our US Equity Internal Dynamics Indicator also ticked down of late cementing the argument that, for now, equities are fully priced as we posited in yesterday’s Strategy Report where we updated our SPX dividend discount model (bottom panel). Bottom Line: While we remain cyclically bullish, any mishaps on China’s and/or the Fed’s front will likely serve as a catalyst for a near-term correction.  

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Apr 15, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 0.74% 1.81% Top Contributors   DELL:US LPX:US DCP:US TTEC:US TRTN:US Weekly Return 21 bps 20 bps 16 bps 13 bps 13 bps Top Detractors   QFIN:US EXPI:US VIPS:US UHAL:US TX:US Weekly Return -49 bps -36 bps -12 bps -5 bps -4 bps Top Prospects   TX:US ESGR:US UHAL:US BRK.A:US VIPS:US BCA Score 99.68% 98.48% 93.23% 93.20% 92.08% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.72% 0.49% Top Contributors   TOY:CA CSU:CA QBR.A:CA GIB.A:CA WIR.UN:CA Weekly Return 16 bps 12 bps 12 bps 7 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   APHA:CA CFP:CA LNF:CA WEED:CA ENGH:CA Weekly Return -45 bps -11 bps -10 bps -10 bps -9 bps Top Prospects   LNF:CA IFP:CA CFP:CA LNR:CA NWC:CA BCA Score 99.32% 96.68% 96.68% 93.39% 92.80% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.76% 0.68% Top Contributors   NFC:GB SVST:GB OXIG:GB XPP:GB AGRO:GB Weekly Return 28 bps 25 bps 16 bps 15 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   AAF:GB TM17:GB GLO:GB AO.:GB SSE:GB Weekly Return -34 bps -12 bps -10 bps -9 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB FXPO:GB NLMK:GB BPCR:GB GYS:GB BCA Score 98.21% 98.16% 97.25% 96.79% 96.00% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI 0.61% 0.41% Top Contributors   CNV:FR SES:IT HDG:NL AOF:DE FLUX:BE Weekly Return 38 bps 19 bps 17 bps 16 bps 8 bps Top Detractors   TTALO:FI RIN:FR EDNR:IT TKA:AT VGP:BE Weekly Return -9 bps -8 bps -7 bps -7 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   PHH2:DE SOLV:BE SOL:IT CNV:FR BEKB:BE BCA Score 99.62% 98.82% 98.56% 97.48% 95.70% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI 0.05% 0.37% Top Contributors   8595:JP 8255:JP 5943:JP 6960:JP 7942:JP Weekly Return 27 bps 14 bps 8 bps 7 bps 5 bps Top Detractors   8850:JP 8795:JP 8173:JP 8198:JP 9413:JP Weekly Return -15 bps -11 bps -10 bps -10 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   9436:JP 1766:JP 8133:JP 7994:JP 4008:JP BCA Score 98.83% 98.68% 98.19% 98.10% 97.66% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI -0.11% -0.74% Top Contributors   990:HK 1898:HK 1378:HK 1088:HK 373:HK Weekly Return 84 bps 15 bps 13 bps 9 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   856:HK 43:HK 579:HK 2798:HK 719:HK Weekly Return -22 bps -17 bps -17 bps -15 bps -11 bps Top Prospects   990:HK 2232:HK 1866:HK 3306:HK 811:HK BCA Score 99.79% 99.67% 98.68% 98.65% 98.32% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.64% 0.93% Top Contributors   PSQ:AU ADH:AU STX:AU MAQ:AU DDR:AU Weekly Return 23 bps 21 bps 18 bps 16 bps 15 bps Top Detractors   ZIM:AU PDN:AU CAJ:AU SIG:AU AGL:AU Weekly Return -25 bps -24 bps -13 bps -11 bps -10 bps Top Prospects   BSE:AU GRR:AU PIC:AU BLX:AU ZIM:AU BCA Score 99.77% 98.85% 98.02% 97.05% 96.86%

Highlights If fully implemented, President Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. We expect some of the proposed tax measures to be watered down, resulting in a 5% decline in earnings. Investors are likely to shrug off the near-term impact of higher taxes, given strong economic growth and continued support from accommodative monetary policy. Looking further out, however, we see four reasons why US tax rates are likely to keep rising, eventually reaching levels that hurt stock prices: First, the effective US corporate tax rate is still very low; second, the failure of President Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier eventually to fully reverse them; third, rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing; and fourth, and most importantly, the political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The Democrats have been moving leftward on economic matters for some time. For their part, conservative Republicans are starting to ask themselves why they should support tax cuts for a growing list of “woke” companies that seemingly hate them. The US corporate sector is at risk of being left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim. The Biden Tax Plan On March 31st, President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan. The plan proposes $2.25 trillion in new federal spending, spread out over eight years, on public infrastructure and other areas. As outlined in the Made In America Tax Plan, the Biden Administration will seek to raise $2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 15 years in order to fund the new spending package. The three most important provisions in the tax plan are: Raising the domestic corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%. This would bring the tax rate halfway back to where it was prior to the Trump tax cuts (35%). Taking into account the global distribution of corporate profits and other factors, such a tax hike would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 4%. Increasing the minimum tax on the foreign profits of US companies. The Biden administration proposes doubling the minimum tax rate on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) from 10.5% to 21%. It also plans to eliminate the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income deduction (FDII). These two measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about another 3.5%. A 15% minimum tax on “book income” (i.e., the earnings that companies report to shareholders). The tax applies to corporations with annual profits in excess of $2 billion. The Treasury department estimates that 45 companies will be liable for this tax. It would cut S&P 500 earnings by a further 0.5%. Taken together, these provisions would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. In practice, we think the impact will be closer to 5%. The Biden plan includes a variety of tax credits, focusing on areas such as clean energy and R&D, which should offset some of the tax increases. The ultimate corporate tax rate is also likely to fall short of 28%. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, the critical swing voter, has already said he would prefer to cap it at 25%. What Has Been Priced In? Chart 1Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Our reading of the data suggests that very little of the impact from higher taxes has been baked into either analyst earnings estimates or market expectations. Chart 1 displays the performance of Goldman‘s “Formerly High Tax” and “Formerly Low Tax” equity baskets. The formerly high-taxed companies gained the most from Trump’s tax cuts and presumably would lose the most if the tax cuts were rolled back. Yet, they have outperformed their low-taxed peers since the Georgia runoff election, which handed the Senate to the Democrats. Likewise, earnings estimates have not reacted to the prospect of higher taxes. This is not surprising. Chart 2 shows that analysts did not adjust their earnings estimates until shortly after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017. Similar to what happened back then, analysts appear to be waiting for the details of the ultimate tax package before changing their estimates. Chart 2Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes For Now, Business Cycle Dynamics Are More Important Than Taxes While the failure of the investment community to price in higher taxes represents a headwind to stocks, we would characterize it as a modest headwind. IBES estimates still point to earnings growth of 15% for S&P 500 companies in 2022. It would take an unrealistically large tax hit to keep corporate profits from rising next year. The IMF’s latest economic projections, released a few weeks ago, foresee US real GDP growing by 3.5% in 2022, one full percentage point faster than the Fund expected in January (Table 1). Given the strong correlation between equity returns and economic growth, the equity bull market will likely survive a tax increase (Chart 3). Table 1Growth Remains Robust Chart 3Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong   Of course, some stocks could still feel the pinch from higher taxes. The tech sector is especially vulnerable, given that it currently enjoys one of the lowest effective tax rates in the S&P 500 (Chart 4). Tech companies have also been very adept at shifting income from intangible assets such as patents to offshore tax havens, which is likely to put them in the crosshairs of the soon-to-be bulked up IRS.1 We currently favor value over growth stocks. The likelihood that higher taxes will have a disproportionately negative effect on growth sectors such as tech only reinforces this view. Chart 4Tech Is Vulnerable To Higher Taxes   Higher Taxes: Start Of A Long-Term Trend? While we are not too worried about the near-term impact of higher taxes on equity prices, we are more concerned about the longer-term consequences. As we discuss below, not only is Biden likely to raise personal income and capital gains taxes to fund future spending initiatives such as the forthcoming American Families Plan, but the pressure to keep raising business taxes will persist well beyond his administration. There are four reasons for this: Reason #1: The effective US corporate tax rate is still very low Chart 5Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low In April 2018, four months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came into effect, the Congressional Budget Office projected that US corporations would pay $276 billion in corporate taxes in 2019. In the end, they paid only $230 billion.2 US corporate income tax receipts stood at only 1% of GDP in 2018-19, half of what they were in 2013-17 (Chart 5). During Ronald Reagan’s second term in office, US corporations faced an effective tax rate of around 30%. Today, it is less than 15% (Chart 6). As a share of GDP, the US government collects less corporate tax revenue than almost all other OECD economies (Chart 7).   Chart 6The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades Chart 7US Corporate Taxation Is Not High Chart 8Trump Was Unlucky To Be Singled Out By The IRS Moreover, the US government often does not even bother to even collect the money that is owed to it. Audits of corporations with more than $20 billion in assets are down 50% since 2011. Audits of individuals with annual income above $1 million are down 80% (Chart 8). In his testimony to the US Senate this week Chuck Rettig, IRS Commissioner, estimated that tax evasion costs the government $1 trillion per year. Reason #2: The failure of Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier to eventually fully reverse them If the Trump tax cuts had raised investment spending, it would be easier to overlook the negative effect that they had on the budget deficit. The evidence, however, suggests that lower corporate taxes did very little to spur capex. Chart 9 shows that capital spending barely increased as a share of GDP in the two years following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to the International Monetary Fund, only one-fifth of the tax cuts were used to finance capital investment and R&D spending.3 Along the same lines, Hanlon, Hoopes, and Slemrod found that fewer than a quarter of S&P 500 companies discussed plans to increase capex in response to lower taxes during their conference calls.4 Chart 9Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Chart 10Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long   Why did corporate investment fail to rise much? One answer is that a tax on profits is not the same thing as a tax on capital investment. As Appendix 1 explains, lower corporate taxes are unlikely to have much of an effect on debt-financed capital spending when interest costs are tax deductible. Unlike long-lived assets such as homes, most of the corporate capital stock is fairly short-lived (Chart 10). The demand for business equipment and software depends more on the outlook for aggregate demand than on the cost of capital. Finally, as we explained in a report entitled Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around, the majority of corporate profits these days can be attributed to monopolistic power of one form or another. Standard economic theory suggests that taxing monopoly rents will not reduce output or investment. Reason #3: Rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing With interest rates still at exceptionally low levels, there is no immediate need to raise taxes to finance increased government spending. This is especially true for infrastructure spending, which can reasonably be expected to boost economic growth (and hence tax receipts) over the long haul. Chart 11US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo If interest rates were to rise, however, governments would likely find it advantageous to increase taxes rather than face spiralling debt-servicing costs. Public debt levels are very high in the US and in most other economies, so any increase in interest rates would siphon funds from social programs towards bondholders. This would not be popular with voters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal government interest payments will swell rapidly over the coming decades if measures are not taken to rein in budget deficits (Chart 11). As we discuss next, these measures are likely to take the form of higher taxes rather than spending cuts.   Reason #4: The political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy Democrats have been moving leftward for some time. In 2001, 50% of Democrats said that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Today, that number is 83% (Chart 12). Chart 12Democrats Want More Government Chart 13Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising While Republicans continue to show a preference for small government, this may not last. Medicare and Social Security consume over 40% of all federal non-interest spending. Outlays on both programs (Medicare in particular) are set to grow rapidly over the coming years (Chart 13). To the extent that the political preferences of older Americans lean Republican, this could make the GOP more inclined to support higher taxes in order to sustain benefits to the elderly. The fact that corporations and the rich increasingly favor socially liberal policies is leading conservative Republicans to ask why they should continue to support tax cuts for people and companies that seemingly hate them. Whereas Joe Biden won the richest US counties by 20 percentage points last November, Trump saw his support rise in the poorest counties (Chart 14). Reflecting this trend, the share of Republicans who expressed “hardly any confidence in Corporate America” rose from 19% in February 2018 to 30% in March 2021 (Chart 15).   Chart 14Democrats Have Made Serious Inroads Among The Better-Off Chart 15Republicans Growing More Skeptical Of Corporate CEOs More than twice as many Republicans now favor raising corporate taxes as lowering them (Chart 16). Nationally, 73% of Americans are dissatisfied with the influence that corporations have over the nation, a 25-point jump from 2001 (Chart 17). Chart 16More Americans Want To Soak The Rich Chart 17Souring Attitudes Toward Big Corporations Given the shift in public opinion, it is not too surprising that the Republican response to Biden‘s tax plan was decidedly “low energy”. After a perfunctory condemnation of the plan, Republican leaders quickly pivoted to attacking “woke” corporations. Addressing the corporate reaction to Georgia’s new election law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell declared “We are witnessing a coordinated campaign by powerful and wealthy people to mislead and bully the American people.” He went on to say, “From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.” If current trends continue, as we suspect they will, the US corporate sector will be left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: When Do Higher Taxes On Corporate Profits Reduce Investment? Suppose a company is considering whether to purchase a piece of machinery for $1000. Let us assume that the company faces an external rate of return, r, of 8%. That is to say, it can borrow and lend at 8%. The accompanying table illustrates how the firm’s profits will vary depending on its internal rate of return (the return on investment that the machine will generate). Let us start with the case where the company finances the purchase of the machine by issuing new debt. For now, assume that the internal rate of return is 10% and that the machine can be used indefinitely (i.e., it never depreciates). In this case, the machine will generate $100 in operating income per year. After subtracting the $80 in interest expense, the company will be left with $20 in pre-tax income (Example A). Suppose the company faces an income tax of 20% and interest is fully tax deductible. Then, the company will pay a tax of $20*0.2=$4, leaving it with $16 in after-tax profits (Example B). Notice that while the tax reduced the company’s after-tax profit, it did not extinguish the incentive to purchase the machine in the first place. After all, while $20 is better than $16, $16 is still better than zero. Thus, in this simple example, we see that when the purchase of capital equipment is financed through debt and interest payments are fully tax deductible, the imposition of a profit tax will not affect the ultimate decision of whether to invest or not. Things change when interest is not tax deductible. In this case, the internal rate of return must rise to r/(1-t) to make the company indifferent between buying the machine or not. In the example above, this means the internal rate of return must increase to 8%/(1-0.2)=10%. Then, the company will make an operating profit of $100, pay $20 in tax on that profit, and after paying $80 in interest, end up breaking even (Example C). The calculus in deciding whether to invest in new capital equipment is similar for equity financing as it is for debt financing when interest payments are not tax deductible. The best way to think about equity financing is to ask how much the market price of the machine will be after the company purchases it. If there is no tax and the internal rate of return is 10%, the market price will be $100/0.08=$1250 (Example D). Since the company can buy the machine for $1000, it makes sense to buy it. If the owner of the machine has to pay a profit tax of 20% on the stream of income that it generates, its market value will only be $80/0.08=$1000 (Example E). At this point, the company is indifferent about whether to purchase the machine or not. How do things change when we abandon the assumption that the machine lasts forever? The main difference is that the decision of whether to buy the machine becomes less sensitive to changes in the cost of capital. For example, suppose the machine only lasts one year. To make it worthwhile for the company to purchase that machine, the revenue that it generates in that one year must rise dramatically (Example F). This makes the decision to purchase the machine much less dependent on the interest rate and more dependent on business cycle considerations, especially the outlook for aggregate demand.   Appendix Table 1 Footnotes 1 Jed Graham, “Biden's Tax Plan: What It Means For Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,” Investor’s Business Daily (April 8, 2021). 2 “The Accuracy of CBO’s Baseline Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019,” Congressional Budget Office (December 2019). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “U.S. Investment Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” IMF Working Paper (May 31, 2019). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER Working Paper 25283 (November 2018). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores