Equities

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. We will be back the week after with the GIS quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major investment themes and views we see playing out in 2021. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights While a vaccine, ironically, could dampen economic activity in the near term, it will pave the way for faster growth in the medium-to-long term. Inflation is unlikely to rise much over the next two-to-three years. However, it could gallop higher later this decade as unemployment falls below pre-pandemic levels and policymakers keep both monetary and fiscal policy accommodative. Many of the structural factors that have depressed inflation are going into reverse: Baby boomers are leaving the labor force, globalization is on the back foot, and social cohesion is fraying. The lackluster pace of productivity growth suggests that innovation is not occurring as fast as many people think. Rather, what seems to be happening is that the nature of innovation is changing in ways that are a lot more favorable to Wall Street than Main Street. Monopoly power has grown, especially in the tech sector. This has had a deflationary effect in the past but could take a more inflationary tone in the future. Investors should remain overweight stocks for the next 12 months, while shifting equity allocation away from growth companies towards value companies and away from the US towards the rest of the world. The Waiting Game This week brought some further good news on the pandemic front. The number of reported daily cases continues to trend lower in Europe. The 7-day average has now fallen by 30% from its November 8th peak (Chart 1). In the US, there are faint indications that the number of new cases is stabilizing, especially in the hard-hit Midwest (Chart 2). Chart 1Covid Cases In Europe: Past The Worst Chart 2Covid Cases In The US: Approaching The Peak Of The Third Wave? Nevertheless, it is too early to breathe a sigh of relief. As with other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily in colder temperatures. Moreover, this week is Thanksgiving in the US, and with the holiday season approaching in the wider world, there will be more opportunities for the virus to propagate. Chart 3The US May Have To Follow Europe In Tightening Lockdown Measures Despite the cresting in new cases, the absolute number of confirmed daily infections remains extremely high. The 7-day average currently stands at about 175,000 in the US. Adjusting for the typical three-week lag between new cases and deaths, the case-fatality rate is approximately 1.8%. The CDC estimates the “true” fatality rate is 0.7%.1 This implies that for every one person who tests positive for Covid-19, 1.5 people go undetected. Thus, around 450,000 Americans are catching Covid every day. That is 3.2 million per week or about 1% of the US population. Other estimates from the CDC suggest that the true number of new infections may now be even greater, perhaps as high as 11 million per week.2 Unlike in Europe, where governments have implemented a series of stringent lockdown measures, the US has taken a more relaxed approach (Chart 3). If the number of new infections fails to fall much from current levels, more US states will have to tighten social distancing rules. The availability of vaccines will pave the way for stronger growth in the medium-to-long term. Ironically however, as we pointed out two weeks ago, vaccine optimism could dampen economic activity in the near term. With the light clearly visible at the end of the tunnel, more people may choose to hunker down to avoid being infected. After all, how frustrating would it be to contract the virus just a few months before one can be vaccinated? It is like being the last guy shot on the battlefield in a war that is drawing to an end. The Outlook For Inflation Could inflation make a comeback once a vaccine is widely available? The pandemic put significant downward pressure on prices in a number of areas, particularly air transport, accommodation, apparel, and gasoline. While prices in some categories, such as used cars, meats and eggs, and certain toiletries did rise briskly, the net effect was still a substantial decline in overall inflation (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impact Of Covid On US Inflation Core PCE inflation stood at 1.4% in October, well below the Fed’s target. As Chart 5 illustrates, core inflation is below central bank targets in most other economies as well. A bounce back in prices in the most pandemic-afflicted sectors should lift inflation over the next six months. Our US bond strategists expect core PCE inflation to peak at 2¼% in the second quarter of next year, before falling back below 2% by the end of 2021. Chart 5Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Chart 6Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Ignoring the temporary oscillations in inflation due to base effects, a more sustained increase in inflation would require that labor market slack be fully absorbed. In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the major economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 6). While a vaccine will expedite the healing of labor markets, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next three years. What about beyond then? The fact that long-term bond yields are so low today implies that most investors think that inflation will remain subdued for many years to come (Chart 7). This is confirmed by CPI swaps, which in some countries go out as far as 50 years. For the most part, they are all trading at levels below official central bank inflation targets (Chart 8). Chart 7Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Chart 8… As Are Long-Term Inflation Expectations Heading Towards The Kink Is inflation really dead, or is it just dormant? We think it is the latter. Contrary to the claim that the Phillips curve has become defunct, Chart 9 shows that the wage version of the Phillips curve – which compares wage growth with the unemployment rate – is very much alive and well. What is true is that rising wage growth has failed to translate into higher price inflation in most economies since the early 1980s. However, this may have simply been due to happenstance: Every time the global economy was starting to heat up to the point that a price-wage spiral could develop, something would happen to break it. In 2019, the unemployment rate in the G7 hit a 46-year low. Perhaps inflation would have accelerated this year had it not been for the pandemic? Likewise, inflation might have risen in 2008 had it not been for the financial crisis, and in 2001 had it not been for the dotcom bust. Chart 9Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 10Inflation Reached The ''Kink'' In 1966 Rather than being defunct, the price-version of the Phillips curve may turn out to be kinked at a very low level of the unemployment rate. Such was the case during the 1960s (Chart 10). US core inflation remained steady at around 1.5% in the first half of that decade, even as the unemployment rate drifted lower and lower. In 1966, with the unemployment rate nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, inflation blasted off, doubling to more than 3% within a span of six months. Core inflation would go on to increase to 6% by 1969, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s. A Less Deflationary Structural Backdrop Many pundits argue that the structural backdrop for inflation is vastly different today than it was during the 1960s, making any comparison with that decade next to worthless. They point out that unions had a lot more power back then, global supply chains were underdeveloped, and rapid population growth was creating more demand for goods and services than the economy could supply. We have addressed these arguments in the past and will not belabor the point this week other than to note that all three of these structural forces are now in retreat.3 Chart 11The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us Granted, unions are not as powerful as they were in the 1960s. However, public policy is still moving in a more worker-friendly direction. Witness the fact that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage in increments from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden has also pledged to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output moving sideways for more than a decade (Chart 11). At the same time, baby boomers are departing the labor force en masse. Rather than remaining net savers, these retiring workers will become dissavers. This means that the global savings glut, which has suppressed interest rates and inflation, could begin to dry up. Perhaps most ominously, social stability is at risk of breaking down. Homicides in the US have risen by nearly 30% so far this year compared to the same period a year ago.4 Historically, the institutionalization rate has tracked the homicide rate quite closely (Chart 12). As was the case in the 1960s, a lot of the well-meaning discussion about criminal justice reform today could turn out to be counterproductive. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but it is worth remembering that inflation exploded in the 1960s at exactly the same time that the murder rate shot up (Chart 13). Chart 12Dramatic Drop In Institutionalization Rate During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Chart 13Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation The Role Of Innovation Technological innovation has been routinely cited as a driver of falling inflation. In many ways, this is rather odd. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real income. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Moreover, the fixation on technology as a deflationary force is a bit strange considering that measured productivity growth has been exceptionally weak in most advanced economies over the past 15 years – weaker, in fact, than it was in the 1970s (Chart 14). Chart 14US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years How, then, does one explain why tech stocks have fared so well? One often-heard answer is that productivity growth is mismeasured. We examined this argument carefully in our report entitled Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians, concluding that this does not appear to be the case. A more plausible answer is that while the pace of innovation has not sped up, the nature of innovation has changed dramatically in ways that have helped Wall Street a lot more than Main Street. The True Nature Of Corporate Profits Standard economics textbooks regard profit as a return on capital. This implies that if the price of capital goes down, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, that has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. While business investment did rise in 2018, this was all due to a rebound in energy spending. Outside of the oil and mining sector, business investment grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 15). Likewise, neither falling interest rates nor rising stock prices – two factors that should produce a lower cost of capital – have done much to buoy investment spending in recent years. Chart 15Overall Capex In 2017-2019 Was Boosted By The Oil And Mining Sector Chart 16A Winner-Takes-All Economy   Why did the standard economic relationship between investment and the cost of capital break down? The answer is that the traditional approach does not take into account what has become an increasingly important driver of corporate profits: monopoly power. A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely found that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997.5 Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times that of the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 16). The dispersion in performance has been particularly stark within the tech sector. According to BCA Research’s proprietary Equity Analyzer, the shares of “value tech” companies – that is, companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales – have not only lagged the shares of other tech companies, but they have also lagged the shares of similarly valued financial companies (Chart 17). This underscores the point that the outperformance of growth stocks over the past 12 years has not just been a story about technology. Rather, it has primarily been a story about some tech companies doing much better than other tech companies. Chart 17Value Tech Lagged Value Financials The Winner-Take-All Economy What explains the bifurcation in performance within the tech sector? Two reasons come to mind. First, tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Second, tech companies benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner take-all environment where success begets further success. The role played by winner-take-all markets explains how a handful of companies were able to become mega-cap tech titans. Chart 18 and Chart 19 show that increased monopoly power, as reflected in rising profit margins and higher relative P/E ratios, has played a greater role in driving tech share outperformance since the mid-1990s than faster revenue growth. Chart 18Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Chart 19Decomposing Tech Outperformance (II) Reaching Adulthood History suggests that monopolists tend to experience an initial rapid growth phase in which they capture ever-more market share, followed by a mature phase where they effectively function as utilities – cranking out stable cash flows to shareholders without experiencing much further growth. While it is impossible to say how far along most of today’s tech leaders are in this cycle, it does appear that the period of rapid growth for many of them may be drawing to a close. As it is, close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. The shift away from “growth status” towards “utility status” for some tech monopolists could prompt investors to trim the valuation premium they assign to these stocks. In addition, it could lead to increased regulation by governments to ensure that monopoly power is not abused. This could further depress valuations. Monopolies And Inflation What about the implications for inflation? Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output could depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has emphasized,6 this implies that rising market power could simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment in new capacity. At least initially, this could be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment spending will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. This helps explain why falling real interest rates and rising profits have failed to trigger an investment boom. Further down the road, the impact of monopoly power on inflation could turn on its head. Less investment spending will curb potential GDP growth, making it easier for economies to run up against capacity constraints. Low real interest rates could also induce governments to run larger budget deficits, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Finally, an economy where monopoly power runs unchecked will eventually spur a populist backlash, leading to reflationary policies that favor workers over business oligarchs. Investment Conclusions Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 20). Given the likelihood that economic growth could surprise on the downside in the near term, equities are vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 21European Banks: A Low Bar For Success   Equity investors should shift their allocation away from growth stocks towards value stocks and away from the US towards the rest of the world. We like European banks in particular. They currently trade at 0.6-times tangible book value and 7.2-times 2019 earnings. Earnings estimates for 2021 have been slashed but should rebound on the expectation of a vaccine-driven growth recovery later next year (Chart 21). Faster growth should produce a modest steepening in yield curves, boosting net interest margins in the process. Faster growth should also lead to stronger credit demand while reducing bad loans. Looking further out, this week’s report argues that inflation could accelerate meaningfully once unemployment returns to pre-pandemic levels in about two-to-three years. The departure of baby boomers from the labor market, sluggish productivity growth, fraying social cohesion, and a backlash against monopoly power could all push up inflation. These forces could also create a more challenging environment for stocks, particularly today’s mega-cap tech names.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 A recent systematic review of literature found that the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) stood at 0.7%. Similarly, in September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published age-specific IFRs in its Covid-19 Planning Scenarios. The population-weighted average of the CDC’s “best estimate” suggests a 0.7% IFR. Please see “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated September 10, 2020; and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and Lea Merone, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 29, 2020. 2 Please see “Covid live updates: CDC estimates only eighth of infections counted,” NBC News Live Blog, November 25, 2020; and “The Latest: South Korea has most daily cases in 8 months,” Associated Press, November 26, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Is The Entire World Heading For Negative Rates?” October 25, 2019; Special Reports “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1),” and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),”dated August 10 and 24, 2018; and Weekly Report, “Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?” dated September 22, 2017. 4 Please see this Twitter thread on the latest data from the 100 largest US cities by Patrick Sharkey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. 5 Gustavo Grullon, Yelena Larkin, and Roni Michaely, “Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?” Oxford Academic, Review of Finance (23:4), July 2019. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” dated June 27, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights President Trump’s final actions and the US fiscal impasse pose non-trivial risks to the rally. Biden’s foreign policy cabinet picks have limited impact but are mildly positive for now. Biden’s multilateralism will eventually conflict with the need to get things done. Continuities with Trump foreign policy are underrated. The RCEP trade agreement is not a game changer but a pro-trade shift in the US would be. Europe is a clear winner of the US election but continental politics risk will pick up next year from today’s lows. Book profits on select risk-on trades, but go strategically long GBP-EUR. Feature Global financial markets are surging on a raft of good news. We are booking some gains as we expect the rally to be capped in the near term either by Trump’s final actions as president or by the US fiscal impasse. First, the good news. The US power transition is officially under way, reducing US policy uncertainty. The popular vote within the critical battleground states acted as a restraint on the Republican Party’s ability to dispute the results or appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.1 Chart 1US And Global Policy Uncertainty Falling President-Elect Joe Biden is preparing the US for a return to rule by experts. This will not prevent grand policy errors in the future but it will give confidence to the market today. Biden is nominating a slate of White House advisers and cabinet members who are traditional Democrats or left-leaning technocrats. For example, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen looks to serve as Treasury Secretary, longtime Biden and Barack Obama adviser Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State, and former Hillary Clinton and Obama staffer Jake Sullivan as national security adviser. Biden may nominate a few far-left officials (e.g. for the Labor Department) but the most important positions are quickly filling up with conventional faces, a boon for financial markets. Democrats are unlikely to win control of the Senate on January 5 but even if they do their single-vote majority will probably be too small to enable any radical cabinet picks – or radical legislation.2 The downside is that spending will be constrained and monetary and fiscal policy will remain uncoordinated, regardless of Yellen’s unique ability to work with Fed Chair Jay Powell. With Biden reportedly leaning on House Democrats to cut a COVID fiscal relief deal, there is a 50/50 chance that a $500-$750 billion bill passes in the “lame duck” session of Congress prior to Christmas. This would be a positive surprise. We are not counting on a deal until the first quarter next year. Hence US policy uncertainty will remain elevated. Meanwhile global policy uncertainty could spike again as long as President Trump remains in office and seeks to achieve policy objectives on the way out. Biden does not take office until January 20, but over a 12-month horizon we see a clear case for cyclical sectors and European stocks to outperform defensive sectors and American stocks as a result of Biden’s trade peace dividend, i.e. eschewing sweeping unilateral tariffs (Chart 1). Chart 2Vaccine On The Horizon While COVID-19 spikes, consumer wariness, and partial lockdowns will weigh on fourth quarter economic activity, several vaccines are on the way. The latest wave of the outbreak is already rolling over in Europe, which bodes well for the United States (Chart 2). Again, the 12-month outlook is brighter than the near term. Over the long haul, investors also have reason to be optimistic about governance in the developed world. The takeaway from this year is that the US and UK, the two major developed markets that saw right-wing populist movements win big votes in 2016, and two governments whose handling of the pandemic was at best muddled, led the development of vaccines in record time to deal with an entirely novel coronavirus and global pandemic.3 The US constitutional system withstood a barrage of partisan assaults both from President Trump and his supporters and their opponents. The British constitutional system is handling Brexit. Most other developed markets also navigated the crisis reasonably well. Weaknesses were revealed, and there will be aftershocks, but the sky is not falling. Near term US policy uncertainty will remain elevated due to fiscal impasse. Bottom Line: The rise in global risk assets may overshoot on positive news, but the US fiscal impasse could undercut the rally, as could Trump’s parting actions over the next two months. Market Not Priced For Lame Duck Trump There is a fair chance of an American or Israeli surgical strike against Iran or its militant proxies to underscore the red line against nuclear weaponization. Financial markets are not prepared for a major incident of armed conflict. Neither Israeli nor UAE equities are priced for near-term risks to materialize. The same goes for UAE or Saudi credit default swaps (Chart 3). An even greater risk to financial markets comes from the Trump administration’s pending actions on China. Trump is highly likely to take punitive or disruptive actions against China. His major contribution to US foreign policy is the confrontation with China, which was also the origin of the coronavirus and hence his electoral defeat. Already since the election Trump has imposed sanctions on US investments in state-owned enterprises. China’s fiscal and quasi-fiscal stimulus is peaking at the moment. This provides some buffer for its economy and the global economy if Trump hikes tariffs or imposes sweeping sanctions. But there are signs of instability beneath the surface. Authorities have tightened interbank rates sharply and intervened to prevent asset bubbles. The country is seeing turmoil in the bond market as a result of these actions and ongoing economic restructuring (Chart 4). Chart 3Risk Of US Or Israeli Strike On Iran Chart 4Chinese Stimulus And Bond Market Volatility Once again the market is not prepared for another major shock in the US-China relationship. The People’s Bank has allowed the renminbi to appreciate drastically this year. This trend will reverse if President Trump punishes China. As China’s economic momentum wanes and a new US administration enters office, it would make sense to allow the currency to depreciate. After all, the Biden administration will expect the renminbi to appreciate just as all previous administrations have done, but the People’s Bank will not want the yuan to fall much below the ~6.2 level that prevailed just before the trade war started in early 2018 (Chart 5). Chart 5Renminbi Priced For Zero Trump Tariffs Biden’s Foreign Policy: Continuities With Trump It is too soon to speak of the “Biden Doctrine.” Cabinet appointments will have limited impact relative to geopolitical fundamentals. Neither Biden nor Blinken have a consistent theme to their foreign policy decisions. Michèle Flournoy may or may not be nominated as Defense Secretary. What is clear is that Biden is in favor of establishment national security policymakers who want the US to work more closely with allies and international institutions. Starting in January, this shift will make US foreign policy somewhat more predictable. On Iran, Biden will seek to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal prior to the June 18, 2021 Iranian presidential election, but he will also have reason to sustain the Arab-Israel rapprochement that the Trump administration initiated via the Abraham Accords. News reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu met with Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman along with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a “secret” meeting on November 23. The Saudis could eventually normalize ties with Israel, but only once an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is reached. The Democrats have a long-running interest in negotiating such a settlement. Progress can be made as long as the Saudis and Israelis do not try utterly to sabotage Biden’s Iran deal. They would risk isolation from American support – an intolerable risk for both states. An American détente with Iran combined with normalized Arab-Israeli relations would create something resembling a balance in the region, which is what the Biden administration needs in order to maintain the “pivot to Asia” that will be its dominant foreign policy agenda. Biden’s pivot to Asia will start with a diplomatic “reset” with China so that strategic dialogue can resume and areas of cooperation can be identified. As Chart 5 above shows, the market is priced for Biden to reduce tariffs back to their September 2018 level (25% on $50 billion of imports and 10% on $200 billion). Anything is possible, since tariffs are an executive decision, but we would not bet on Biden sacrificing all of his leverage when the US-China strategic tensions are fundamentally rooted in the US’s loss of global standing and China’s rejection of the liberal world order. What is clear is an emerging contradiction that Biden will eventually have to resolve between multilateralism and getting things done. The Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. If Biden relies on multilateral diplomacy to update and extend the Iranian nuclear deal, he will find it much more difficult to gain Russian and Chinese cooperation than Obama did. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s trade war have poisoned the well. If Biden does not give enough ground to get Russo-Chinese cooperation, then he will have to use unilateral American power (i.e. Trump’s maximum pressure policy) or just settle for rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal without any safeguards against ballistic missiles or militant proxies. The original deal expires in 2025. Chart 6Greater China Still Center Of Geopolitical Risk The same goes for Biden’s handling of Trump’s China policy. Biden wants to revive the World Trade Organization. But if he adheres to the WTO then he will have to rescind all of Trump’s tariffs, since they have been declared illegal. This will reduce his leverage on unresolved structural disagreements. Biden wants to reach out to the allies on how to handle China. It is not clear how he will respond to the Trump administration’s outgoing scheme to create an alliance of liberal democracies that would arrange to purchase each other’s goods and possibly implement counter-tariffs in response to Chinese boycotts, such as the one placed on Australia today. Biden may not adopt the scheme. But the alternative would be to leave states to succumb to China’s political boycotts, thus failing to build an effective multilateral response to China’s aggressive foreign policy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan reveals that the Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. Thus we expect the Biden administration to conduct a foreign policy that is tougher on China than the Obama administration, that retains most of the Trump tariffs and tech sanctions, and that more resolutely attempts to build a coalition to pressure China into adopting international liberal norms. This policy trajectory virtually ensures that Biden will have to adopt some of Trump’s policies. Chinese equities are not priced for this risk. The pronounced risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is just starting to be recognized (Chart 6). The risk to our view is a grand US-China re-engagement. This is possible, but we think the current trajectory of China will cause a new confrontation even if Biden is less hawkish than Trump. Bottom Line: Financial markets are underrating Chinese/Taiwanese political and geopolitical risks, both from Trump’s lame duck period and from Biden’s pivot to Asia. Did China Just Take Charge Of Global Trade? Several clients have written to ask us about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a large new free trade agreement (FTA) signed by China and its Asian trading partners. RCEP is not a game changer but it is marginally positive for the global economy. Moreover it has the potential to ignite a new round of trade agreements, for instance by provoking the US (and the UK) to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. RCEP is a traditional free trade agreement that will cut tariffs by an average of 90% for its members. Membership includes China, Japan, South Korea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia, and New Zealand. It has not been ratified and will take ten years to fully implement after ratification. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing-oriented East Asian nations have reflexively responded to global shocks and slowdowns by deepening their trade integration. RCEP shows that this trend remains intact. China is the only member of the pact that is seeing trade grow at the moment – the others are still seeing declines due to the global recession but are hoping to increase nominal growth by removing trade barriers (Chart 7). RCEP is also notable because it is China’s second multilateral trade deal (the first was the China-ASEAN FTA). Beijing normally prefers bilateral deals where its size gives it the advantage, but it is trying to demonstrate greater willingness to work multilaterally. President Xi Jinping has rhetorically positioned himself as an advocate of free trade and multilateralism on the global stage, despite his pursuit of import substitution and state industrial subsidies at home. As long as China continues expanding trade with others it will smooth the painful restructuring of its manufacturing sector and blunt some of the criticisms about mercantilism. Ironically it is Japan’s decision to join, rather than China’s, that makes RCEP distinct. Japan did not have an FTA with South Korea and it was the only member of RCEP that did not already have a free trade deal with China. (Japan also lacked a deal with New Zealand.) This decision is not new but reflects the paradigm shift in Japanese national policy that began after the global financial crisis of 2008. In 2011, Japan signed an FTA with India. Thereafter Abenomics supercharged international trade and investment policies as part of the “third arrow” of pro-growth structural reform, which Abe’s successor Yoshihide Suga is continuing. So why is RCEP not a game changer? Because all of these countries other than Japan already have FTAs with each other and their tariff rates are already quite low. Moreover there is nothing particularly advanced about RCEP. It is a traditional deal focused on trade in goods and does not really attempt anything groundbreaking with services, or to incorporate new industries, lay down standards for labor or environment, or remove non-tariff barriers. Contrast the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the trade deal originated by the United States for Pacific Rim countries that attempts to do all these things, but was hobbled by the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from it. The real significance of RCEP is that even as it shows continuity in Asian economic policy, with China at the center, it will also provoke new deal-making. Now that China, Japan, and South Korea are joining a single trade agreement, they will have a foundation on which to move forward with their long-delayed trilateral FTA. These developments will provoke the Biden administration into rejoining the CPTPP, which in turn would create a new higher standard type of trade bloc that has the potential to attract democracies into a high-standards bloc that excludes China. Biden will also revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European counterpart to the Pacific deal. On the campaign trail, Biden said that he would “renegotiate” Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to rejoin it, a Trumpian formulation. This is feasible. After the US withdrawal, the various members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership modified the deal (dubbing it the CPTPP) to remove provisions that the US had insisted on and restore provisions that the US had demanded they remove. But they will gladly readmit the US now that Trump is gone, creating a trade bloc of comparable size to RCEP but with much more ambitious aims (Chart 8). The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others will be interested in joining. But China can only join if it embraces liberal reforms that are at odds with its new five-year plan, including reduced support for state-owned enterprises. Chart 7Weak Trade Prompts Asian Trade Deal Chart 8Putting RCEP Into Perspective The Republican Senate will be required to get approval for CPTPP, which is an obstacle, but Biden’s secret weapon is that the CPTPP has special appeal for Republicans precisely because it excludes China. Pro-trade moderates will find common cause with China hawks. As long as Trade Promotion Authority is renewed by the deadline on July 1, 2021, then the US can rejoin CPTPP on a simple majority vote. This is precisely how Republicans ratified Trump’s USMCA (the revised NAFTA). Trump also signed a trade deal with Japan, revealing that even under Trump’s leadership the US agreed to TPP-like deals with its biggest trading partners within the CPTPP (Canada, Mexico, Japan). More broadly, Trump’s experiment with protectionism has revealed that American attitudes toward global trade are not uniformly hostile. Polls show that Americans are generally pro-trade, and while they are skeptical that global trade creates jobs and higher wages, they are mostly skeptical of business-as-usual with China.4 Geopolitically, the US will not be able to stand idly by while China increases its sphere of influence in Asia. Therefore we should expect the Biden administration to pursue the CPTPP and other trade initiatives. The GOP Senate is the key constraint but it is not utterly prohibitive. Bottom Line: China and Asia continue to expand trade in the face of economic slowdown. The US Senate will be the key bellwether for US trade initiatives in 2021-22, but the geopolitical need to counter China will likely force the US to rejoin the CPTPP. Strategically we are long CPTPP equities – which includes some key RCEP members – as well as RCEP equities like South Korea. Chinese equities have already rallied a lot this year due to the country’s better handling of the pandemic and quicker economic recovery – they also face headwinds from US policy. Whereas emerging Asia equities ex-China, relative to all global equities, have plenty of catching up to do and will be beneficiaries of a global recovery in which both the US and China are courting them. Not Too Late To Go Long Pound Sterling The Brexit finale is approaching as the UK and EU enter the eleventh hour in their negotiation of a post-Brexit trade deal for the period after December 31, 2020. The market expects the UK, which is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa, to capitulate to an agreement that prevents a 3% tariff hike on all of its exports to the EU. This hike would occur if the UK-EU relationship reverted to WTO Most Favored Nation status. Boris Johnson promised in the Conservative Party manifesto to negotiate a trade deal and won a resounding single-party majority in December 2019. This gives him the room to marginalize hard Brexiteers and get a deal passed in parliament. The pound has rallied by 1.45% against the dollar since the beginning of the year and it is now rallying against the euro, moving off the “hard Brexit” lows (Chart 9), suggesting that the market is tentatively anticipating a trade deal. Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Failing to get a trade deal would require Johnson to break the EU withdrawal deal, since that deal requires a system of trade checks on the Irish Sea that introduces a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Johnson has no incentive to stick to this deal if he does not have privileged access to the EU’s single market. But then a hard border of physical customs checks would arise on Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland. This would not only aggravate relations with Ireland and the EU but would alienate the incoming American administration, which would view it as a violation of the US-brokered Good Friday Agreement (1998) and refuse to agree to a trade deal with the UK. Irish equities are not behaving as if a 3% tariff on all imports from the UK is about to take effect (Chart 10). Both GBP-USD and Irish equities have considerable downside if the deal falls through. The fact that the GBP-EUR appreciation is slight suggests less downside and more upside here. Subjectively we have argued there is a 35% chance that the UK will quit the EU “cold turkey” at the end of the year. The cost of more than $6 billion in foregone trade, which would grow each year, is not prohibitive. The economy is already subsisting on monetary and fiscal stimulus due to COVID-19. Boris Johnson does not face an election until 2024. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. Northern Ireland is not likely to leave anytime soon but 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. Support for independence meets resistance at 50% of the population (Chart 11), but an economic shock stemming from a failure to get a trade deal would push it above the limit (given that 62% of Scots never wanted to leave the EU in the first place). Chart 10Irish Equities Already Priced UK Trade Deal Chart 11Scotland Drives UK Toward A Trade Deal Johnson has the ability to conclude a deal, avoid an economic shock on top of COVID, keep the Scots in the union, and then set about overseeing his government’s mammoth economic recovery plan. His popularity is tenuous enough that the other pathway is not only more economically costly but also more likely to get him unseated and potentially to burden him with the legacy of being the last prime minister of a united kingdom. Bottom Line: It is not too late to go long GBP-EUR. A near-term global risk-off move would work against this trade but it is a strategic opportunity. Low EU Political Risk Will Pick Up In 2021 In our annual outlook for 2020 we highlighted how the EU was relatively politically stable while its geopolitical competitors – Russia, China, even the US – were far from stable. Today this is still the case – Europe’s political fundamentals are fine. But risks are rising due to partial COVID lockdowns, fiscal risks, and the approach of a series of important elections from now through 2022. A major problem for the global economy is the looming contraction in fiscal deficits in 2021 as economies step down from this year’s extraordinary fiscal stimulus measures. This downshift will be especially disruptive for the US, UK, and Italy due to the size of their stimulus packages, resulting in a fiscal drag of 5% of GDP if no additional measures are taken. But even Germany, France, and other EU members face at least a 2.5% of GDP contraction (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Adding more fiscal support should be feasible in a world where the Fed and ECB are maintaining ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future and the EU has agreed to allow mutualized debt issuances. Germany has embraced deficit spending in the wake of the austerity-laden 2010s, which brought significant populist challenges to the European political establishment. However, developed market economies are still highly indebted, a constraint on deficits, and those with political blockages could still have trouble passing large enough spending measures to remove the impending fiscal drag. The US faces gridlock in 2021 and therefore its fiscal cliff is a significant headwind to financial markets. One positive factor in providing fiscal support thus far is that, with the exception of Spain and the UK, European leaders and ruling coalitions have received a bounce in popular opinion this year (Chart 13). Chart 13EU Leaders’ Approval Bounced – Now What? Mark Rutte and his People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) have benefited more than other countries but the combined support for opposition parties is rising ahead of the March 17, 2021 general election (Chart 14, top panel). A leading anti-establishment candidate has dropped out of the race. Fiscal measures will depend on the election. Chart 14Will EU Elections Really Be A Cakewalk? Chart 15European Risk To Rise On Looming Elections The German and French governments have also seen a bounce in support but need to maintain it for a longer period, as they have elections due by October 24, 2021 and May 13, 2022 respectively. French President Emmanuel Macron can still summon majorities in the National Assembly, despite losing his single party majority, and has sidelined his structural reform agenda to boost the economy. Germany is also capable of passing new measures, and has time to do so before momentum wanes amid the contest to succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel. The leadership race in the ruling Christian Democratic Union will at least raise hawkish rhetoric (Chart 14, middle panels). But markets will be placated by the fact that popular opinion is not pro-austerity at present, and the alternative to the CDU is a fiscally profligate left-wing coalition consisting of the Greens, Social Democrats, and possibly the anti-establishment hard-left, Die Linke. Spain and Italy have the least stable governments, are the likeliest to see snap elections, and thus could surprise the market with fiscal risks. Both governments lack a strong mandate and rule over a divided political scene. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has seen a swell of support but he is a fairly non-partisan character and his coalition has been flat in opinion polling. It is less popular than the combined right-wing opposition, which is striving for power ahead of the fairly consequential 2022 presidential election. In Spain, not only has popular approval dropped, but the Socialist Party and the left-wing Podemos run a minority government, meaning that there is potential for gridlock to increase fiscal risk (Chart 14, bottom panels). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections (Chart 15). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections. The silver lining is that Brussels, Berlin, and the wider political establishment have become fundamentally more accepting toward budget deficits during times of distress. The ECB and European Commission Recovery Fund provide a combined monetary and fiscal backstop. Negative interest rates on debt enable fiscal largesse with minimum implications for sustainability. And none of these elections raise systemic risks regarding EU and EMU membership, other than conceivably Italy. So while fiscal risk will become more relevant in 2021, it is not a problem while COVID is still raging, and there are better chances of maintaining a fiscally proactive policy than at any previous time over the past two decades. Bottom Line: European elections and a looming fiscal drag will keep EU political risk from collapsing after the latest round of lockdowns ease. Biden And Emerging Market Strongmen Most of the emerging market strongmen – Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro – have increased their popular support this year, benefiting from national solidarity in the face of crisis. The exception is Narendra Modi, who is struggling (Chart 16). Still, Modi has a single-party majority and four years on the election clock, and is thus more stable than Bolsonaro, who fundamentally lacks a political base despite his bounce in polls, and Erdogan, whose increase in support will fade amid a host of domestic and international challenges ahead of the 2023 elections. The US election will have limited impact on these leaders. None of them have good relations with the Democratic Party and some were openly pro-Trump. But this is only marginally negative and may not have concrete ramifications. The key is that the Biden administration will be more conducive toward a global trade recovery, will relax restrictions on immigration, will favor US diversification away from China, and will put pressure on authoritarian regimes. Chart 16Strongman Popularity Boost Will Fade Other things being equal, Biden is therefore positive for India, neutral for Brazil and Turkey, and negative for Russia. Our GeoRisk Indicators suggest that political risk has peaked for Brazil and Russia and equities could bounce back, but we think Russian political risk will surprise to the upside (Chart 17). Chart 17Political Risk Still High In Emerging Markets In the case of Russia, the Biden administration will take a more confrontational approach than previous presidents, including Obama and Bush as well as Trump. However, it still needs to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and extend the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia through 2026, so the pro-democracy pressure campaign will have to be balanced with negotiations. Russia, for its part, is increasingly focused on the need for domestic stability, at least until Biden makes concrete steps with NATO that threaten Russian core interests. Bottom Line: Emerging market political risk is high, the vaccine will arrive more slowly, and the Biden administration will take a tougher approach toward authoritarian regimes. This creates an opportunity for India but a risk for Russia, and is neutral for Brazil and Turkey. Strategically we are constructive on EM equities but in the near 0-3 month time frame all bets are off. Investment Recommendations With clear near-term political and geopolitical risks, and extremely elevated equity prices and sentiment, we think it is a good time to book some profits. We are closing our long global equities relative to bonds trade for a gain of 27%. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Global Aerospace/Defense Stocks We are closing our long investment grade corporate bonds relative to similarly dated Treasuries for a gain of 15%. We are closing our long China Play Index trade for a gain of 7% in recognition that China’s stimulus is nearing its peak while the Trump administration will take punitive measures in his final two months. We will also retain our long gold trade. Gridlock in the US government is not reflationary but gold is still attractive due to geopolitical risk. Strategically we recommend going long GBP-EUR. We also recommend reinitiating a strategic long position in defense stocks. Specifically, global aerospace and defense stocks relative to the broad market (Chart 18). We have been long defense stocks since 2016 but COVID decimated the trade. The coming vaccines promise to reboot the aerospace part of this trade while there was never any reason to doubt the strong basis for global defense spending amid geopolitical great power struggle.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   We Read (And Liked) … Black Wave “What happened to us?” Black Wave seeks to answer the cardinal question facing both Middle Easterners and those looking into the Middle East from the outside.5 It takes us back four decades to events that shaped the region and walks us through time and space, politics, religion, history and culture, to where we stand – in the crosshairs of the very clash that started it all. Few are better equipped than author Kim Ghattas in doing so. A native of Beirut, she grew up amid the Lebanese civil war, living the events that created the post-1979 Middle Eastern reality. Later, she spent two decades covering the Middle East as a journalist for the BBC and Financial Times. A term first coined by Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, “black wave” characterizes the religious tide that swept Egypt in the 1990s from the Persian Gulf – one that Chahine saw as alien to Egyptians. Instead he argued that while Egyptians had always been very religious, they also had joie de vivre – enjoying art, music, talent, all taboos according to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Iranians in the late 1970s were not much different from Egyptians in the 1990s. At the time, they were unified in their opposition to the Pahlavi dynasty for being too Western and corrupt. As an exile in the sacred Iraqi city of Najaf and later in the French village of Neauphle-le-Chateau, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s speeches were capable of inspiring minds, galvanizing support, and gathering crowds. He was the right character, at the right time, but with the wrong ideas. Ideologically, Khomeini was an outsider in Najaf. The Iraqi clergy considered him too politically involved and his vision of wilayat al-faqih – a state based on Islamic jurisprudence – did not have widespread appeal. It was dismissed as outlandish by those around him who aimed to take advantage of his widespread appeal for their own gains, while hoping to limit Khomeini’s ideological influence on his audience. This proved to be a grave disregard for Iranians. 1979 was also a transformative year for Saudi Arabia. The young monarchy faced a national awakening as Juhayman al-Otaybi staged a siege on the Muslim world’s most sacred site, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It was the first act of terrorism in opposition to Western influence – the birth of Saudi extremism – and was echoed in subsequent acts of violence in the kingdom, in 1995 and later in 2003. Fearing the spread of political Islam, the House of Saud responded by emphasizing Wahhabism, Riyadh’s homegrown Islamic movement, by empowering clerics and religious authorities. The quid pro quo was that the clerics supported the monarchy from both internal and external threats. The clash between the Iranian Revolution and Saudi Wahhabism in 1979 gave rise to the first sectarian killings. The 1987 Sunni-Shia clash in Pakistan marked the beginning of the modern day Sunni-Shia divide, spreading through Pakistan and eventually the Middle East to Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Today, as youth across the Middle East struggle in despair of the aftermath of these events, Ghattas sees hope. Protests ringing from Beirut to Baghdad call for a post sectarian political system. The Saudi monarchy is relaxing its puritanical grip, and a new generation brings newfound hope of rectifying past miscalculations. We ultimately agree with Ghattas’s optimism that these changes are hopeful indications that the people of the Middle East are ready to shift gears and move past the conflicts that have dominated the past four decades. However, there are other forces at play and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is still a dominant feature of the region’s geopolitical landscape. True, Ghattas’s account not only highlights how deeply engrained the conflict is, but also that the early signs of tidal shifts can be easily missed. But we cannot ignore the specter of near-term risk facing the Middle East that continue to challenge its economic and political ascent. Thus, from an investment standpoint, we favor a more cautious approach and remain on the lookout for a better entry point once the near-term manifestation of these long-standing hurdles are overcome.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court could still rule that Pennsylvania should have stuck with its November 3 deadline for ballots, but such a ruling would not change the outcome of the election. As with Florida following the disputed election in 2000, the various states’ electoral systems will likely be stronger as a result of this year’s polarized contest and narrow margins. 2 Biden could use the Vacancies Act or recess appointments to ram through his cabinet picks, but it would be controversial and at present he looks to be taking advantage of the Republican veto to nominate center-left figures that are more ideologically lined with his lane of the Democratic Party. 3 US-based Moderna developed one vaccine while US-based Pfizer and Germany-based BioNTech developed another. The Anglo-Swedish company AstraZeneca jointly developed its vaccine with Oxford University. Vaccine trials were administered across these countries and others, including South Africa, India, Brazil, and the entire global health care and pharmaceutical supply chain contributed. 4 See Pew Research. 5 Kim Ghattas, Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 2020), 377 pages. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil   Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights New recommendation: Go neutral growth versus value on a 6-12-month horizon… …and exploit the greater opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe. Within the growth universe, overweight healthcare versus technology. New recommendation: Within the value universe, overweight utilities versus banks. Downgrade tech-heavy Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Upgrade utilities-heavy Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal trade: Overweight Portugal versus Italy. Feature Chart of the WeekBank Profits In Structural Decline Last week, Fed Chair, Jay Powell explained: “We’re not going back to the same economy. We’re going back to a different economy.” What will the different economy look like? We will only really know when the pandemic ends and short-term palliatives like government-funded job furlough schemes and rent and debt payment moratoriums are removed. Only then will we get the true price discovery to know which activities, jobs, and debts are viable and which are not. At the very least, the now widespread acceptance of remote working, remote shopping, and remote business meetings means that city centres, bricks and mortar retailers, and business aviation will become pale shadows of their former selves. This is worrying because the retail sector, on its own, employs 10 percent of all workers. Furthermore, economic shocks give impetus to structural changes that were already underway. Case in point, the UK government has just announced a ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The lockdowns gave the British people the taste of clean air, and the British people liked it, so the government accelerated its initiative to abolish fossil fuels. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, there are two ways that sectors go bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly. A Textbook Market Slump… But Will We Get A Textbook Recovery? During an economic slump and the subsequent recovery, three fundamental drivers shape the evolution of stock prices. The first two drivers are well understood by any student of Financial Markets 101, but the third driver is not so well understood. More on that later. The first well understood driver of stock prices is the outlook for near-term profits. During a slump, the profits of ‘defensive’ sectors that are insensitive to fluctuations in the economy, outperform those of ‘cyclical’ sectors that are sensitive to the economy. For example, during this year’s slump, the profits of defensive healthcare remained remarkably resilient, whereas the profits of cyclical banks collapsed by 30 percent (Chart I-2). During the recovery, this should reverse, says the textbook. Cyclical profits should outperform defensive profits. Chart I-2Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? The second well understood driver of stock prices is the discount rate applied to long-term profits. The present value of long-term profits is highly sensitive to the (inverted) bond yield. As discussed last week, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity at ultra-low bond yields. When the bond yield collapses to an ultra-low level, the present value of long-term profits surges. This favours ‘growth’ sectors like technology, whose profits are weighted to the distant future, versus ‘value’ sectors like utilities, whose profits are weighted closer to the here and now. ‘Cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, but markets do not always follow the textbook. During this year’s slump, the near-term profits of technology and utilities performed similarly (Chart I-3). But when the bond yield collapsed and boosted the value of long-term profits, the multiple paid for near-term profits surged by 20 percent for technology, while remaining unmoved for utilities (Chart I-4). When the bond yield rises, this relative move should reverse, says the textbook. Value sector multiples should outperform growth sector multiples. Chart I-3Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Chart I-4But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities So far, so good. The student of Financial Markets 101 will tell you that ‘defensive growth’ stocks outperform when the economy slumps, and bond yields collapse. Whereas ‘cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, and bond yields rise. Yet as we all know, the real world is not that simple. Financial markets do not always follow the textbook. Major Economic Shocks Can Destroy Industries One real-world complication to the textbook recovery is that the bond yield might not be able to rise meaningfully before causing a relapse in the economy. This could be because of a high structural level of debt, a high structural level of unemployment, or a high structural level of risk-asset valuations. Any one of these three structural fragilities would make the economy incapable of tolerating a higher bond yield. Yet today the worry is not one fragility, it is all three of the above! Still, even if the bond yield cannot rise meaningfully, it might not fall much either, making the choice between value and growth unclear. The other real-world complication to the textbook is that major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. The point that Jay Powell made last week, and which forms the title of this report. Major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. This brings us to the third – less well-understood – driver of stock prices during and after a slump: the structural change in the sector’s long-term profit outlook. For some sectors, the long-term profit outlook phase-shifts down. Meaning that even if the bond yield does not keep falling, value sectors could continue to underperform as the collapse in their long-term profits gets recognised. For example, after oil and gas profits reached an all-time high in 2008, each slump has been followed by a progressively lower subsequent peak (Chart I-5). European banks look even worse. In the recovery following each slump since 2008, profits have regained only a third of the preceding slump’s losses. This implies that after each slump, the long-term profit outlook for the banks is phase-shifting down (Chart of the Week). Chart I-5Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Hence, European banks have failed to generate sustained outperformance in any recovery, even though the textbook says that as ‘cyclical value’ stocks, they should. Only a brave person would bet that it will be any different this time (Chart I-6). Chart I-6European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery The Big Opportunities Are Within The Growth And Value Universes After a major economic shock, a structural change in a sector’s long-term profit outlook renders any backward-looking valuation framework obsolete. In such cases we cannot use mean-reversion to inform our investment strategy, because the past will be a poor guide to the future. As European banks have taught us for fifteen years, it is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. It is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. Right now, there is a much smarter investment strategy. Go neutral growth versus value, and exploit the bigger opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe where mean-reversion strategies are more justified. Specifically, within the growth universe, the valuation premium on technology versus healthcare is at its highest level since 2009 (Chart I-7). Even more extreme, the US technology versus US healthcare valuation premium is approaching the peak of the dot com bubble (Chart I-8). Hence, we reiterate last week’s recommendation. Chart I-7The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... Chart I-8...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak Go overweight healthcare versus technology. The regional and country allocation implications are to go overweight healthcare-heavy Europe versus technology-heavy Emerging Markets. And within Europe, to go overweight healthcare-heavy Denmark and Switzerland versus technology-heavy Netherlands. The upshot is that today we are downgrading Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Turning to the value universe, the performance of cyclical banks versus defensive utilities just tracks the bond yield (Chart I-9). This means that the recent snapback rally in banks versus utilities needs higher bond yields for support. Absent a sustained rise in bond yields, the rally is fragile and vulnerable to reversal. Chart I-9Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Yet as we explained last week, the 10-year T-bond yield can rise by only 30 basis points or so before undermining the broad stock market. On this basis, we are making a new recommendation. Go overweight utilities versus banks. Within Europe, the implication is to go overweight utility-heavy Portugal versus bank-heavy Spain and Italy (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks The upshot is that today we are upgrading Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal Trading System* Fractal analysis confirms that Portugal’s underperformance is approaching a potential reversal point if bond yields do not rise meaningfully. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is overweight Portugal versus Italy. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.6 percent. In other trades, long coffee versus corn achieved its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-11MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations