Health Care

Please note that we will be on our summer holidays next week. Our next report will come out on August 20. Highlights The 30-year bond yield is the puppet master pulling the strings of all other investments. Where 30-year bond yields are still far from the lower bound, they will ultimately get a lot closer. Continue to overweight 30-year bonds in the US and periphery Europe versus 30-year bonds in core Europe. Continue to overweight the US stock market versus the European stock market. An expected near-term setback to stocks versus bonds will briefly pause the European currency rally. The gold rally is also due a pause, given that it is overstretched relative to the decline in the real bond yield. Fractal trade: Long USD/PLN. Feature Chart I-1AThe Collapsed 30-Year Bond Yield Explains The Collapse Of Banks... Chart I-1B...And The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare   The abiding mantra of this publication is that investment is complex, but it is not complicated. By complex, we mean that the financial markets are not fully predictable or analysable. By not complicated, we mean that the relative prices of everything are inextricably connected, rather like the movements of a puppet. All you need to do is find the puppet master pulling the strings. Right now, the puppet master is the 30-year bond. The Real Action Is In 30-Year Bonds While most people are focussing on the 10-year bond yield, the real action has been at the ultra-long 30-year maturity. In the US and periphery Europe, 30-year yields are within a whisker of all-time lows. Yet these ultra-long bond yields are still well above those in core Europe which are much closer to the lower bound. The upshot is that while all yields have equal scope to rise, yields have more scope to fall further in the US and periphery Europe than in core Europe (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-230-Year Yields In The US And Periphery Europe... Chart I-3...Are Still Well Above Those In ##br##Core Europe This simple asymmetry has created a winning relative value strategy that will keep on winning. Overweight 30-year bonds in the US and periphery Europe versus 30-year bonds in core Europe. Our preferred expression is to overweight 30-year bonds in the US and Spain versus Germany and France. Bond yields have more scope to fall further in the US and periphery Europe than in core Europe. Remarkably, in the US, the 10-year real yield is also tightly tracking the 30-year nominal yield (minus a constant 2.2 percent) (Chart I-4). Using a little algebra, this means that the market’s 10-year inflation expectation is just a steady-state value of 2.2 percent minus a shortfall equalling the shortfall in the 10-year nominal yield versus the 30-year nominal yield (Chart I-5). Chart I-4The 10-Year Real Yield Is Just ##br##Tracking The 30-Year Nominal ##br##Yield Chart I-5The 10-Year Inflation Expectation Can Be Derived From The 30-Year And 10-Year Nominal Yields 10-year inflation expectation = 2.2 – (30-year nominal yield – 10-year nominal yield) The reason that this is remarkable is we can explain the trend in inflation expectations from just the 30-year and 10-year nominal yields, and nothing more. In turn, gold is tightly tracking the inverted real yield, as it theoretically should. Gold, which generates no yield, becomes relatively more valuable as the real yield on other assets diminishes (Chart I-6). Having said that, the most recent surge in the gold price is stretched relative to its relationship with the real bond yield, suggesting that the strong rally in gold is due a pause (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Gold Is Just Tracking The (Inverted) Real Yield... Chart I-7...But Gold's Most Recent Surge Is ##br##Stretched The 30-Year Bond Is Driving Stock Markets Moving to the stock market, bank relative performance has closely tracked the collapse in the 30-year yield, because the collapsed bond yield signals both weaker bank credit growth and a likely increase in banks’ non-performing loans (Chart of the Week, left panel). Banks and other ‘value cyclicals’ whose cashflows are in terminal decline are highly sensitive to the prospects for near-term cashflows, which are under severe pressure in the pandemic era. At the same time, as the distant cashflows are small, the banks’ share prices are less sensitive to the uplifted net present values of these distant cashflows that come from lower bond yields. In contrast, technology, healthcare and other ‘growth defensives’ generate a growing stream of cashflows. Making their net present values highly sensitive to a change in the bond yield used to discount those large distant cashflows. The profits of the tech and healthcare sectors are proving to be highly resilient in the pandemic era. Through 2018, the 30-year yield went up by 1 percent, so the forward earnings yield of growth defensives went up by 1 percent (their valuations fell). Subsequently, the 30-year yield has collapsed by 2 percent, so unsurprisingly the forward earnings yield of growth defensives has also collapsed by 2 percent (their valuations have surged). To repeat, financial markets are not complicated (Chart of the Week, right panel). Moreover, the profits of the growth defensives are proving to be highly resilient in the pandemic era, holding up well in the worst shock to demand since the Great Depression. The combination of resilient profits with higher valuations explains why the technology and healthcare sectors are reaching new highs, while the rest of the stock market is going nowhere (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Tech And Healthcare At New Highs While The Rest Of The Market Languishes Meanwhile, the relative performance of stock markets is also uncomplicated. It just stems from the relative exposure to the high-flying growth defensive sectors. Compared with Europe, the US has a 20 percent larger exposure to technology and healthcare (Chart I-9). Which is all you need to explain the consistent outperformance of the US versus Europe (Chart I-10). Chart I-9The US Is 20 Percent Over-Exposed To Tech And Healthcare... Chart I-10...Which Explains Its Consistent Outperformance Versus Europe A Quick Comment On European Currencies And The Dollar Turning to the foreign exchange market, the recent rally in European currencies can at least partly be explained as a sell-off in the dollar. Begging the question, what is behind the dollar’s recent weakness? The dollar has moved as a mirror-image of the global stock market. For the broad dollar index, the explanation is quite straightforward. True to its traditional role as a haven currency, the dollar has moved as a mirror-image of the global stock market, measured by the MSCI All Country World Index (in local currencies). Simply put, as the stock market has shaken off its year-to-date losses, the dollar has shaken off its year-to-date gains (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Dollar Has Just Tracked The (Inverted) Stock Market Looking ahead, we can link the prospects of currencies to the outlook for 30-year bond yields. A further compression in yields will weaken the dollar, and help European currencies, in two ways. First, as already mentioned, yields have more scope to decline in the US than in core Europe, and a fading US yield premium will weigh on the dollar. Second, to the extent that the lower yields can prevent a protracted bear market in stocks and other risk-assets, non-haven currencies can perform well versus the haven dollar.  Having said that, an expected near-term setback to stocks versus bonds will briefly pause the European currency rally. Concluding Remarks The charts in this report should leave you in no doubt that the 30-year bond yield – particularly in the US – is the puppet master pulling the strings of all investments: bond market relative performance, real bond yields, gold, banks, growth defensives, equity market relative performance, and major currencies. Which raises the crucial question, can the downtrend in 30-year bond yields continue? Yes, absent an imminent vaccine or treatment for Covid-19, the downtrend in yields can continue. As we explained last week in An Economy Without Mouths And Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs, the spectre of mass unemployment is looming large. Specifically, the major threat to the jobs market lies in the coming months when government lifelines to employers – such as state-subsidised furlough schemes – are cut or weakened. Where 30-year bond yields are still far from the lower bound, they will ultimately get a lot closer. Hence, it is inevitable that those central banks that can become more dovish will become more dovish. Given the political difficulties of using fiscal policy bullets, the lessons from Japan and Europe are that the monetary policy bullets get fully expended first. In practical terms, this means that where 30-year bond yields are still far from the lower bound, they will ultimately get a lot closer. The upshot is that core European bonds will continue to underperform US bonds, and that the European stock market will continue to underperform the US stock market. European currencies will trend higher versus the dollar, albeit a setback to stocks versus bonds is a near-term risk to the European currency uptrend. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to play a potential countertrend move in the dollar via long USD/PLN. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 4 percent. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 57 percent. Chart I-12USD/PLN 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  

Neutral – Downgrade Alert There is trouble brewing for the S&P pharmaceuticals index as President Trump recently signed four executive orders geared toward lowering drug pricing for Americans. Trump is not the only one who is ready to fight Big Pharma. In recent research we also highlighted that Biden will be tough on pharma, especially on the industry’s pricing power. The implication is that irrespective of who the next President is, the S&P pharmaceuticals index will come under intense scrutiny. Consequently, we find the relative 4% year-over-year sales growth estimates overly optimistic (third panel). The sell-side community is also forecasting even more impressive relative EPS growth over the next 12 months. This is a tall order as double digit relative profit growth typically marks a peak in relative share price performance (second panel). Nevertheless there is a significant offset to the grim pharma selling price backdrop: compelling valuations. The forward P/E is trading at a nearly 40% discount to the broad market a multi decade low, even piercing through the GFC lows (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We remain neutral the S&P pharmaceuticals index, but it is now on our downgrade watch list.  

Special Report

Highlights China’s healthcare expenditure is projected to rise due to the increasing affluence and rapid aging of its population. The desire to access healthcare services beyond the basic coverage provided by the public health insurance will increasingly prompt people to purchase health insurance products from private insurers. We recommend going long Chinese insurance stocks in absolute terms. We also recommend accumulating and overweighting Chinese healthcare stocks on a 15% correction. Feature The aging population and the rapidly expanding middle class in China entail that healthcare expenditures will remain on a secular growth trajectory. The COVID-19 outbreak will function as a catalyst for the rapid transformation of China's healthcare system. In fact, many game changing trends in global healthcare systems will probably be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare Expenditures: Still Low Health expenditures per capita in China grew substantially over the same period of time, but their level is still below those in most countries. Chart 1Chinese Healthcare Expenditure Will Grow 10% CAGR Health expenditures in China have grown considerably since the economic reforms started in 1978.  Between 1978 and 2018, total health expenditures in China grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17% in nominal terms, higher than the 15% growth in nominal GDP (Chart 1, top panel). Notwithstanding the rapid expansion of China’s healthcare market, expenditures remained at a modest 6.4% of China’s GDP in 2018 (Chart 1, bottom panel), far below the OECD average of 9%. Health expenditures per capita in China grew substantially over the same period of time, but their level is still below those in most countries. In 2017, health expenditures per capita in China were $841 in PPP (purchasing power parity) terms, ranking 92nd worldwide. Japan, by comparison, ranks 18th with $4,550, and Korea ranks 31th with $3,000, both in PPP terms (Chart 2). Chart 2China Ranks Low In Health Expenditure Per Capita Worldwide Healthcare Capacity And Healthy China 2030 Chart 3China Healthcare Capacities Are Rising Fast Access to adequate healthcare is crucial to social and economic development, as healthy human capital fosters productivity and economic growth. In China, healthcare capacity is still subdued. After the pandemic, authorities will divert resources to this sector to ensure it expands quickly. In 2018, the number of physicians and nurses per 1000 Chinese people was 2.6 and 2.9, respectively (Chart 3), far below the OECD average of 3.5 physicians and 8.8 nurses per 1,000 people. Hospital beds per 1000 people is 4.3 in China, compared to an average of 4.7 across OECD countries. In Japan and Korea, the measure is much higher, at 13.1 and 12.3 beds per 1,000 people, respectively (Chart 3, bottom panel). China released the Healthy China 2030 (HC 2030) blueprint in 2016, covering public health services, environmental management, the medical industry, and food and drug safety. The five specific goals of this blueprint are to improve the population’s health, control against major risks, increase the capacity of healthcare services, grow the scale of the healthcare industry, and improve the health service system generally. This program has set targets for health service capacity, including an increase in the number of doctors, nurses and beds per 1,000 people to 3, 4.7 and 6, respectively, by the year 2030. The blueprint also aims to further ease the financial burden imposed on the population by the cost of healthcare and medical treatments. Currently, in China, 29% of health costs are paid by individuals; HC 2030 recommends a reduction to 25%. We will discuss these objectives in the next section. Healthcare Financing: A Looming Funding Crunch The aging population, along with its rising income, will drive up health expenditures in the years to come. Chart 4China Elderly Population Will Rise Significantly There are currently more than 167 million people over the age of 65 in China. By this measure, China is already the largest eldercare market in the world in terms of the absolute number of elderly people. What is more, China’s elderly population is growing rapidly and is expected to reach almost 200 million by 2025 (Chart 4). The aging population, along with its rising income, will drive up health expenditures in the years to come. As health expenditures grow, so will investment opportunities. Global healthcare systems can generally be classified into the three categories shown in Table 1. China’s health insurance system more closely resembles Germany’s national social health insurance system than the US commercial health insurance model. China’s healthcare system and insurance scheme is illustrated in Table 2. Table 1Overview Of Major Healthcare Systems Worldwide Table 2Main Features Of China's Three Basis Social Health Insurance Schemes In 2000, just over 20% of Chinese citizens had healthcare coverage. The SARS outbreak in 2003 was a wake-up call for Chinese leaders. Thanks to heavy government subsidies and political commitments, China achieved universal health insurance coverage in 2011, when nearly 95% of its 1.4 billion people had health insurance. This represents the largest and fastest expansion of insurance coverage in human history. Chart 5Individuals Health Expenditures Remain High However, the government-sponsored health insurance plan provides for only basic coverage. Government budgetary spending accounted for 28% of total health expenditures in 2018 and the population’s out-of-pocket costs amounted to 29%, such that the remaining 43% was covered by the public social health insurance contributions (Chart 5). China’s health insurance is supervised at the national level and guided by the principle that all citizens are entitled to receive basic healthcare. Nevertheless, local governments are ultimately responsible for funding and offering these health services. This leads to unevenly distributed healthcare capacities across different provinces, as more resources are concentrated in wealthier jurisdictions. People can only receive a reimbursement for healthcare costs from their province of residence, as indicated on their hukou registration documents. Migrant urban professionals and laborers have to return to the place of their household registration to access healthcare. Chinese policy makers have been working on reforming the reimbursement system now for many years. As of the end of 2019, 3.95 million people have benefited from inter-provincial health insurance settlements. Relying heavily on local government contributions to healthcare expenditures is the primary reason why government spending on healthcare is relatively low, at only 1.7% of GDP and 7% of total general (central and local) government spending1 (Chart 6). Government expenditures on social security (which includes contributions to social health insurance, pension, unemployment and work injury insurance) make up 12% of overall government spending.1 The outbreak of COVID-19 sounded the alarm across Chinese society. Building a comprehensive and effective healthcare system with adequate capacity will become one of the most important priorities over the coming decade. The people’s well-being will be critical to social stability as its increasingly affluent population is asking for better healthcare services. Chart 6Government Spending In Healthcare Chart 7China: A Rapidly Aging Population However, the overall sustainability of the current healthcare financing scheme is questionable. Chart 7 shows the old age-dependency ratio, defined as the ratio of older dependents (people over the age of 64) to the working-age population (25 to 64-year old). The ratio is expected to increase from the current 19% to 30% in 2030. This means a decreasing contribution to social insurance budgets from the working population and an increase in healthcare spending on seniors. What makes the situation worse is the opacity of the National Social Security Fund (SSF). The SSF manages money reserved for pension and insurance disbursements related to medical, unemployment and injury needs for future use. Of the 2.6 trillion RMB under SSF management, at the end of 2019, over 90% are invested domestically. The fund’s average 10-year investment return is close to 6%, which is lower than the average nominal GDP growth rate of 11%, over the same period. With declining revenues from workforce contributions and rising healthcare costs, the ability of the social security system to finance proper healthcare service provisions  is endangered. Furthermore, the replenishing of the SSF, so far, has depended on central government contributions and asset transfers from state-owned enterprises to the SSF. Bottom Line: As demand for healthcare services increases, the current public scheme for financing healthcare is going to be increasingly unable to cover the costs. Private Health Insurance Private health insurance offers a more extensive level of protection than the state-based coverage. Currently, most private health insurance plans provide supplementary insurance products to complement public health insurance plans. Supplementary insurance and critical illness products are the most popular because the public insurance systems cannot fully cover the cost of catastrophic illnesses. The private health insurance industry has been thriving in recent years and is expected to continue growing  because of increased consumer awareness. The written premiums attributed to health insurance registered a compound annual growth rate of 36% between 2013 and 2019 (Chart 8). However, penetration into China’s health insurance market remains far behind that of more developed markets, signaling huge growth potential. One measure of insurance industry penetration is insurance depth. It is defined as the percentage of the GDP attributed to the total written premium for insurance. China’s insurance depth is currently 0.7% for health insurance and 4.2% for overall insurance (Chart 9), whereas the overall insurance depth is 11% in South Korea, 9% in Japan, and 7% in the US. Chart 8Health Insurance Premiums Are Skyrocketing Chart 9China: Health Insurance Penetration Faced with financial strains and a growing demand for healthcare services, the government is supporting private healthcare providers by relaxing regulatory restrictions and offering tax incentives to Chinese consumers when they buy health insurance. Private health insurance offers the growing middle-income class a more extensive level of protection than the state-based coverage. In regard to insurance companies’ asset management, the regulators raised the equity investment cap for all insurers earlier this month from 30% to 45% of total assets. In May of this year, regulators also allowed insurers to invest in the secondary capital bonds issued by banks, as well as in perpetual bonds. This expanded investment opportunity should help insurers diversify their investment portfolios and therefore increase the efficacy of their asset/liability management (ALM). Bottom Line:  Private health insurance offers the growing middle-income class a more extensive level of protection than the state-based coverage. This underdeveloped private insurance market presents substantial opportunities. Investment Conclusions As China’s population ages, incomes rise and private healthcare services expand, investment opportunities will also increase. In short, the growth trajectory of China’s healthcare sector warrants investors’ attention. To play on this healthcare theme in China, we are initiating two strategic investment positions: First, go long Chinese insurance companies in absolute terms. Chinese insurer stocks have rallied in absolute terms since March lows, but then lagged relative to the benchmark (Chart 10 & 11); Chart 10Chinese Insurance Stocks: Rising In Absolute Terms... Chart 11…But Underperforming The Benchmark Double-digit CAGR of insurance premiums entails a steady asset expansion (Chart 8 on page 8). High and steady growth at a time of a low discount factor warrants high equity multiples. The private insurance industry’s gross profit margin proxy, calculated as insurance premiums minus insurance payments, divided by insurance premiums, amount to a whopping of 67%, with health insurance at 65% and life insurance at 87% (Chart 12). The equity valuations are reasonable. Unlike the tech and media sectors of the new economy, that have sky-high multiples, the trailing price to earnings ratio for insurers is still 8.8, 45% lower than the 10-year average. (Chart 13). Chart 12Chinese Insurance Companies: Outstanding Gross Profit Margins Chart 13Attractive Valuations Insurance company assets will be better managed going forward due to the new asset/liability management (ALM) requirements imposed by the regulators. The ALM requirements were announced in March 2018 and then fully implemented in July 2019. The rules introduced quantitative risk-adjusted measurements to help insurers more accurately capture the risk of duration mismatch, negative spread and liquidity strain. The CBIRC regularly evaluates and ranks the competence of insurers’ ALM against peers. The key risk to shareholders of insurance companies is the credit risk of their portfolio. 39% of insurance sector portfolios are invested in other investments, which include long-term equity investments, project-based debt schemes, trust plans and asset management (Chart 14). Credit risks stemming from credit claims and asset management products warrant careful investor consideration. Chart 14Investment Portfolio Of The Insurance Industry Chart 15Healthcare Stocks Have Rallied Massively... Second, accumulate Chinese healthcare stocks on a 15% correction in absolute terms (Chart 15). While we believe that healthcare stocks are in a secular bull market, they have already rallied a lot since recent lows, and they are pricing in a lot of short-term good news. Chinese investable healthcare stocks registered 55% returns since the outbreak of COVID-19. The trailing P/E ratio reached 51, a decade high since 2010 (Chart 16). We are reluctant to buy and overweight this sector now and would wait for a better entry point. Chart 16...And Are Now Too Expensive   Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst LinX@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Does not include quasi-fiscal (off-balance sheet) government spending.

Special Report

Highlights We reiterate our longstanding overweight on healthcare equities for the next 12 months and possibly beyond. The macro environment, as well as underlying demand factors, will continue to drive the sector’s outperformance. Within healthcare equities, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology over pharmaceuticals. Healthcare corporate bonds, however, are not especially attractive, and therefore warrant no more than a neutral position. Feature Chart 1Healthcare Has Outperformed Over The Past Decade... Over the past decade, global health care stocks have been clear outperformers, alongside information technology and consumer discretionary stocks, rising by almost 50% relative to the broad market (Chart 1). Not only have they benefited from increased demand from an aging population in developed economies and a growing middle class in emerging markets, they have also provided a downside cushion during recessions and bear markets, given their defensive, non- cyclical nature. The COVID-19 pandemic leads us to reiterate our longstanding overweight position on global healthcare equities over the next 12 months and possibly beyond. Favorable tailwinds will continue to drive healthcare outperformance. It is likely that government spending on healthcare will increase over the coming years. Innovative solutions in healthcare technology (healthtech), as well as increased overall research and development (R&D), the shift to value-based healthcare delivery, the focus on preventive medicine, and a low risk of substantial regulatory change and reform (at least in the US, assuming former Vice President Biden is elected president this November) should continue to support the sector’s outperformance. In this Special Report, we analyze whether our long-term overweight position on healthcare equities remains valid. In a later section, we also review healthcare-related investments in bonds and private equity. Why We Like Healthcare BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service has been positive on global healthcare stocks for over five years. The main reason is that we see demand for healthcare services continuing to rise, as life expectancy increases, populations age – people over 65 will comprise 25% of the developed world’s population by 2040, up from 15% in 2020 – and the middle class in emerging economies becomes richer (Charts 2&3). As people live longer, healthcare spending should rise since, after the age of 65 (retirement), it tends to squeeze out discretionary spending (Chart 4). Chart 2...As The Global Population Grew Older... Chart 3...And Richer       Healthcare spending everywhere represents a large proportion of GDP, but the percentage varies considerably between countries. In the US for example, healthcare spending comprises 16.9% of GDP, higher than in other advanced economies, where it averages 9.9%, and substantially higher than in emerging economies (average 6.5% of GDP) (Chart 5). It is likely that these figures will increase over the next few years. Chart 4Healthcare Expenditure Dominates Late-Life Spending Chart 5Spending On Healthcare Will Rise   A strong case can be made for serious outbreaks of infectious diseases becoming more common, and therefore governments will have to increase their readiness. The number of countries experiencing a significant outbreak has almost doubled over the past decade, after being on a declining trend during the prior 15 years (Chart 6). The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks are becoming more frequent and causing more economic damage.1 The non-cyclical nature of healthcare demand makes the industry less vulnerable to economic downturns. In times of below-trend growth, investors rush into defensive-growth stocks. Over the past two recessions, the drawdown of healthcare equities was, respectively, 20% and 27% less than the broad market. Chart 6Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease Chart 7The Defensive Side Of Healthcare   However, the sector is not totally cyclically insensitive, given its capital intensity and reliance on debt. In the US, healthcare sector debt amounts to almost $500 billion (Chart 7). This also leaves it vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nevertheless, the current macro outlook should keep a lid on interest rates for some time. The healthcare industry has lagged in digitalization (Chart 8). This offers wide-ranging opportunities for the sector, particularly in healthtech, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Innovative solutions in robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and genomics will drive the industry in the years to come. Digitalization will accelerate productivity and improve profitability. Chart 8The Healthcare Sector Is Way Behind In Digitalization Lastly, valuations for healthcare equities in most countries remain attractive, close to their long-run averages. The only exceptions are the UK and Japan, which are two standard deviations above the historical mean relative to their respective markets (Chart 9). The Future Of Healthcare Every crisis provides insights into what went wrong, what needs to be changed, and what areas should be explored. The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. The pandemic has highlighted supply-chain fragilities, particularly a shortage of some healthcare equipment and drugs, the production of which is outsourced. In the US, for example, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), over 70% of facilities producing essential medicines for the US are located abroad (Chart 10). Chart 9Valuations Remain Reasonable Chart 10Supply Chain Fragilities   Some argue that reshoring healthcare production is essential. Joe Biden, favored to be the next US president, has highlighted this in his plan to rebuild US supply chains.2 This could, however, lead to higher healthcare costs. This would either require increased government spending to subsidize medical expenses, or lead to fewer people being able to afford adequate healthcare. This effect would be pronounced in economies where a large percentage of the population is uninsured, around 10% in the US, and much more so in some emerging economies where healthcare quality is poor. This might be less of a risk for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, where the largest cost of bringing a new drug to market is R&D and marketing, rather than manufacturing. In the first months of the outbreak, resources such as ventilators, hospital and ICU beds, and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) quickly became scarce. Inventories of such items and overall hospital capacity will need to increase. This will entail massive investments to boost the public healthcare infrastructure and increase the number of healthcare workers. Chart 11COVID-19 Unveiled Poor Health Standards... The pandemic also underlined weaknesses in social and health standards. The excessive number of deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes in some developed economies emphasizes the need for investment in this area. For example in Quebec, Canada, a staggering 80% of the province’s deaths occurred in nursing homes and senior residences (both public and private), illustrating the mismanagement and lack of funding (Chart 11). Most notably, care homes run for profit (approximately 70% of the total in the US) have seen almost four times as many COVID-19 infections as those not. The quality ratings of for-profit nursing homes, as measured by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), are much lower on average than those of non-profit or government-run facilities (Chart 12). This could imply the mass nationalization of nursing homes. However, this is unlikely. A better option would be to impose higher standards on privately run homes, reducing the sector to a smaller number of high-quality providers. Chart 12...In Most For-Profit Nursing Homes Chart 13The Evolution Of Genome Sequencing Is Illustrated In The Price More positively, there remains a large gap to be filled by a new era of technology-driven, integrated, and online healthcare. Investments in biotechnology – particularly related to genetic information – are also likely to increase, as DNA sequencing becomes cheaper (Chart 13). The way patients interact with physicians will also change. The American Medical Association (AMA) surveyed more than 1000 physicians on the use of digital tools in their practices. Reliance on digital tools for monitoring and clinical support has increased significantly over the past three years. The largest jump however was in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 14). Chart 14The Transition To A Digital-Driven Healthcare Model “Contact tracing” is a term that has been widely used during the coronavirus outbreak. The ability to track those infected and monitor their interactions to limit the spread of the virus is seen as a crucial step to mitigate further contagion. This would help not only to eradicate the virus, but might be developed into a long-lasting technology. Similar to how security screening equipment was developed after 9/11, there should be investment opportunities in the medical-screening segment. Breaking Down Healthcare Equities It is important to note that not all healthcare equities are equal: Different regions and industries have performed differently. In this report, we distinguish between the industry groups and subgroups, based on the GICS Level 2 and Level 3 classifications. We also look at the nine largest regions in the MSCI indexes to see if certain regions provide more favorable opportunities. Healthcare equities are broken down into two industry groups, which in turn break down into six industries: Healthcare equipment & services Healthcare equipment & supplies Healthcare providers & services Healthcare technology Pharmaceuticals, biotechnology & life sciences Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology Life sciences tools & services In Table 1, we drill down the constituent weights of the MSCI healthcare indexes. This allows us not only to analyze the size of the sector and its parts, but also to gain multiple insights. For example, a bet on Swiss healthcare stocks is essentially a bet on pharmaceuticals, given the greater-than-80% weighting of that industry. Exposure to the overall Danish equity index is by default a play on healthcare stocks, since they comprise almost 60% of the index. Table 1Global Healthcare Weights Chart 15Healthcare Has Outperformed Broad Indices Globally... As noted earlier, global healthcare stocks have outperformed the broad index by almost 50% over the past decade. This is true across all regions. However, several distinctions can be made. US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities have outperformed the global healthcare benchmark over the past decade, but their counterparts in the euro area, UK, and Japan have lagged (Chart 15). On a risk-adjusted basis, Danish healthcare equities have been the best performer with a Sharpe-ratio of 0.84 and an annualized return of 18% since 2000 (Table 2).   Table 2...However Not All Healthcare Stocks Are Alike Investment Opportunities Chart 16Within Healthcare Equities, Favor Biotechnology and Healthcare Technology... Viewing healthcare as a set of separate segments, rather than as a single industry, highlights pockets of opportunity.  A selective approach might be preferable for asset allocators in the coming years. As discussed in The Future Of Healthcare section, the sector is likely to shift to a model that relies more on technology, is data-driven, and harnesses the power of digitization, robotics, and AI. The patient will be at the center of the new healthcare model.  We divide our overview of investment opportunities into three categories: equities, corporate bonds, and private investments. Equities: Based on our view of the future of healthcare and the structure of the GICS equity classifications, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology, and would have only a benchmark allocation to pharmaceuticals. There are insights to be drawn from the fundamentals, historical performance, and valuation metrics. Historically, pharmaceutical equities stand out as the worst performers within the sector. Over the past decade, they have underperformed the global healthcare benchmark by 20%, whereas biotechnology and healthcare technology stocks have outperformed by 59% and 127%, respectively (Chart 16). The outperformance of biotechnology has predominantly been earnings-driven, whereas pharmaceuticals’ and healthcare technology stock prices appear to be detached from earnings (Chart 17). It is worth nothing that despite the fact that valuations for those industries appear expensive relative to the broad market, we remain positive on their outlook. As we drill deeper into Level 3 industries, the small number of constituents within the index makes relying on valuations challenging (Chart 18). Chart 17..Despite A Detachment From Earnings... Chart 18...And Elevated Valuations   Chart 19No Attractive Opportunities Within Healthcare Corporate Bonds Corporate Bonds: Within the corporate bond universe, we favor those that qualify for central banks’ purchase programs: Investment-grade bonds and the highest tranche of high-yield. BCA Research’s US fixed-income strategists have an overweight recommendation on US healthcare corporate bonds, though their recommendations are based on a six-to-12 month investment horizon rather than the longer perspective that we are taking in this report.3 Both healthcare and pharmaceuticals bonds, similar to their equity counterparts, trade defensively, outperforming the broad corporate index when spreads widen and underperforming as they tighten (Chart 19). This applies to both investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The credit risk measure favored by our US bond strategists is the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio. This measure confirms the sector’s defensive nature: A value below 1 implies credit risk lower than the market. However, the recent uptick in the DTS ratio of healthcare investment-grade bonds shows the sector has become riskier and as such may trade more cyclically in the short term. Nevertheless, the macro environment should remain favorable. Pricing power is still strong, with medical care services rising by almost 6.0%, and drug prices rising by 1.4% on a year-over-year basis, outpacing overall consumer prices (Chart 20). Neither segment within the investment-grade space offers an attractive spread advantage over the broad index. However, the risk outlook for healthcare remains better than that for pharmaceuticals, particularly related to political risk (as discussed later in the Risks section). Private Investments: Venture-capital investments in healthtech reached a quarterly record high of $8.2 billion in Q1 2020. The recent pandemic is likely only to push this trend higher. Moreover, large private-equity investments in recent years have been targeted at biopharma.4 According to Bain & Company, global biopharma private-equity deals where value was disclosed, reached $40.7 billion in 2019, up from $16.5 billion the prior year.5  The number of biotech firms going public is also trending up, despite slipping to 48 in 2019 from 58 in 2018 (Chart 21). To date (as of early June), 21 out of 43 US IPOs this year are healthcare-related. Chart 20Pricing Power Remains Favorable Chart 21More Biotech IPOs Are Coming To Market   Additionally, M&A activity has been increasing, particularly within the biotechnology segment, although the economic shutdown has slowed the deal flow recently. The number of M&A deals peaked in March 2020, when the average premium is 45% (Chart 22). The long-term rising trend is likely to persist. Over the next year, firms with drugs or vaccines related to COVID-19 would be clear targets for acquisitions and should outperform. Over the long term, we also expect to see some industry consolidation. Risks We see the following as the biggest risks to our overall positive outlook for healthcare investments: Quicker-Than-Expected Economic Growth Rebound: As we highlighted, the healthcare sector is defensive – outperforming the broad market during recessions and economic slowdowns. However, if growth rebounds more quickly, driven by further fiscal and monetary stimulus, the upside for healthcare performance could be challenged. Political Risk: Joe Biden might swing to the left in the run-up to the US presidential election to bring on board supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, we see that particular risk for healthcare as relatively small (Chart 23). Biden’s approach is to restore and expand Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), shifting some of the burden of healthcare spending from individuals to the government. Overall, this should be positive for healthcare spending, particularly for insurers and healthcare providers. However, pharmaceutical companies may face headwinds if the administration imposes price caps on drug prices. Chart 22Secondary Market Activity Is Also Strong Chart 23Political Risk Has Waned As Biden's Chances Of Election Have Increased Chart 24Reliance On Inorganic Growth Might Prove Unsustainable Lack Of Innovation: Over the past two decades, the healthcare sector has shifted to relying on inorganic growth, driven by takeovers, rather than on research and development. Capital expenditure as a percentage of sales by both pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms fell sharply in the 2000s and has stagnated around 2% and 4%, respectively since (Chart 24). Only A Few Make It: While more IPOs in the healthcare sector is a sign of improving innovation, it is worth noting that only a few newly listed companies are successful. Over the past decade, only 3% of the 349 biotech IPOs had positive earnings at the time of their IPO. This nevertheless is a consequence of the nature of the industry: Companies tend to list while they await a big breakthrough in product development or regulatory approval. Conclusion We continue to recommend investors hold an above-benchmark allocation to healthcare-related investments on a long-term basis. Aging populations, the need to improve the quality of global healthcare, a likely increase in government spending, the shift to digitalized healthcare, and demand which is non-cyclical all support this stance. Healthcare equities in general, and particularly biotechnology and healthcare technology, should perform well over the coming years. For investors with global mandates, allocations to US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities should outperform those in the euro area, Japan, and the UK. Corporate bonds do not offer any advantage over the broad corporate US bond index. Political risks for the US healthcare sector should be limited even if the Democrats win the White House. However, the risk is highest for pharmaceuticals, in the event where the government imposes price caps.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  "World Economic Forum, Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact, Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy," January 2019. 2  For more info please see Joe Biden https://joebiden.com/supplychains/ 3  Please see US Bond Strategy, "Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic," dated June 9, 2020.available at usbs.bcaresarch.com. 4  Biotech refers to manufactured products that rely on using living systems and organisms. The biopharma industry is backed by biotechnology, the science, which allows products to be manufactured biologically. 5  Bain & Company, Global Healthcare Private Equity and Corporate M&A Report 2020.

Highlights For financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This implies underweight European stocks versus US stocks, and overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. Play good news in Europe by remaining long EUR, CHF, and SEK versus USD, and long US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Short silver. Feature Chart Of The WeekDenmark's OMX Is At An All-Time High, While The FTSE 100 Is Languishing. Why? Once upon a time, the stock market existed as a barometer of the economy. Or at least, a good representation of the size and composition of profits in the host economy. But that time is long gone. Today, a tiny handful of companies are driving the performance of supposedly broad indexes such as the FTSE 100 and the S&P 500. Indeed, we should more accurately call the FTSE 100 the FTSE ‘10’ ignoring the other 90. And we should call the S&P 500 the S&P ‘5’ ignoring the other 495. Meaning that stock markets are no longer stock ‘markets’. Yet many analysts still try and explain the stock market’s performance through traditional top-down macro drivers such as GDP growth, profit margins across the host economy, and so on. The trouble is that when the stock market is dominated by a tiny handful of companies, this 20th century approach is doomed to fail. Today, we must take a more granular approach based on the type of companies that are dominating each stock market. Sector Concentration Is Driving Stock Markets The handful of companies that dominate each stock market tend to be the leaders in their global sector. This means that each stock market is defined by a sector concentration, which has often evolved by chance, based on where companies chose to start up and list. This sector concentration usually has little or no connection with the host economy. For example, Denmark’s OMX index is dominated by Novo Nordisk, a global biotech company. The FTSE 100 is heavily weighted to the oil majors Royal Dutch and BP as well as global bank HSBC, which have only a limited exposure to the UK economy. On the other side of the Atlantic, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are massively over-represented in the S&P 500 compared with their contribution to the US economy. A crucial defining feature of a stock market turns out to be its exposure to healthcare and technology – whose profits are in major structural uptrends – versus the exposure to financials and energy – whose profits are in major structural downtrends (Charts 2 - 5). Chart I-2Healthcare Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-3Technology Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-4Financial Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend Chart I-5Energy Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend The stock market capitalisation in healthcare and technology stands at 52 percent for Denmark and 40 percent for the US, compared with just 20 percent for Europe and 12 percent for the UK. The flip side is that the stock market capitalisation in financials and energy stands at just 8 percent for Denmark and 11 percent for the US, compared with 21 percent for Europe and 30 percent for the UK. This explains, for example, why Denmark’s OMX is hitting all-time highs while the FTSE 100 is languishing (Chart of the Week). That said, the price of the growing stream of healthcare and technology profits can still fall if it is at an unjustifiably high level. And the price of the shrinking stream of financial and energy profits can still rise if it is at an unjustifiably low level. Hence, the key question is: what determines the prices of these two groups of sectors, one whose profits are in a major uptrend, the other whose profits are in a major downtrend? Healthcare And Tech Performance Hinges On The Bond Yield The price of a rapidly growing profit stream is weighted to the values of the large distant cashflows, making it highly sensitive to the discount rate applied to those distant cashflows. Whereas the price of a rapidly shrinking profit stream is weighted to the values of the large immediate cashflows, making it much more sensitive to the near-term evolution of the economy (Box I-1). Box I-1Bond Yield Sensitivity Versus Economic Sensitivity The upshot is that for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major uptrend, the key driver of the price is the direction of the bond yield. Whereas for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major downtrend, the key driver is the near-term direction of the world economy (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Exposure To Healthcare And Technology Determines Bond Yield Sensitivity Chart I-7Exposure To Financials And Energy Determines Economic Sensitivity Pulling all of this together, the rally in healthcare and technology stocks is extremely vulnerable to a sustained rise in the bond yield. But a sustained rise in the bond yield seems highly unlikely without a breakthrough vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. While the coronavirus is still in play, the long-term hollowing out and scarring in the jobs market will only become apparent in the coming months once furlough schemes and temporary relief programs end. This will force all central banks to remain ultra-dovish and where possible, become more dovish. Meanwhile, for financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This translates to underweight Europe versus the US. And overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. How To Play Good News In Europe Things have been going right in Europe. First, unlike in the US, the COVID-19 outbreak is subsiding, at least for now. New infections have been steadily declining through the warm summer months (Chart I-8). Chart I-8New Infections Declining In Europe, Rising In The US Second, the ECB has injected ample liquidity into the banking system which, combined with ultra-low interest rates, has permitted a strong expansion in bank lending. Though somewhat disappointingly, the bank lending surveys tell us that the loans are being used for emergency working capital requirements rather than investment. Third, the EU has approved a €750 billion Recovery Fund, over half of which will take the form of grants to the sectors and regions most stricken by the coronavirus crisis. Given that the fund will be financed by jointly issued EU bonds, this amounts to a fiscal transfer to the areas that need the most help. Hence, even if the amount of the stimulus may be smaller than in other parts of the word, it comprises a huge symbolic step towards greater unity in the EU and euro area. Still, despite this trifecta of good news, European stock markets have not outperformed (Chart I-9). This just emphasises that stock market relative performance has little connection with domestic economics and politics. To reiterate, stock market relative performance is almost always the result of the sector concentration of a handful of dominant stocks. Chart I-9Despite Good News In Europe, European Equities Are Not Outperforming Begging the question: how to play the continuation of good news in Europe? The answer is through the currency and fixed income markets, which have a much stronger connection with domestic economics and politics (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10Play Good News In Europe Via European Currencies... Chart I-11...And Sovereign Yield Spread Tightening Remain long a basket of EUR, CHF, and SEK versus the USD. Our favourite cross out of these three is long CHF/USD given the haven character of the CHF in periods of market stress. To play bond yield convergence between the US and Europe and between core and periphery Europe, remain long US 30-year T-bonds and Spanish 30-year Bonos versus German 30-year bunds and French 30-year OATs.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System* The spectacular rally in silver is fractally fragile, and at a point which has signalled several trend reversals through the past five years. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short silver, with the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 12.5 percent. In other trades, long GBP/RUB achieved its profit target. Against this, short Germany versus UK and long bitcoin cash versus ethereum reached their stop-losses. Long nickel versus copper reached the end of its holding period in partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 59 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields     Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Special Report

Dear Client, Next Monday, July 20, we will be hosting our quarterly webcast, one at 10am EST for our US and EMEA clients and one at 9pm for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our regular weekly publication will resume on Monday July 27, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. A Biden presidency would lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. Democrats would remove the Senate filibuster. Yet the macro agenda is reflationary. A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps. While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Feature Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our “Blue Wave” scenario for the US election this year. The odds are closer to 50%-55% than 35%. Hence the equity market, especially the NASDAQ, is complacent about rising political risks to US equity sectors (Chart 1). The immediate risk to the rally is not politics but the pandemic, namely the COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, which is causing governors of major states like Texas, California, and Florida to slow down the economic reopening. The US’s failure to limit the spread of the virus has not yet led to a spike in deaths in aggregate, but it is leading to a spike in major states like Texas and Florida (Chart 2). Deaths are ultimately what matter to politicians and financial markets, since governments will not shut down all of society for less-than-lethal ailments. Fear will weigh on consumer and business confidence, including fear of a deadly second wave this winter. Near-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. Chart 1Blue Wave Expected, Equities Unconcerned Chart 2COVID-19 Outbreak Still A Risk Beyond this risk, the driver of the cyclical rally is the gargantuan monetary and fiscal stimulus – and more is on the way. President Trump wants another $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, while House Democrats already passed a $3 trillion package to demonstrate their election platform that government should take a greater role in American life. Senate Republicans (and reportedly Vice President Mike Pence) want a smaller $1 trillion bill but will capitulate in the face of a growing outbreak and any financial turmoil. Congress is highly likely to pass a new relief bill before going on recess on August 10. If COVID-19 causes another swoon in financial markets and the economy, then this congressional timeline will accelerate. America’s total fiscal stimulus for 2020 is rapidly approaching 20% of GDP, or 7% of global GDP (Chart 3). Thus it is understandable that the market has not reacted negatively to an impending blue wave election. Bipartisan reflation is overwhelming the Democratic Party’s market-negative agenda of re-regulation, tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, energy curbs, price caps, and anti-trust probes. Moreover the Democrats’ agenda also includes social and infrastructure spending, cheap immigrant labor, and less hawkish trade policy ex-China, which are all reflationary. Chart 3US Stimulus Greater Than Global – And Rising In short, over the next year, the US is not lurching from massive stimulus to a mid-term election that imposes budget controls and “austerity,” as occurred in 2010, but rather from massive stimulus to a likely Democratic sweep that will be fiscally profligate (Charts 4A & 4B). After all, Democrats are openly flirting with modern monetary theory. Chart 4ADeficits Would Soar Under Democrats Chart 4BDemocrats Would Be Ultra-Dovish On Fiscal Debt monetization is the big change, regardless of the election, which makes investors cyclically bullish. China is also bound to provide massive fiscal-and-credit stimulus because its first recession since the 1970s is threatening the Communist Party’s source of legitimacy (Chart 5). The European Union is uniting under a banner of joint debt issuance to fend off deflation. Bottom Line: Near-term risks to the exuberant post-lockdown rally abound, but the cyclical view remains constructive due to the ultimate policymaker stimulus put. Chart 5China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps Pre-Election Volatility And Post-Election Equity Returns Volatility normally rises ahead of US elections and it could linger in the aftermath given extreme polarization and the risk of vote recounts, contested results, Supreme Court interventions, and refusals by either candidate to concede. This is a concern in the short run but not the long run. US equities will grind higher over the long run regardless of the election outcome. Stocks normally rise by 10% in the 12 months after a presidential election that yields single-party control, though the upside is smaller and the initial downside is bigger than is the case with a gridlocked government (Chart 6, top panel). In cases of gridlock – which is virtually assured if Trump wins – the equity pullback after the election is just as deep but tends to be later in coming. On average stocks rise by the same amount after 12 months in either case (Chart 6, bottom panel). Thus political risks are primarily relevant in their regional or sectoral effects, though investors should take note that a Democratic sweep probably limits next year’s upside. Chart 6Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep There are two likely scenarios. The first is the risk that President Trump makes a historic comeback and wins re-election, with Republicans retaining the Senate. Subjectively we put Trump’s odds at 35% though our quantitative model suggests they could be as high as 44%. The second scenario is our base case that the Democratic Party wins the Senate as well as the White House. In this scenario, the Democrats will prove more left-wing and anti-corporate than the market currently expects. Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. However, history shows that a clean sweep limits the market’s upside risk. And full Democratic rule entails major political risks that have a regional and sectoral character. Biden And The Blue Wave Our expectation of a blue sweep is not based only in polling – which is uniformly disastrous for Trump as we go to press – but in the surge in unemployment. The basis for investors to view Biden as a risk-on candidate is driven by the macro and market views outlined above, not political fundamentals. From the political point of view, Biden may prefer to govern as a centrist, but victory in the Senate would remove constraints on his party’s domestic agenda. He would move to the left. Indeed, a Democratic sweep would mark a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy that is negative for corporate profits and the capital share of national income. It would unleash pent-up ideological and generational forces in favor of redistributing wealth and restructuring the economy. Progressivism would have the tendency to overshoot and create negative surprises for investors (Chart 7). Unlike 2008-10, when Republicans were last out of power, Republicans this time would be divided over Trump and populism and would be unlikely to recuperate as quickly. Chart 7Democratic Party Would Focus On Inequality Biden would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration, promoting Big Government while restricting Big Business and re-regulating Wall Street banks. A sharp leftward turn would be in keeping with the trend in the Democratic Party and the generational shift in the electorate (Chart 8). Only if Republicans pull off a surprise and keep the Senate despite losing the White House (~10% chance) would Biden be forced to govern as a true centrist. Even then Biden would oversee a large re-regulation of the economy through executive powers alone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Generational Shift Favors Wealth Redistribution Chart 9Biden Would Re-Regulate The Economy Additional reasons to expect a left-wing policy overshoot:  · Presidents tend to succeed in passing their initial legislative priority after an election. This is incontrovertible when they control both chambers of Congress, as Obama showed in 2009 and Trump showed in 2017.2 · Biden will have huge tailwinds. He will not be launching a new agenda so much as restoring a policy status quo in most cases (laws and agreements that Trump either revoked or refused to enforce). He will also benefit from majority popular opinion and support of the bureaucracy and media (Chart 10). · Biden and the Democrats will be even more determined not to “let a good crisis go to waste” after having witnessed the Obama administration’s frustrations the last time the party took over in a sweeping victory on the back of a national disaster. · Democrats will not hesitate to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their first priority legislation with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. This is how Trump passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). This is also how progressive stalwart Howard Dean believed the party should have passed a public health insurance option in 2009. This means Biden will be capable of increasing the corporate tax rate higher than 28%, pass a minimum 15% tax rate for corporations, and raise the capital gains tax and individual taxes. Chart 10Popular Opinion Would Boost Biden Administration · Contrary to consensus, Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster in the Senate – enabling bills to pass with a simple majority rather than the 60/100 votes required to close off debate. Yes, some moderate Democrats have already spoken out against “going nuclear” and changing such a critical norm. But populism and polarization are the driving forces in US politics today and we would advise investors not to bet heavily on “norms.” If Republicans prove capable of obstructing major legislative initiatives in the Senate, then Democrats, remembering obstructionism in the Obama years, will go nuclear to enact their progressive agenda. This would mark a massive increase in uncertainty for investors on everything from taxes to wages to anti-trust laws. Bottom Line: Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. If Republicans are obstructionist, Democrats will remove the filibuster. Biden’s Legislative Priorities First, Biden would seek to restore and expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The party has fixated on health care since 1992. Investors are complacent about Biden’s plan. A public health insurance option will be a major new progressive initiative that would undercut private health insurers over time (Chart 11). The bill will also impose caps on pharmaceutical prices and allow imports, reducing Big Pharma’s pricing power (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Insurers Will Be Undercut By Biden Public Option Investors are also complacent about taxation. Biden will pay for health care reform by partially repealing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. He has proposed raising the corporate rate from 21% to 28%, but this could go higher and still fall well below the 35% that Trump inherited in 2017. Chart 12Big Pharma Faces Price Caps A rate above 28% would be a major negative surprise for financial markets and yet it is an obvious way for Democrats to raise much-needed revenue. Biden also intends to pass a 15% minimum tax that would hit large firms adept at paying lower effective taxes. Capital gains taxes and individual income taxes for high-earners could also rise by more than is expected (Table A1 in Appendix). Second, Biden will seek to offset the negative growth impact of falling stimulus and rising taxes by enacting large “Great Society” fiscal spending on infrastructure, the Green New Deal, education, and other non-defense discretionary spending (Table A2 in Appendix). Even defense spending will be largely kept flat due to rising geopolitical conflicts. As mentioned, this part of the agenda is reflationary, especially relative to a scenario in which fiscal largesse is normalized more rapidly by a Republican Senate. The redistribution effects would be marginally positive for household consumption, but marginally negative for corporate investment. On immigration, Biden will follow the Obama administration in pursuing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” (illegal immigrants brought to the US as children) and taking executive action to allow more high-skilled workers and refugees, defer deportation of children and families, and reduce border security enforcement. There will be some constraints due to the risk of provoking another populist backlash, but comprehensive immigration reform is possible. This would be positive for potential GDP, agriculture, construction, and housing demand on the margin (Chart 13). On trade, Biden will have to steal some thunder back from Trump if he is to win the election and maintain the Rust Belt. He will concentrate his protectionist policy on China, while removing virtually all risk of a trade war with Europe, Mexico, or other partners. China may get a reprieve at first but Biden will ultimately prove hawkish (Chart 14). Investors are underrating the use of import duties to punish countries like China for carbon-intensive production. Chart 13Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden will take a multilateral approach and restore international agreements that Trump revoked. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not a massive change given that even Trump agreed to trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and Japan. But it is marginally positive for the US-friendly trade bloc while contributing to the US economic decoupling from China (Chart 15). Chart 14Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Chart 15Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China On foreign policy, Biden will face the ongoing US-China cold war. He will also seek to restore the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The removal of Iran risk is positive for European companies with a beachhead in Iran as well as for the euro more generally, since regional instability ultimately threatens the EMU with waves of refugees (Chart 16). Chart 16Biden Removes Tail-Risk Of Iran War Bottom Line: A Biden presidency will lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. But Biden’s agenda is mostly reflationary in other respects. Blue Wave Equity Market And Sector Implications The most profound implication of a blue sweep of government is an SPX profit margin squeeze that will weigh heavily on EPS. Importantly, there are two clear avenues through which net profit margins will suffer: An increase in the corporate tax rate. A rise in labor’s share of national income. As a reminder these are two of the four primary profit margin drivers we discussed in detail in our “Peak Margins” Special Report last October (Chart 17). The other two are selling price inflation and generationally low interest rates. Odds are high that all four drivers are slated to dent S&P 500 margins. With regard to corporate tax rates, the mirror image of the one time fillip that SPX EPS enjoyed in 2018, owing to Trump’s 1.2% increase in fiscal thrust that year, is a drop in S&P 500 profits given that a Biden presidency will boost the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% or higher. In early-December 2017 we posited that SPX EPS would jump 14% on the back of that fiscal easing package, which is very close to what actually materialized. Chart 18 compares S&P 500 EBIT growth with S&P 500 net profit growth. The 2018 delta hit a zenith of 16%. Chart 17Profit Margin Drivers Chart 18Spot Trump's Tax Cut Assuming a blue wave, the opposite would happen, i.e. net profit growth would suffer an 11% one-time contraction according to our calculations (Table 1). The bill would pass in 2021 and take effect in 2022. Importantly, Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table The second way SPX margins undergo a squeeze is via climbing labor costs. Labor costs have been increasing since 2008/09 (labor’s share of income shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17), coinciding with the apex of globalization (third panel, Chart 17). A Biden presidency would also more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers over six years. These policies would take a bite out of corporate profits by knocking down profit margins. While S&P 500 EPS maybe recover back to trend near $162 in 2021, they would gap lower in 2022 which is not at all priced in sell side analysts’ EPS expectations of $186. A blue sweep would produce some other US equity sore spots. Small caps would suffer disproportionately compared with their large cap brethren as would banks, health care, and parts of tech (see below). Chart 19 shows that according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners grew extremely concerned about higher taxes and red tape by the end of the Obama presidency. When President Trump got elected, he cut back these fears drastically. Today concerns about taxes and regulation are probing multi-decade lows, which implies that SMEs are not prepared for the regulatory shock that a Biden administration has in store for them (Chart 19). These small business concerns will resurface with a vengeance if there is a blue sweep this November. The implication is that at the margin small caps would underperform their large cap peers, especially given that small cap indexes sport 1.5x the financials sector market cap weight compared with the SPX (Table 2). Bottom Line: A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps as they will have to vehemently contend with rising red tape and taxes. Chart 19Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Historical Parallel Of Blue Sweeps And Select Sector Performance A more detailed discussion on banks, health care, and technology sectors is in order, as they are the likeliest candidates to be at the forefront of Biden’s regulatory, wage, and tax policies. There are two recent episodes when US presidential elections resulted in a blue sweep, namely in 1992 and 2008. Both times, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House but eventually surrendered this trifecta two years later during the 1994 and 2010 mid-term elections.3 Charts 20 & 21highlight the S&P banks, S&P health care, and S&P IT sectors’ performance during the last two blue waves. In both cases, banks remained flat to down; health care equities went down sharply; while tech stocks had mixed results. Tech took off in 1993-1994, but remained flat in 2009-2010 (excluding the recovery rally off the recessionary trough). Armed with this general roadmap, we now dive deeper into each of these three sectors for a more detailed discussion. Chart 20Not Everyone Is A Fan... Chart 21...Of The Blue Sweeps Banks Face High Risk Of Re-Regulation There is little doubt that Biden will re-regulate Wall Street, especially after the recent COVID-19-related watering down of the Dodd-Frank Act. Big banks are popular scapegoats. In fact, Biden already moved to the left on bankruptcy reform by adopting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s progressive proposal after a long drawn-out battle over this issue between them. Both of the earlier blue wave elections proved challenging for the banking sector. In addition, banks are already under pressure from the recent Fed stress tests. There are high odds that a number of banks will further cut or suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance, especially if profits take a big hit, as we expect. Currently, the market is underestimating the Biden threat to the banking sector as a substantial divergence has materialized between the banks’ relative performance and the blue sweep probability series (Chart 22). As the election draws closer, a repricing in the banking sector is likely looming. Chart 22Mind The Divergence Health Care Stands To Lose The Most From A Blue Sweep The health care sector was the only sector we analyzed that clearly underperformed in both 1992 and 2008 blue waves. Health care reform will be Biden’s top priority, as outlined above. Biden will also go after pharma manufacturers. As a reminder, while Medicare has substantial bargaining power with hospitals and other drug providers due to the number of Americans enrolled, it has no leverage when it comes to pharma manufacturers leaving them free to set prices at will. Biden intends to end such practices, enabling Medicare to bargain for prices. He also wants to link the rise in drug prices to inflation and allow foreign imports. These actions will put a cap on pharma manufacturers’ pricing power. Importantly, the S&P pharmaceuticals index is the dominant player within the S&P health care universe comprising 29% of the entire health care sector. A direct hit to pharma earnings will be a hard pill to swallow, especially if the S&P biotech index (comprising 17% of the S&P health care market cap weight) is included that are similar to Big Pharma as they manufacture blockbuster drugs. In fact, as the American electorate is getting more interested in Biden’s campaign, the market is pricing in a tougher environment for US pharmaceuticals (Chart 23). Markets can rely on the fact that Biden has rejected a single-payer government health system (“Medicare For All”) – this policy position helped him beat Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. However, he is proposing a public insurance option, which will have the ability to absorb losses indefinitely and will have the insurance regulators at its side. Thus private health insurers will be undercut. Chart 23Beginning Of The End A public option is also seen even by promoters as a “Trojan Horse” that will increase the odds that Democrats will move toward a single-payer system in 2024 or thereafter. Thus the risk/reward ratio skews further to the downside for the S&P health care sector. Will Technology Escape Unscathed? In the wake of COVID-19, and facing geopolitical competition in cyber space, a Biden administration will also seek a much stronger regulatory handle on Big Tech. Social media companies are already buttering up to the Democrats to ensure that Biden maintains the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley and does not pursue extensive anti-monopoly and anti-trust investigations. Yet the tech sector cannot avoid heightened scrutiny due to its conspicuous gains in the midst of an economic bust – this is what normally prompts anti-trust actions (Chart 24). The Democrats will pursue probes into data privacy and excessive market concentration and will demand stricter patrolling of the ideological space in battles that will be adjudicated by the courts. Chart 24How Much Is Too Much? Should the monopolistic tech stocks – including FB and GOOGL, which are now classified under the GICS1 S&P communication services index – be forced to sell their crown jewel assets, then a hit to earnings is a given. The S&P technology sector plus FB & GOOGL commands more than one third on the SPX index, meaning that a dent in tech earnings will have negative ramifications for the entire market. In previous research, we drew a parallel with the chemicals industry and the regulatory shock that came in 1976 when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was introduced.The bill pushed chemical stocks off the cliff as investments in the index became dead money for a whole decade – until 1985 when chemicals finally troughed (Chart 25) In the near future, a similar shock might come as a result of privacy-related regulation. A series of anti-monopoly or anti-trust probes, whether by the US or the EU, would make investors cautious about their tech exposure. While the probes may not result in a break-up, the heightened uncertainty would dampen the allure of tech stocks. The pattern of anti-trust probes in US history is that a probe first causes a selloff in the stock of the company investigated; then another selloff occurs when it is clear that a break-up is a real option under consideration; then a buying opportunity emerges either when the company is cleared or when the long dissolution process is completed. Bottom Line: While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Chart 25Will History Rhyme?     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten YearsTable A2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years   Footnotes 1     Republicans have 13 Senate seats at risk this cycle while Democrats have only four. More conservatively, Republicans have nine at risk while Democrats have two. Opinion polling has Democrats leading in seven out of nine top races, and tied in the other two – including states like Kansas where Democrats should have zero chance. Most of these races are tight enough that they will hinge on whether the election is a referendum on Trump. If so, Democrats will likely win the net three seats they need to control the chamber. Most likely they will have a 51-49 majority if Biden wins, though a 52-48 balance is possible.   2     The Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017 but success in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reflects the fact that political constraints are higher on taking away an entitlement than they are on giving benefits (tax cuts). 3    As noted above, however, investors today cannot be assured that Republicans will come roaring back in 2022 to impose constraints. Trump’s populism threatens to divide the party if he loses and delay its ability to regroup and recover.  

Highlights The economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did have a lockdown. This proves that the current recession is not ‘man-made’, it is ‘pandemic-made’. While the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios: favouring US T-bonds in bond portfolios, and technology and healthcare in equity portfolios. The technology sector has become defensive, largely because it has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Fractal trade: short AUD/CHF. Feature Chart I-IASweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Chart I-1B...But Led To Many More ##br##Infections Sweden and Denmark are neighbours. They speak near-identical languages and share a broadly similar culture and demographic. Yet the two countries have followed completely different strategies to halt the coronavirus pandemic. Sweden chose not to impose a lockdown. Instead, it opted for a ‘trust based’ approach, relying on its citizens to act sensibly and appropriately. Whereas Denmark imposed one of Europe’s earliest and most draconian lockdowns. The contrasting approaches of Sweden and neighbouring Denmark provide us with the closest thing to a controlled experiment on pandemic strategies. The Recession Is Not ‘Man-Made’, It Is ‘Pandemic-Made’ The surprising thing is that the economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did. This year, the unemployment rates in both economies have surged by 2 percentage points (albeit the latest data is for May in Sweden and April in Denmark). Furthermore, high-frequency measures of consumption show that Sweden suffered almost as severe a contraction as Denmark (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Chart I-2Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark This surprising result challenges the popular view that this global recession is man-made. This view argues that without the government-imposed lockdowns, the global economy would not have entered a tailspin. But if this view is right, then why did consumption crash in Sweden? The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behaviour to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behaviour is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark. People will shun public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, and even think twice about letting their children go to school. In a pandemic, the majority of people will change their behaviour even without a lockdown. But if the cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why impose a lockdown? The answer is that without a lockdown, the majority will behave sensibly to avoid catching the virus, but a minority will take a ‘devil may care’ attitude. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all coronavirus infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. All of which brings us back to Sweden versus Denmark.  As a result of not imposing a mandatory lockdown to rein in its super-spreaders, Sweden now has one of the world’s worst coronavirus infection and mortality rates, four times higher than Denmark (Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark Chart I-4Avoiding A Lockdown Meant More Infections… Chart I-5…And More ##br##Deaths Put simply, containing the pandemic depends on reining in a minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark. In contrast, the economy depends on the behaviour of the majority. In a pandemic the majority will voluntarily exercise caution. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in consumption. Looking ahead, will the widespread adoption of face masks and plexiglass screens change the public’s cautious behaviour? To a certain extent, yes – it will permit essential activities and let people take calculated risks. That said, if you are forced to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops, and you have to spread out in restaurants while being served by a masked waiter, then – rightly or wrongly – you are getting a strong signal: the danger is still out there. Meaning that many people will continue to shun discretionary activities and spending. The upshot is that while the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Explaining Why Technology Is Now Defensive A defensive bias to your portfolio now requires an exposure to technology – because in 2020 the tech sector is behaving like a classic defensive. Its relative performance is correlating positively with the bond price, like other classic defensive sectors such as healthcare (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... Chart I-7...Like Healthcare The behaviour of the technology sector in the current recession contrasts with its performance in the global financial crisis of 2008. Back then, it behaved like a classic cyclical – its relative performance correlated negatively with the bond price (Chart I-8). Begging the question: why has the tech sector’s behaviour flipped from cyclical to defensive? Chart I-8In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical The main reason is that the tech sector’s composition has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. In 2008, the sector market cap had a 65:35 tilt to technology hardware. But today, it is the mirror-image: a 65:35 tilt to computer and software services (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Computer and software services have many defensive characteristics suited to the current environment: For many companies, enterprise software is now business critical. It is a must-have rather than a like-to-have. Computer and software services use a subscription-based revenue model, minimising the dependency on discretionary spending. Computer and software services are helping firms to cut costs through automation and back-office efficiencies as well as facilitating the boom in ‘working from home’. The sector is cash rich. Despite these defensive characteristics, there remains a lingering worry: is the tech sector overvalued? The Rally In Growth Defensives Is Not A Mania  Some people fear that the recent run-up in stock markets does not make sense, other than as a ‘Robin Hood’ day-trader fuelled mania. After all, the pandemic is still very much in play, and so are other geopolitical risks, so how can some stock prices be near all-time highs? Yet the recent run-up in growth defensives such as tech and healthcare does make sense. Their valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield, implying that the rally is based on fundamentals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Simply put, if the 10-year T-bond is going to deliver a pitiful 0.7 percent a year over the next decade, then the prospective return from growth defensives must also compress. It would be absurd to expect these stocks to be priced for high single digit returns. Since late 2018, the decline in growth defensives’ forward earnings yield has broadly tracked the 250bps decline in the 10-year T-bond yield. Given that the forward earnings yield correlates well with the 10-year prospective return, the depressed bond yield is depressing the prospective return from growth defensives – as it should. Tech and healthcare valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield. But with the pandemic and geopolitical risks menacing in the background, shouldn’t the gap between the prospective return on stocks and bonds – the equity risk premium – be larger? This is open to debate. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the appeal of owning bonds also diminishes because bond prices have limited upside. Nevertheless, the gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield has gone up this year and is much larger than in 2018 (Chart I-11). This suggests that valuations are taking some account of the pandemic and other risks. Moreover, in a longer-term perspective the current gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield, at +4 percent, hardly indicates a mania. In the true mania of 2000, the gap stood at -4 percent! (Chart I-12) Chart I-11The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 Chart I-12Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania In summary, until the pandemic is conquered, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Bond investors should overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Equity investors should overweight the growth defensives, technology and healthcare, which implies overweighting the technology-heavy US versus Europe. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Stay overweight healthcare-heavy Switzerland, and bank-light France and Germany (albeit expect a technical 5 percent underperformance of Germany versus the UK in the coming weeks). And stay underweight bank-heavy Austria. Fractal Trading System* The AUD is technically overbought and vulnerable to a tactical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/CHF, with a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 4.2 percent. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-13AUD/CHF 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  

Special Report

The Fed’s efforts to jawbone the US dollar are paying off as investors have been shedding their greenback exposure over the past several weeks. In recent research,1 we have also been highlighting that although Powell would never admit it, the Fed is trying to devalue the greenback and reflate the global economy. The knock-on effect of a depreciating USD is to rekindle S&P sales. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices,2 the SPX derives approximately 43% of its sales from abroad making the US dollar among the key macro profitability drivers (Chart 1, middle panel, US dollar shown advanced and inverted). One of the mechanisms to undermine the greenback is to flood the market with dollars. Ample US dollar based liquidity has historically served as a catalyst to reignite global growth and consequently S&P earnings (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 1US Dollar - The Key Driver Chart 2Bearish Across All Timeframes The Dollar: A Bearish Case The fate of the US dollar is yet to be sealed, but piling evidence suggests that the path of least resistance will be lower. Looking at structural (five years+) dynamics, swelling twin deficits emit a bearish USD signal. In more detail, prior to COVID-19 outbreak, the US twin deficits were estimated to gradually rise towards the 7.5% mark (Chart 2, top panel, dotted red line), but now the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates3 that the US fiscal deficit alone will be approximately 11% of nominal GDP for 2020. In other words, the recent pandemic has exacerbated already structurally bearish dynamics for the US dollar. Switching gears from a structural to a medium term horizon (2-3 years), BCA’s four-factor macro model, is sending an unambiguous bearish message regarding the greenback’s fate (Chart 2, middle panel). Finally, on a short-term time horizon, the USD is lagging the money multiplier by approximately 3 months. The COVID-19 induced recession and resulting money printing will likely exert extreme downward pressure on the US dollar (Chart 2, bottom panel). Summarizing, when looking across three different time horizons, the evidence is pointing toward a weakening US dollar for the foreseeable future. SPX Sectors And US Dollar Correlations With a rising probability of a US dollar bear market on the horizon, it pays to look back in time and examine which S&P GICS1 sectors benefited from a depreciating US dollar. The purpose of this Special Report is to shed light on the empirical evidence of SPX sectors and USD correlations and serve as a roadmap of sector winners and losers during USD bear markets. Table 1 provides foreign sales exposure for each of the sectors. All else equal, a falling greenback should be synonymous with technology, materials, and energy sectors outperforming as they are the most internationally exposed sectors. In contrast, should the USD change its course and head north, financials, telecom, REITs, and utilities will be the key beneficiaries. Why? Because most of these industries are landlocked in the US and thus in a relative sense should benefit when the US dollar roars. Table 1S&P 500 GICS1 Foreign Sales As A Percent Of Total Sales* To confirm the above hypothesis, we have identified three previous US dollar bear markets (Chart 3) and computed GICS1-level sector relative returns (Table 2). Chart 3US Dollar Bear Markets Table 2S&P 500 Gics1 Returns* During US Dollar Bear Markets Looking at median return profile reveals that our hypothesis held as all three: technology, materials, and energy decisively outperformed the market when the US dollar headed south. Similarly, domestically focused and predominately defensive industries such as utilities and telecoms underperformed the market with the consumer staples sector being a notable outlier – something that we address in the consumer staples section of the report. What follows next is a detailed discussion on each of the GICS1 sectors historical relationship with the US dollar, ranked in order of foreign sales exposure from highest to lowest. For completion purposes, we also provided S&P 500 GICS1 relative sector performance against the US dollar charts since 1970 in the Appendix.     Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Technology (Neutral)  Technology sits atop the foreign sales exposure table garnering 58% of revenues from abroad, which is a full 15% percentage points higher than S&P 500 (Table 1). In two out of the three periods of USD bear markets that we examined, tech stocks bested the broad market and the median outperformance sat over 9%. Nevertheless, the correlation between the US dollar and relative share prices is muted over a longer-term horizon (see Appendix Chart A1 below). Likely, one reason for the inconclusive long-term correlation between tech and the greenback is that the majority of tech gadgets are manufactured overseas (Chart 4, third panel). Therefore, an appreciating currency boosts margins via deflating input costs. Tack on the resilient nature of demand for tech hardware goods and especially software and services which preserves high selling prices and offsets and negative P&L losses from a rising greenback. We are currently neutral the S&P technology sector and employ a barbell portfolio approach preferring software and services and avoiding hardware and equipment. Chart 4Technology Materials (Neutral) The materials sector behaves similarly to its brother the energy sector as both move in the opposite direction of the greenback (Chart 5, top panel). Consequently, materials stocks have outperformed the market during periods of US dollar weakness that we analyzed. The third panel of Chart 5 shows that our materials exports proxy is the flip image of the greenback. This tight inverse relationship is exacerbated by the negative impact of a firming dollar on underlying metals commodity prices (Chart 5, second panel). As a result, materials profit margins widen when the dollar falls and narrow when it rises. Ultimately, S&P materials earnings reflect this USD-commodity dynamic (Chart 5, bottom panel) We are currently neutral the S&P materials index. Chart 5Materials Energy (Overweight) The energy sector enjoys a tight inverse correlation with the US dollar (Chart 6, top panel) as it is the third most globally exposed sector as shown in Table 1 with 51% of sales coming from abroad. As nearly all of the global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, a weakening USD underpins the price of crude oil (Chart 6, second panel). In turn, US energy sector exports rise reflecting the fall in the greenback (Chart 6, third panel). Finally, the S&P energy companies enjoy a boost to their income statements (Chart 6, bottom panel), which explains the sizable median sector outperformance of 43% during dollar bear markets as highlighted in Table 2. We are currently overweight the S&P energy sector and have recently capitalized on 40%+ combined gains in the long XOP/short GDX pair trades.4 Chart 6Energy Industrials (Overweight) US industrials stocks’ foreign sales exposure is on a par with the S&P 500, which explains why the sector only barely outperformed the broad market during periods of dollar weakness. Still, the correlation between this manufacturing-heavy sector and the greenback is negative (Chart 7, top & second panels). Similar to its deep cyclical brethren (materials and energy), the link comes via the commodity channel. A softening dollar boosts global growth, which in turn supports higher commodity prices. Not only do US capital goods producers benefit from overall rising demand (i.e. infrastructure spending), but also via market share gains in global markets as the falling greenback results in a comparative input cost advantage (Chart 7, third panel). Finally, P&L translation gain effects act as another fillip to industrials stocks profits when dollar heads south. We are currently overweight the S&P industrials index. Chart 7Industrials Health Care (Overweight) The defensive health care sector is positively correlated with the dollar as its foreign sales revenues are below the ones of the SPX (Chart 8, top panel). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the relationship between the sector’s exports and the USD has been mostly positive, which is counterintuitive (Chart 8, middle panel). Keep in mind that pharma and biotech represent roughly half the index and derive 75%+ of their profits domestically as they dictate pricing terms to the US government (it is written into law). This is not the case in Europe where the NHS and the German government for example, have a big say on what pharmaceuticals can charge for their drugs. The bottom panel of Chart 8 summarizes the domestic nature of the health care sector, highlighting the tight positive relationship between the sector’s earnings and the greenback. We are currently modestly overweight the S&P health care sector. Chart 8Health Care Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) While the impact of the US dollar on the consumer discretionary sector varied over time switching from a positive to a negative and vice versa, today the sector enjoys a positive correlation with the currency (Chart 9, top panel). The 33% foreign sales exposure may appear as a significant proportion, but it is still a full 10% percentage points below the SPX (Table 1). The implication is that even though the exports benefit from a falling dollar (Chart 9, middle panel), this bump is not enough to drive sector outperformance. Likely, the key reason why consumer discretionary stocks currently enjoy a positive correlation with the dollar is the US large trade deficit. In other words, the US imports the lion’s share of its consumer goods. As the dollar grinds higher, the cost of imports decreases for the US consumer, which provides a boost to companies’ earnings (Chart 9, bottom panel). Tack on the heavy weight AMZN has in the sector (comprising 40% of consumer discretionary sector market cap) and the positive correlation with the currency is explained away. We are currently overweight the S&P consumer discretionary index. Chart 9Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples (Neutral) While a softening US dollar generally favors cyclical industries as it reignites global trade, the defensive S&P consumer staples sector outperformed the overall market on a median basis during USD bear markets (Table 2). Granted, the results are likely skewed as staples stocks rallied more than 300% in the last two decades of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is a key differentiating factor at play that helped the consumer staples sector trounce other defensive industries during US dollar bear markets. Staples stocks derive 33% (Table 1) of their sales from abroad, whereas other traditional defensive industries (utilities, telecom services) have virtually no export exposure. In other words, given that staples companies are mostly manufacturers, a depreciating currency acts as a tonic to sales via the export relief valve (Chart 10, bottom panel). We are currently neutral the S&P consumer staples sector. Chart 10Consumer Staples Financials (Overweight) Financials sit at the bottom half of our Table 1 in terms of their foreign sales exposure, which underpins the sector’s positive correlation with the greenback (Chart 11, top panel), and explains why the sector underperforms the market during dollar bear markets. One of the transmission channels between this sector’s performance and the currency is via increased credit demand. Currency appreciation suppresses inflation and supports purchasing power, and thus loan demand, in addition to keeping bond yields low (Chart 11, middle panel). The process reverses as the US dollar stars to depreciate. We are currently overweight the S&P financials index. Chart 11Financials Utilities (Underweight) Utilities underperformed in all three dollar bear markets we analyzed. As we highlighted in the energy section of the report, a softening dollar is synonymous with higher crude oil prices, which in turn raise inflation expectations. The ensuing selloff in the 10-year Treasury, compels investors to shed this bond proxy equity sector (Chart 12, middle panel). With virtually no exports, utilities also miss on the positive currency translation effects that other GICS1 sectors enjoy. In fact, utilities underperformed by the widest margin on a median basis across all GICS1 sectors (Table 2). This defensive sector typically attracts safe haven flows when the dollar spikes and investors run for cover. This positive correlation with the dollar is clearly reflected in industry earnings, which rise and fall in lockstep with momentum in the greenback (Chart 12, bottom panel). We are currently underweight the S&P utilities sector. Chart 12Utilities Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Telecom services relative performance is positively correlated with the dollar, similarly to its defensive sibling, the utilities sector. In fact, telecom carriers go neck-in-neck with utilities as the former is the second worst performing sector during dollar bear markets (Table 2). A softening dollar has proven to be fatal to the industry’s relative pricing power beyond intra industry competition. In fact, industry selling prices are slated to head south anew if history at least rhymes (Chart 13, middle panel). Importantly, this defensive sector is in a structural downtrend and is trying to stay relevant and avoid becoming a “dumb pipeline” with the eventual proliferation of 5G. Worrisomely, telecoms only manage to claw back some of their severe losses during recessions. But, the latest iteration is an aberration as this safe haven sector has failed to stand up to its defensive stature likely owing to the heavy debt load. We are currently neutral the niche S&P telecom services index that now hides underneath the S&P communication services sector. Chart 13Telecom Services REITs (Underweight) Surprisingly, US REITs enjoy an overall negative correlation with the dollar, especially since 1993, and in fact lead the greenback by about 18 months (Chart 14). Our hypothesis would have been a positive correlation courtesy of the landlocked nature of this sector i.e. no export exposure. Granted, in the three periods of dollar bear markets we examined, REITs slightly outperformed the market by 2.5% on a median basis. While the causal link (if any) is yet to be established and the correlation may be spurious, our sense is that forward interest rate differentials are at work and more than offset the domestic nature of this index. REITs have a high dividend yield and thus outperform when the competing risk free asset the 10-year Treasury yield is falling and vice versa (except during recessions). As a result, REITs outperformance is more often than not synonymous with a depreciating currency as lower Treasury yields would exert downward pressure on the USD ceteris paribus.  We are currently underweight the S&P REITs index. Chart 14REITs   Appendix Chart A1Appendix: Technology Chart A2Appendix: Materials Chart A3Appendix: Energy Chart A4Appendix: Industrials Chart A5Appendix: Health Care Chart A6Appendix: Consumer Discretionary Chart A7Appendix: Consumer Staples Chart A8Appendix: Financials Chart A9Appendix: Utilities Chart A10Appendix: Telecommunication Services Chart A11 landscapeAppendix: REITs   Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bottomless Punchbowl” dated May 11, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://us.spindices.com/indexology/djia-and-sp-500/sp-500-global-sales 3    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-05/56351-CBO-interim-projections.pdf 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value” dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.  

Highlights China and India periodically fight each other on their fuzzy Himalayan border with zero market consequences. A major conflict is possible in the current environment – but it would present a buying opportunity. Chinese escalation with India would not have a negative impact on global trade and economy, unlike escalation with the US or its East Asian allies. If China gets into a major conflict with India, it is less likely to stage major military actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It would reduce much more significant geopolitical risks. Go strategically long Indian pharmaceuticals. Feature India and China have engaged in their first deadly military clash since 1967. An Indian colonel and at least 20 troops died in fighting on June 15 in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh, where territorial disputes have heated up over the past month.At least 50 Chinese troops are estimated dead.1 Chart 1Regional Equities May Not Shrug Off War In Himalayas ... At First It was a minor incident. No shots were fired. Combatants used stones and knives and threw each other off cliffs. However, the occasion of the battle was a negotiation to de-escalate tensions, and talks have gone on since June 3. So that bodes ill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has not responded but China’s foreign ministry is making conciliatory remarks. Normally India-China border clashes occur during the summer, when weather permits, and do not last long and do not impact the rest of the world, either politically or financially. However, the structural and cyclical drivers of the conflict suggest it could escalate over the summer. A major escalation between nuclear powers is unlikely but could conceivably cause volatility in global financial markets. Global equity investors are focused on other things (COVID-19, global stimulus), but recent volatility suggests that Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani bourses could be vulnerable to any major military escalation (Chart 1). However, a Himalayan-inspired selloff would be short-lived and would present a buying opportunity. India-China tensions are far less relevant to global financial markets than China’s disputes with the United States in East Asia. If the US uses India as a pretext for tougher actions on China, then that is a different story. But it is unlikely for reasons explained below. Our base case strategic assessment of India remains the same: Chinese expansionism will pressure India to speed up economic development to gain greater influence in South Asia. India will also pursue better trade and defense relations with the United States and its allies in East Asia and the Pacific. We are tactically cautious on global equities, but strategically we expect equities to beat bonds and cyclicals to beat defensives. Selloffs stemming from Himalayan conflict will create buying opportunities for emerging market equities, especially India. The Drivers Of The Ladakh Skirmish India and China have a 2,170-mile border in the Himalayan mountains that is disputed in India’s northwest (Aksai Chin) and northeast (Sikkim; Arunachal Pradesh). These border disputes have simmered for decades and occasionally flare into violent incidents, usually meaningless. An India-China border war could occur, but is unlikely. Today’s clashes are mostly taking place in eastern Ladakh, as with disputes in 2013-14. Minor incidents have also occurred in India’s northeast (Naku La, Sikkim). These may be unrelated, but they may also suggest a broad India-China border conflict is in the works (Map 1). Map 1India And China Often Fight Over Undefined Himalayan Border When Ice Melts There is always a local spark for clashes along the Line of Actual Control. These tend to be triggered by infrastructure construction or military patrols that cross the countries’ various border claims. Typically China triggers the incident as it is always pouring more money and concrete into new structures to solidify its territorial claims, whereas India’s resources are more limited. However, in recent years India has grown more capable. Both sides may also be surging infrastructure spending amid the recession (Chart 2). Chart 2China No Longer Alone In Nation-Building In Himalayas Chart 3China's Slower Growth Jeopardizes Communist Party Legitimacy In the current dispute both sides claim the other broke the peace. Indian builders supposedly violated China’s space while working on the Darbuk-Shayok-DBO road which connects to an airfield near Galwan Valley, the site of the clash. But the Indian side argues that Chinese military forces have ventured several miles from their usual outposts and amassed major forces on their side suggesting they are preparing for a bigger effort to expand their control of territory. 2 We may never know who “started” it. There is no clear border and even the Line of Actual Control is hard to define.3 Investors should not confuse the proximate cause of this conflict for the underlying cause. There are structural and cyclical factors at work on both sides: 1. China’s declining domestic stability and rising international assertiveness. The crises of 2008, 2015, 2018-19, and 2020 have caused a hard break in China’s economic model. Slower trend growth jeopardizes the Communist Party’s long-term monopoly on power (Chart 3). The Xi Jinping administration has responded to each crisis by tightening the party’s grip and reasserting central Beijing control. This is true at home, in peripheral territories like Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and abroad, as in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative. Territorial disputes have flared up across China’s borders. India is no exception, with incidents in 2013, 2014, 2017, and now 2020 marking the change (Table 1). Table 1China’s Territorial Assertiveness Triggers Clashes With India The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor strengthens the alliance between these two countries and deepens India’s insecurities. India perceives China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a threat of economic and eventually military encirclement. In 2017, the Doklam dispute between China, Bhutan, and India – which lasted over two months – served to distract the Chinese populace from a major increase in US pressure on China’s periphery. That was President Trump’s “fire and fury” campaign to intimidate North Korea into entering nuclear negotiations (Chart 4). In 2020, China faces its first recessionary environment since the mid-1970s as well as rocky relations with the United States over trade, technology, Hong Kong, North Korea again, and possibly even the Taiwan Strait. It is a convenient time to turn the public’s attention to the Himalayas. Chart 4China's Last Dispute With India Occurred During US-North Korea Tensions 2. India’s emerging national consensus and international coming-of-age. India’s rise as a global power has accelerated since the Great Recession, especially after oil prices fell in 2014. Prime Minister Modi has won two smashing general elections with single-party majorities, in 2014 and 2019. His movement also maintains the upper hand in state legislatures, which is important given that India’s weak federal government cannot simply force structural reforms onto the country (Map 2). Modi’s electoral success reflects a deeper national consensus on the need for stronger central leadership, faster economic development, deeper international trade and investment ties, and pro-efficiency reforms such as the creation of a single market. The policy retreat from globalization benefits insular and service-oriented economies like India at the expense of mercantilist trading powers such as China. America’s pivot to Asia and “Indo-Pacific” strategy create a chance for India to attract investment as multinational corporations diversify away from China (Chart 5). Map 2Modi’s Political Capital At State-Level Chart 5India Attracts Investment As Supply Chains Diversify From China Chart 6US And India Fiscal Stimulus Enable Supply Chain Shift Out Of China In August 2019, after Modi’s big election victory, he launched an ambitious agenda of state-building. He converted the autonomous region of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories under New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This change of status quo angered China and Pakistan, which felt their own territory threatened. Chinese territorial pressure could be retribution for these administrative reforms. China and Pakistan will also want to undermine Modi’s party in upcoming elections for the state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. China’s territorial encroachments reflect its desire to gain control of the entire Aksai Chin plateau. India does not want China to gain such a strategic advantage at the head of the Indus River and valley. The global pandemic and recession reinforced these structural and cyclical trends by pushing both India and China to use nationalist devices to divert their populations from domestic ills. The use of fiscal stimulus across the world enables leaders to pursue risky strategic policies (Chart 6). There is also a tactical issue: India took over the chairmanship of the World Health Assembly in May, while the US is lobbying on behalf of Taiwan’s long desire to be represented in the World Health Organization in the wake of COVID-19. China is resisting this call and could be using Ladakh as a pressure tactic.4 How Far Will Sino-Indian Conflict Escalate? Reports suggest that India and China have reinforced troops in and near Ladakh and have brought more firepower and airpower into range.5 Some of this activity, on both sides, consists of seasonal military drills. So it is not certain that a build-up is occurring. China is less constrained and more capable of escalation than India. If China continues pressing its territorial advance, or if India tries to reclaim territory or take other territory in compensation, then the fight will expand. The conflict is taking place in rocky recesses at a far remove from the rest of the world, so there is a temptation to believe that any escalation can be controlled.6 This may be false and lead to tit-for-tat escalation. Table 2Military Balance: India Versus China In Himalayas Which side faces greater constraints? China is least constrained and most capable of escalation. Over the short run, China can utilize improved military command and capabilities in the area and can control the media and political response at home. Besting India would demonstrate that all Asian territorial claimants should defer to China. However, over the long run, aggression would cement the balance-of-power alliance between the US and India. India is more constrained than China, less capable of escalation: Modi has considerable political capital, but his conventional military advantage in this area is eroding and China has the higher ground from which to stage attacks (Table 2). India’s loss in the 1962 Himalayan war with China was a national humiliation. A repeat of such an event could destroy much of Modi’s mystique as a strongman leader and national savior. In the worst-case scenario, China would demonstrate superior military capability while the US and its allies would remain utterly aloof, leaving India looking both weak and isolated. Therefore India will engage in tit-for-tat military response while seeking diplomatic de-escalation. The US lacks interest in the dispute: Trump has already offered to mediate, presumably to demonstrate his deal-making skills again before the election. But the US does not have a compelling interest in this dispute and India does not want US mediation. If Trump takes punitive measures against China it will be for other reasons. Serious punitive measures require the stock market and economy to relapse, since at the moment Trump’s average approval rating is 43% and he hopes financial and economic gains will help him recover (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Odds President Trump Will Hike Tariffs On China Before US Election The above points suggest that China can afford to escalate if it wants to show India and the rest of Asia that the US is toothless and that China’s territorial claims in Asia should not be opposed. Since COVID-19, China has been aggressive in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, despite the fact that these areas bring economic risks. The Himalayas do not. The implication is that China’s risk appetite is large, particularly in territorial disputes, and driven by social and economic pressure at home. Investment Takeaways Because India and China (and Pakistan) have nuclear arms, and because the US could get involved, it is possible that a major escalation could occur and cause volatility in global financial markets. But it would not last long and no parties will use nuclear arms over Himalayan territorial disputes. A major conflict that results in a Chinese victory would subtract from Prime Minister Modi’s political capital and hence weigh on Indian equities, which have broken down badly since COVID-19 (Chart 7). The reason is that strong political support for Modi would enable India to continue making structural economic reforms that increase productivity. Chart 7Indian Equities Underperforming Since COVID-19 Chart 8India’s Path To Regional Primacy Lies Through Economic Opening And Reform In the long run, a major conflict, especially a humiliating defeat, would accelerate India’s attempts to improve national economic prowess for the sake of strategic security. Since India cannot achieve its strategic objective of primacy in South Asia merely through military power, it will need to do so through a stronger economic pull (Chart 8). This is an impetus for structural economic reform even beyond Modi. Hence our secularly bullish outlook on India. Indian pharmaceutical equities offer an investment opportunity (Chart 9). In an attempt to address land acquisition, which is one of the biggest constraints faced by companies looking to invest in India, New Delhi has announced that it is developing an area the size of Luxembourg to attract businesses moving out of China. The government reached out to over 1,000 US companies in April with incentives for them to move their facilities to India, with a focus on industries in which India has a comparative advantage, such as medical equipment suppliers, food processing units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers. Chart 9US And Indian Stimulus Policies Will Boost Investment In Indian Pharma While India is not as economically competitive as China, it could be attractive for non-strategic industries that would not want to relocate to the US but are looking to reduce uncertainty from US-China tensions. The next round of US fiscal stimulus is also likely to contain significant provisions that will incentivize companies to relocate from China, particularly in the medical and health care sector. For global investors, while a major Sino-Indian escalation could lead to short-term volatility, it would ultimately be a positive development if Beijing vented its nationalism on a strip of earth that is not globally relevant, rather than on the seas, which are highly relevant. Conflict between the US and China in East Asia is a far greater risk than Sino-Indian conflict. Indeed Chinese and American actions over the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, or the South and East China Seas are still far more likely than Sino-Indian tensions to affect global trade and stability and financial markets this year. The US could impose sanctions on Chinese tech and trade, a military incident could occur in the Taiwan Strait, North Korea could provoke US President Donald Trump into a new round of “fire and fury” that triggers a showdown with China, or the US and China could fight a naval skirmish in the South or East China Sea. None of these options is low probability, especially surrounding the US election. Over the short run, global investors should prepare for greater equity volatility, primarily because of hiccups in delivering new stimulus in the US, EU, and China, plus US domestic political risks and US-China-Asia strategic tensions. Stay long JPY-USD. Over the long run, a global growth rebound driven by massive global fiscal and monetary stimulus will drive the US dollar to weaken, global equities to outperform bonds, and cyclicals to outperform defensives. We remain long China-sensitive plays as well as infrastructure, cyber-security, and defense stocks. Strategically, go long Indian pharmaceuticals relative to the emerging market benchmark.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Guardian, "Soldiers fell to their deaths as India and China’s troops fought with rocks," June 17, 2020. 2 See Ashley J. Tellis, "Hustling in the Himalayas: The Sino-Indian Border Confrontation," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 4, 2020. See also Mohan Guruswamy, "India-China Border Dispute: Is A Give And Take Possible Now?" South Asia Monitor, June 3, 2020. 3 The Treaty of Tingmosgang (1684) only specifies one checkpost, at the Lhari Stream near Demchok, leaving everything else to disputed Indian and Chinese claims. See Alexander Davis and Ruth Gamble, "The local cost of rising India-China tensions," June 1, 2020. 4 See Nayanima Basu, "India Isn’t Worried About Tension With China, Unlikely To Give In To US Pressure On Taiwan," May 13, 2020. 5 See Ren Feng and He Penglei, "PLA Xizang Military Command holds coordinated exercise in plateau region," China Military Online, June 15, 2020. See also "空降兵某旅积极探索远程兵力投送新模式 空地同步 奔赴高原". 6 The reason escalation is normally limited is because of the extreme difficulty of operating extended military operations and resupply at 13,000-feet altitude. Both sides have the ability to surge reinforcements and equalize the contest. The cost and difficulty of retaking lost territory is often prohibitive. And while India’s conventional military power may overbalance China in this region, China has the uphill advantage and has made leaps and bounds in operational capabilities in recent decades. In short, escalation is normally controllable. See Aidan Milliff, "Tension High, Altitude Higher: Logistical And Physiological Constraints On The Indo-Chinese Border," War On The Rocks, June 8, 2020.