Real Estate

Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending   US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6).   Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened.   Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets.   Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment   Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13).   The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity   If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing   Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.1” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,2 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework3 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.4 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.5 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,6 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.7 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 2 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 3 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 4 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Overweight We have been bearish this niche S&P sector and delivered alpha to our portfolio both via the cyclical and high-conviction underweights this year. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and the time is ripe for a bullish commercial real estate (CRE) stance. The bearish story is well known, but some bullish undertones are widely neglected. The rebound in relative share prices is substantially trailing the 2009 episode, when REITs outshined the SPX by 65% one year following the March 2009 trough. Currently, on a similar SPX advance from the March 2020 lows, REITs are lagging the S&P 500 by 22% (top panel). As large parts of CRE have been at the epicenter of the pandemic, any return to even semi-normalcy in 2021 should see these beaten down stocks sling shot passed the SPX. CRE prices will likely recover in the New Year as vulture funds and opportunistic investors are already bargain hunting. Tack on the likely refinancing lifeline bankers will extend to CRE debt originators (middle & bottom panels) and such a backdrop will loosen the noose around distressed property landlords. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P real estate sector to an above benchmark allocation and add it to the high-conviction overweight call list.

Dear client, Next Monday December 14, 2020 we will be hosting our last webcasts for the year “From Alpha To Omega With Anastasios”, one at 10am EST for our US, European and Middle Eastern clients and one at 8pm EST for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our final weekly publication for 2020 will be on Monday December 21, 2020 where we will highlight our top charts of the past year. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Our high-conviction overweight calls comprise four “Back-To Work” beneficiaries, and a hedge. In marked contrast, all of our high-conviction underweights are focused on “COVID-19 Winners” that should lose some of their luster next year. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P real estate sector to overweight, today. Feature Favorable Macro Backdrop Easy monetary and loose fiscal policies will remain intact and sustain flush liquidity conditions next year. As a result, the global economy will continue to gain traction. Importantly, early-August marked a critical economic inflection point. Gold prices peaked and 10-year real and nominal yields troughed (yields shown inverted, top & middle panels, Chart 1). The bullion and bond markets corroborated the economic recovery that equities and the ISM manufacturing surveys sniffed out in late-spring. This is important for cementing the bull market in equities which is predicated on a durable economic recovery. In other words, the rise in real yields serves as a green light for further stock gains as it signals that the economy is on the recovery path. The bottom panel of Chart 1 also highlights that non-US equity markets started sporting accelerating profit growth expectations in August. Eurozone and other ex-US bourses zoomed past the US EPS growth trajectory as the latter reached a plateau. Chart 1Inflection Point This gives us confidence that 2021 will be a bumper year for SPX profits and help carry the market higher near our 4,000 target. As a reminder, on November 9 in a Special Report, we lifted our EPS estimate to $168 for calendar 2021 and introduced an end-2021 SPX target of 4,000 (Chart 2). Chart 2Earnings Will Do The Heavy Lifting In 2021 Two Risks To Monitor Nevertheless, the bond market represents a risk to our sanguine equity market view. Simply put, if the 10-year US Treasury yield stalls, then it will also stop the rotation trade in its tracks. The budding improvement in the Chinese and EM economic cycles will likely be sustainable next year, consistent with the Chinese four-year cycles of the past twenty years (Chart 3). Each up-cycle has typically been driven by credit expansion and capital spending, on the back of fiscal and monetary easing. These conditions are in place once again. Chart 3Follow The Chinese Four-year Cycle We recently showed that China’s fiscal easing will likely continue to grease the wheels of global trade into mid-2021 and thus debase the greenback (Chart 4), but will likely run out of steam in the back half of next year. Thus, China’s reflation going on hiatus is another key risk we will monitor in 2021 that could serve as a growth scare catalyst and reset stocks. Chart 4Laggard Deep Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand Year In Review 2020 is a year to forget as far as the coronavirus human toll is concerned; the economic and EPS recessions, while short lived, were deep. The COVID-19-inflicted wounds, especially to services industries the world over, were deep and there will be severe scarring. Early in the year, equities felt the COVID-19 tremor and collapsed 35% from the February 19 highs, but extremely aggressive monetary and fiscal policy responses filled the void and were the dominant themes in the ensuing recovery that saw the SPX vault to all-time highs. Our portfolio was resilient and was able to absorb the COVID-19 shock as we were bulletproofing it in the back half of 2019 and early-2020 for a recession owing largely to the yield curve inversion. Importantly, we were not dogmatic and on March 16 we turned cyclically bullish. This eventually culminated into the March 23 Strategy Report where we penned 20 reasons to start buying stocks and coincided with the trough in the SPX. This cyclical shift in our view from bearish-to-bullish aided our portfolio performance as we started adding cyclical exposure and trimming defensive exposure in order to benefit from the immense monetary and fiscal policy responses. Early on, we deemed these macro forces were forceful enough to really turn things around and we remained bullish on a cyclical time horizon. All in all, our trades produced alpha to the tune of 425bps. While our pair trades were sub-par (as is custom we are closing the remaining today), our high-conviction trades and cyclical portfolio moves recorded solid gains (please see the final tally below). Ray Of Light Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel, as a number of vaccines will become available late this year and/or early in 2021. This is great news for the economy and for stocks. We have positioned the portfolio to benefit from the reopening of the economy and the vaccine will act as an accelerant as our flagship publication posited last week while documenting BCA’s upbeat Outlook for 2021. Our portfolio enjoys a cyclical-over-defensive bent, has a small cap bias and we remain committed to the “Back-To-Work” basket versus the “COVID-19 Winners” basket (Chart 5). In the short-term, equities have discounted a lot of good news, which is likely to steal from next year’s returns. However, as populations get inoculated and large parts of the global economy reopen, a virtuous cycle of increasing consumer and business confidence would boost investment and GDP and prove a boon for corporate profits. Already the rally is broadening out with the value line arithmetic and geometric indexes outshining the SPX (Chart 6). An active ETF (RVRS:US) that has a reverse weighting to US large caps is also besting the S&P 500 and signals that more gains are in store in the New Year, especially for the still beaten down deep cyclical laggards. Chart 5Stick With The Reopening Trade Chart 6Rally Is Broadening Out, And That’s Healthy More Overweights Than Underweights As is custom every year, this Strategy Report introduces our high-conviction calls for 2021. This year we have four overweights, a bonus volatility trade on the long side, three underweights, and a bonus structural trade that we add to our trades of the decade first introduced in mid-December 2019. Our overweights comprise three “Back-To-Work” beneficiaries, a great rotation trade and a hedge. All of our underweights are focused on “COVID-19 Winners” that should lose some of their luster next year. Finally, this year we take a page out of Byron Wien’s annual “10 surprises” list and offer our clients three “also rans”, which got close but ultimately failed to make our high-conviction list.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Overweight Hotels (Back-To-Work Theme) The recent positive vaccine news is a key reason we are warming up to this consumer discretionary sub group. While neither lodging nor cruise line vacationing will return to their previous peaks any time soon, both industries will survive and thus should no longer be priced for bankruptcy. One key industry demand determinant is confidence. Consumer sentiment has staged a W-shaped recovery. It is still flimsy, but the vaccine efficacy news should catapult confidence higher in the coming quarters. The implication is that the wide gulf between consumer confidence and relative share prices will narrow via a catch up phase in the latter (top panel, Chart 7). Moreover, the ISM non-manufacturing survey is on a sling shot recovery following the bombed out spring readings. This rebound also suggests that the path of least resistance is higher for lodging stocks (second panel, Chart 7). Our hotel demand indicator does an excellent job in encapsulating all these different forces and forecasts an enticing lodging services demand backdrop into 2021 (third panel, Chart 7). Already, consumer outlays on hotels are staging a comeback, albeit from an extremely depressed level. The upshot is that an earnings-led bounce is in the cards (fourth panel, Chart 7). Finally, washed out technicals and extremely alluring valuations provide an attractive reward/risk tradeoff at the current juncture (bottom panel, Chart 7). Bottom Line: The S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index is a high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL – MAR, HLT, CCL, RCL, NCLH. Chart 7Buy Hotels Overweight Real Estate (Back-To-Work Theme) Boost the S&P real estate sector all the way to overweight today, in order to benefit from the looming full reopening of the economy on the back of the vaccine’s arrival. We have been bearish this niche S&P sector and delivered alpha to our portfolio both via the cyclical and high-conviction underweights this year. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and the time is ripe for a bullish commercial real estate (CRE) stance. The bearish story is well known, but some bullish undertones are widely neglected. The rebound in relative share prices is substantially trailing the 2009 episode, when REITs outshined the SPX by 65% one year following the March 2009 trough. Currently, on a similar SPX advance from the March 2020 lows, REITs are lagging the S&P 500 by 22% (top panel, Chart 8). As large parts of CRE have been at the epicenter of the pandemic, any return to even semi-normalcy in 2021 should see these beaten down stocks sling shot passed the SPX. When the fiscal package finally passes, it will likely serve as a fresh reflationary bridge to support the economy. The proverbial “kicking the can down the road” will thus lift some uncertainty hanging over CRE landlords receiving rents and also via banks not foreclosing distressed properties which would have further depressed CRE prices. CRE prices will likely recover in the New Year as vulture funds and opportunistic investors are already bargain hunting. Tack on the likely refinancing lifeline bankers will extend to CRE debt originators (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8) and such a backdrop will loosen the noose around distressed property landlords. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P real estate sector to an above benchmark allocation and add it to the high-conviction overweight call list.   Chart 8Upgrade Real Estate To Overweight Overweight Industrials (Back-To-Work Theme) Add the S&P industrials sector to the high-conviction overweight list. Emerging markets (EM) and China represent the key source for the sector’s buoyancy. The EM manufacturing PMI clocking in at 53.9 hit an all-time high (top panel, Chart 9). China’s PMIs are also on a similar trajectory, and the Chinese Citi economic surprise index has swung a whopping 277 points from -239 to +38 over the past nine months (second panel, Chart 9). The upshot is that US industrials stocks should outperform when China and the EM are vibrant. Peering over to the currency market, the debasing of the US dollar should also underpin industrials stocks via the export relief valve. A depreciating greenback also lifts the commodity complex and hence industrials equities that are levered to the extraction of commodities and other derivative activities (middle panel, Chart 9). Capex intentions are firming and CEO confidence is upbeat for the coming six months. The ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio is corroborating the budding recovery in the soft data. Green shoots are also evident in hard data releases. Durable goods orders are on the verge of expanding anew (fourth panel, Chart 9). Sell-side analysts have never been more pessimistic with regard to the sector’s long-term EPS growth rate that is penciled in to trail the broad market by almost 800bps (bottom panel, Chart 9)! This bearishness is contrarily positive as a little bit of good news can go a long way. Bottom Line: The S&P industrials sector is a high-conviction overweight.  Chart 9Overweight Industrials Overweight Small Caps At The Expense Of Large Caps (Rotation Trade) Recent vaccine efficacy announcements have paved the way for a sustainable great rotation trade into small caps and out of large caps. One of the key small size bias drivers is the delta in sector composition between the small and large cap indexes. The relative gap in deep cyclicals alone is 13% as we highlighted in recent research. Relative share prices remain far apart from the budding recovery in the commodity complex including Dr. Copper’s flirtations with seven-year highs. Thus, the small caps catch up phase has a long ways to go (top & fourth panels, Chart 10). The financials sector gulf is also significant, with small caps’ exposure relative to their large cap brethren clocking in at over 700bps. Already, the yield curve is steepening and there are high odds of a selloff in the bond market as the economy continues to reopen (third panel, Chart 10). In addition, easy fiscal policy is a tonic to the small/large share price ratio. As a flood of money enters the economy with a slight lag, small caps will continue to make up ground lost during the early stages of the pandemic (fiscal balance shown inverted, second panel, Chart 10). Not only is fiscal stimulus providing a lifeline to debt-burdened small caps, but also the Fed’s opening up of the monetary spigots has pushed fixed income investors out the risk spectrum. Thus, the proverbial “kicking the can down the road” is boosting the allure of small cap stocks (junk spread shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 10). Bottom Line: A small size bias is a high-conviction call for 2021. Chart 10Prefer Small Caps To Large Caps Long VIX June 2021 Expiry Futures (Hedge Trade) We want to hedge our overweight exposures with a long VIX futures position for the June 16, 2021 expiry. We are spending $25.3 to go long and are comfortable paying up for insurance when the SPX is at all-time highs and there is a risk of some growth disappointment in the next six months. Chart 11 draws a parallel with the March 2009 SPX lows and plots the VIX in 2009 and 2010. While the path of least resistance is lower for volatility, sporadic surges are typical in the year following recessions. The S&P 500 also troughed in March 2020 and if history is an accurate guide, the path to SPX 4,000 will be rocky next year. As a reminder, the S&P 500 suffered a 16% correction in May 2010 and the VIX spiked higher. Positioning remains lopsided with both VIX put/call ratios (volume and open interest) at historically high levels, underscoring investor complacency. Net speculative futures positions as a percent of open interest are also probing multi-year lows, corroborating the complacent options data. Finally, the equity volatility curve has flipped from a 10% backwardation to a steep contango in the past month with the 3rd month now trading at a 25% premium to spot VIX; such a complacent level typically warns of a looming spike in the VIX. Bottom Line: Go long the VIX June 2021 futures as a small hedge to overweight equity positions. Chart 11Go Long VIX Futures As A Hedge Underweight Homebuilders (COVID-19 Winner Theme) We deem that most, if not all, of the good news (low mortgage rates, low inventories, high demand, work-from-home reality, all-time highs on the overall NAHB housing sentiment survey) is already priced in galloping homebuilders stock prices and exuberant expectations. While being contrarian is fraught with danger, because more often than not the herd is right, there is a key macro driver that gives us confidence to be bearish homebuilders: interest rates. If our economic reopening thesis proves accurate next year, then the COVID-19 winners – homebuilders included – will take the back seat. Historically, interest rates and relative share prices have been inversely correlated and a steep selloff in the bond market is bad news for homebuilding stocks (top panel, Chart 12). On the operating housing front, some cracks are forming. New home sales, while brisk in absolute terms, are losing out to existing housing sales and homebuilders have resorted to price concessions in order to drive volumes (second & third panels, Chart 12). Profit margins are at the highest level since the subprime crisis and are vulnerable to a squeeze, not only from lower selling prices, but also from rising input costs. Framing lumber comprises roughly 15% of a new home’s commodity related costs and lumber prices have been expanding all year long (bottom panel, Chart 12). Bottom Line: Put the S&P homebuilding index to the high-conviction underweight call list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, DHI, NVR. Chart 12Avoid Homebuilders Underweight Pharma (COVID-19 Winner Theme) The S&P pharmaceutical index is a high-conviction underweight for 2021. On the macro front, the Fed’s ZIRP bodes ill for defensive pharma equities. The Fed was uncharacteristically quick this recession to drop rates to the lower zero bound to reflate the economy. As a result, safe haven equities, Big Pharma included, typically trail the broad market as the economy gets out of the ER and into the recovery room (second panel, Chart 13). Importantly, relative pharmaceutical profits are highly counter cyclical: they rise at the onset of recession and collapse as the economy heals. Currently, as the world economy has transitioned to a V-shaped recovery, the reopening of the economy into the New Year will continue to knock the wind out of relative pharma profitability. Similarly, an appreciating greenback has historically been synonymous with pharma outperformance and vice versa (third panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind, Big Pharma make the lion’s share of their profits domestically, further cementing the positive correlation with the US dollar. This local profit sourcing represents one of the main reasons why politicians on both sides of the aisle are after domestic pharma profits. Pharma prices are on the cusp of contracting. Importantly, President Trump’s late-July executive order “to allow importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada” among other provisions is a direct blow to the profit prospects of Big Pharma (bottom panel, Chart 13). Bottom Line: We are cognizant that the COVID-19 vaccine will lift Big Pharma, but only temporarily, as cyclical forces will more than offset the positive vaccine news. The S&P pharmaceuticals index is a high-conviction underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5PHARX: JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, MYL, PRGO. Chart 13Sell Pharma Underweight Consumer Staples (COVID-19 Winner Theme) Countercyclical consumer staples stocks served their purpose and supported our portfolio in the front half of 2020. Now that vaccines are coming, we are adding the S&P consumer staples sector to the high-conviction underweight call list. The current macro backdrop underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also, consumer confidence is forming a trough (ISM manufacturing shown inverted, second panel, Chart 14). One of the factors that will drive relative earnings lower is the weaker US dollar. As a reminder, the S&P consumer staples sector derives approximately 32% of its sales from abroad, which is 10 percentage points lower than the S&P 500. As a consequence, on a relative basis, staples stocks benefit much less than the rest of the market from a falling currency (third panel, Chart 14). Our relative macro earnings model does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and paints a dark profit picture for this GICS1 sector in the New Year (fourth panel, Chart 14). Bottom Line: The S&P consumer staples sector is a high-conviction underweight.   Chart 14Underweight Consumer Staples Short NASDAQ 100 / Long S&P 500 (Secular 10-year Call) We first wrote about the extreme market cap concentration in January when we were cautioning investors of an SPX drawdown and drew parallels with the dotcom era. Back in late-1999/early-2000 the top 5 stocks comprised 18% of the S&P 500. In July we delved deeper and split the S&P 500 in the S&P 5 versus the S&P 495 to highlight the extraordinary narrow returns since 2015. Such extreme concentration in a handful of tech titan stocks is clearly unsustainable. The bullish case for tech is well documented and understood; the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an accelerant to the technological adoption of the new remote working realities. However, $2tn valuations (AAPL, MSFT & AMZN) make little sense to us, especially if there is little earnings follow through and most of the returns are explained by multiple expansion. In all likelihood, the easy money has been made. Going back to the early 1970s is instructive in order to put the tech juggernaut into proper perspective. Every decade or so there have been clearly defined booms and busts in US tech stocks (Chart 15). Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” forces are undoubtedly at play. What is interesting is that not only have tech stocks likely stalled near the dotcom era peak, but also they have been outperforming since the end of the GFC (i.e. roughly a decade); they are due for at least a breather. If history rhymes, we have entered a new bust cycle and the tech sector’s underperformance will play out over the coming decade. Bottom Line: We are compelled to add to our structural trades and recommend investors underweight the tech sector on a ten-year time horizon via the short QQQ / long SPY exchange traded funds which offer the most liquidity. Chart 15Short QQQ / Long SPX For The Next Decade Also Rans Within consumer discretionary, automobiles & auto parts & components piqued our interest from the long side. These stocks would greatly benefit from a reopening economy as a semblance of normality returns sometime next year. Nevertheless, two key factors kept us at bay. First, similar to homebuilders, this index has gone vertical since the March lows, besting the SPX by a factor of 2:1 (top panel, Chart 16). We maintain exposure via our “Back-To-Work” basket with GM, but even this auto manufacturer is up 50% since the September 8, 2020 inception. Finally, TSLA is about to enter the SPX at a stratospheric valuation that would dominate the automobile sub group. This is eerily reminiscent of YHOO’s SPX inclusion in late-1999 that led the dotcom bubble peak by four months. The parallel is making us nervous, therefore we are staying patiently on the sidelines. On the underweight side we wanted to include the niche S&P semi equipment index, but opted not to as the Bitcoin mania has really pushed these stocks to the stratosphere (middle panel, Chart 16). In addition, this chip sub-group has one of the highest export exposures in the SPX with a large slice of foreign revenue originating in China. Hence, news of a Biden presidency also served as a catalyst to propel them higher (i.e. at the margin, a less hawkish president on the Sino/American trade war). We really struggled with global gold miners (GDX:US). Our initial thinking was to downgrade them to underweight (from currently neutral), which is consistent with global growth reaccelerating and interest rates rising. However, we missed the boat when it set sail in early August (bottom panel, Chart 16). Now, the gold bearish trade is gaining momentum and has become a consensus trade as big macro investors (Tudor and Druckenmiller among others) are shifting toward Bitcoin and have been vociferous about their positioning. Thus, we preferred to remain on the sidelines with a benchmark allocation. Chart 16Three “Also Rans” Footnotes   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views October 26, 2020 Favor small over large caps July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth  

Special Report

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Feature Feature ChartHouse Prices Have Decoupled From Rents Again (And It Didn't End Happily Last Time) Real estate is the world’s most important asset class. It accounts for 60 percent of the $500 trillion of mainstream global assets. To put this into context, the $300 trillion worth of global real estate makes the $7 trillion worth of all the gold ever mined look like chicken feed. It even dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy by more than three to one. In recent years, the valuation of global real estate has decoupled from underlying rents, and has become critically dependent on ultra-low bond yields. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in global real estate values, it would amount to a $30 trillion plunge in global wealth. Such a deflationary impulse, equal to one third of the world’s income, would make the pandemic’s economic shock feel like a waltz in the park. Hence, to anybody calling for significantly higher bond yields, we pose a simple question. How would the world economy cope with the massive deflationary impact on $300 trillion of global real estate? House Prices Have Decoupled From Rents The $300 trillion valuation of global real estate in 2020 is an 80 percent increase compared with 2010. Coincidentally, the value of the global stock market has also increased by 80 percent over the past decade. But the stock market’s $75 trillion capitalisation is small fry compared to the $300 trillion real estate market.1  Within the real estate market, residential real estate constitutes the lion’s share, accounting for around 80 percent by value. Commercial real estate accounts for a little over 10 percent, and agricultural and forestry real estate makes up the remainder. The valuation of global real estate has become critically dependent on ultra-low bond yields. It follows that the most important component of the real estate market is the homes that people live in. The overwhelming majority of these homes are owner-occupied. Making house prices the indicator that drives, as well as reflects, the fortunes of ordinary people. The 2010s was remarkable as the first decade in which there was a synchronised boom in housing markets around the world. In the previous decade’s global financial crisis, house prices had crashed in several major economies: most notably, the UK and the US. Yet the UK and US housing markets did not suffer long hangovers. In the 2010s, the party restarted, and got even wilder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The UK And US Housing Markets Resumed Their Parties In The 2010s Meanwhile, in Sweden, Canada, Australia, and China the global financial crisis barely interrupted their housing market parties, which continued seamlessly into the 2010s (Chart I-3). But perhaps most important of all, in the 2010s, the previous decade’s housing market wallflowers such as Germany and Japan started partying too (Chart I-4). What was behind this synchronised and broad boom in real estate values during the 2010s? The common denominator is the universal decline in bond yields. Chart I-3In Sweden, Canada, Australia, And China, The Parties Never Stopped Chart I-4Germany And Japan Started Their Parties In The 2010s As the global real estate firm Savills puts it: “Real estate has increased significantly in value, spurred on by the intervention of central banks and their suppression of bond yields. Now that yields have little room to shift further downward, the scope for capital growth becomes more limited and dependent on rental growth happening first” Empirically, there is a tight long-term connection between house prices and underlying rents (Feature Chart). For example, through the past forty years, US house prices have closely tracked rents, with only two significant deviations. The first deviation happened during the housing bubble of the early 2000s. When that bubble burst in 2007, house prices promptly crashed back to their established relationship with rents. The second deviation is happening now. Since 2012, US house prices have outperformed rents by 25 percent (Chart I-5). In Europe, German house prices have outperformed rents by 20 percent (Chart I-6). The concern is that this house price outperformance versus rents is justified only if bond yields remain ultra-low and rental growth remains robust. Chart I-5House Prices Have Outperformed Rents By 25 Percent In The US... Chart I-6...And By 20 Percent In ##br##Germany   The Pandemic Is Depressing Housing Rents Unfortunately, the pandemic is putting pressure on housing rents. Rent inflation is driven by the security and growth of wages, which itself is inversely tied to the structural unemployment rate. When the number of permanently unemployed workers rises, rent inflation collapses. Indeed, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, US rent inflation turned negative. Therefore, for the housing rent outlook, the key question is: what is the outlook for structural unemployment? (Chart I-7) Chart I-7Higher Structural Unemployment Depresses Rents The biggest driver of the structural unemployment rate will be the pandemic. Unlike China, large liberal democracies like the UK cannot control the pandemic with a universal track and trace system, because not enough of the UK population will allow the government to track their every move. Hence, until an effective vaccine has protected most of the population, liberal democracies like the UK must go down the route of physical distancing and the use of face masks.  When the number of permanently unemployed workers rises, rent inflation collapses. But as we explained in An Economy Without Mouths Or Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs, physical distancing and facemasks restrict any economy activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. These activities are concentrated in three labour-intensive sectors – hospitality, retail, and transport – which employ 25 percent of all workers. Hence, if physical distancing and facemasks force these labour-intensive sectors to operate at one third below full capacity, the economy will lose 8.3 percent of jobs. On less optimistic assumptions the economy could lose 10 percent of jobs. Will a vaccine be a gamechanger? Not immediately. While it will mark progress, it will certainly not ‘take us back to normal’. This is because the proportion of the population that is immunised is unlikely to be high enough, fast enough. First, note that: Immunisation rate = Vaccination efficacy rate * Vaccination rate Second, note that no vaccine is 100 percent effective; and that a significant minority of diehards will refuse to get vaccinated. Perhaps understandably so if the vaccine has been rushed out. Even if we optimistically assume that the first vaccine is 70 percent effective, and that 70 percent of the population gets vaccinated, then the resulting 49 percent immunisation rate will still leave most people as sitting ducks for the virus. Under less optimistic – and arguably more realistic – assumptions, the number of unprotected people will be even larger. This means that social and physical distancing will continue for much longer than many people realise. Moreover, some of the reduction in ‘social consumption’ and its associated jobs will become permanent. The result is that the structural unemployment rate will continue to head higher, until the economy fully adapts to the post-pandemic way of living, working, and interacting. For the foreseeable future, this will put further pressure on housing rents, and keep the housing market crucially dependent on ultra-low bond yields. Concluding Remarks The main purpose of this Special Report is to highlight that the $90 trillion global economy is dwarfed by the $300 trillion global real estate market, whose valuation is critically dependent on ultra-low bond yields. If we add in equities, corporate bonds, and emerging market debt, the valuation of so-called ‘risk-assets’ rises to over $450 trillion. Yet many people still put the cart before the horse. They say the economy will drive the asset markets. This year has proved them wrong. A deflationary impulse from the economy unleashed an inflationary impulse in the much larger asset markets, which then helped to stabilise the economy. Unfortunately, the reverse would also be true. An inflationary impulse from the economy would unleash a deflationary impulse in the much larger asset markets, which would then destabilise the economy. An inflationary impulse from the economy would unleash a deflationary impulse in the much larger asset markets. Of course, any government with its own fiat currency can generate inflation if it really desires. Just look at Argentina or Turkey. But why would an advanced economy like the US, the UK, or the euro area make such a reckless journey, when it is already in the best place, the place it took a lot of blood and sweat to reach – namely, the place known as price stability? Still, if the advanced economies do take the road to inflation, they should realise that the road isn’t straight. The deflationary impulse that would come from the collapse in $450 trillion of risk-assets means that the road to inflation goes via deflation. For investors, this means that the road to much higher bond yields, if ever taken, reverses on itself. The road to much higher bond yields goes via the lower bound. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is a soft commodities pair-trade. Go long coffee versus corn. The specific contracts are Brazilian coffee New York traded and Corn number 2 yellow central Illinois. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 12 percent. Chart I-8Coffee Vs. Corn The rolling 1-year win ratio stands at 54 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.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 $300 trillion is our conservative uplift to the $281 trillion assessment that Savills made in 2018. The 2020 valuation constitutes a 40 percent increase versus its 2015 valuation. Before 2015, Savills did not provide an aggregated valuation for global real estate. However, as a good proxy, the firm tells us that the capital values in the top 12 world cities rose by 30 percent in the first half of the 2010s. Please see Savills: 8 things to know about global real estate value, July 2018; What price the world? 28 January 2016; and 12 Cities, H1 2015. 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  

Underweight We remain bearish on the prospects of the S&P real estate sector as the pandemic will continue to severely bruise REITs. Already, YTD relative share prices are down 10%, and were it not for the tech/communications-laden – tower and digital storage – REITs that the S&P specialized REITs subgroup houses, then the relative underperformance would sink to 25%. According to the latest Q2 Fed release, CRE delinquencies are on the rise (not shown) and CRE prices are on the verge of contracting (bottom panel). A fresh stimulus bill could come to the rescue, but recent news of President Trump halting negotiations jeopardizes chances for near-term relief. Refinancing risk is another threat that could cause a gap down in CRE prices, as bankers remain unwilling to dole out CRE loans despite a collapse in interest rates. Once the underlying asset gets repriced lower, then the debt related house of cards comes crumbling down (top & middle panels). Bottom Line: We remain underweight the S&P real estate sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RLST-AMT, EQIX, PLD, CCI, DLR, PSA, SBAC, AVB, WELL, ARE, O, SPG, WY, CBRE, EQR, ESS, FRT, PEAK, VTR, BXP, DRE, EXR, MAA, UDR, AIV, HST, IRM, KIM, REG, SLG, VNO. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.

Special Report

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

Special Report

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