Developed Countries

Highlights Earnings season was impressive, with 87% of companies beating analyst earnings expectations. Analysts’ targets were too low because a whopping 38% of companies provided negative forward guidance for the Q2-2021 results. The markets expect 12-17% earnings growth over the next 12 months. Growth is past its peak and is returning to trend. Earnings growth will pick up the baton from multiple expansion and will propel US equity markets further. Yet, returns will be lower than in the past due to high valuation “speed limit.” US equity market is expensive, and earnings growth with a 10% handle will not deliver a significant re-rating, while growth rates above 20% are unlikely. We still like the consumer theme: Earnings results were strong, and more growth is expected ahead, especially in the consumer services space. Overweight Health Care: Pent up demand for elective procedures will propel earnings growth higher. Overweight Industrials to benefit from the US manufacturing Renaissance long term, and from a rebound in earnings growth in response to the inventory restocking cycle and infrastructure spending short term. Stay underweight Materials: China slowing will take a toll on the earnings growth of industrial metals miners and on the Materials sector as a whole. Overweight Growth vs Value for now. Watch for a persistent rise in rates and steeping of the yield curve – once that happens, rotate into Value and Small Caps, which thrive in such a macroeconomic environment. Feature The Q2-2021 earnings season is coming to an end, and it is time to take stock of the companies’ results and validate our equity views on styles, sectors, and investment themes into the balance of the year. Review Of The Q2-2021 Earnings Season The S&P 500 Key Earnings Results Stats S&P 500 quarterly earnings grew 93% YoY, and sales increased by 23.5% YoY compared to the same quarter a year ago (Table 1). Q2-2021 earnings stand 29% above the Q2-2019 level, which translates into 14% annualized growth. CAGR for sales for the same period is 4.6%. 87% of the companies have beaten both sales and earnings expectations. Earnings surprise is 16%, while sales surprise is 4.6%. As our colleagues from US Investment Strategy (USIS) have observed, beats are unprecedented: Their magnitude is more than two standard deviations above the historical average (Chart 1). Table 1S&P 500 Q2-2021 Earnings And Sales Results Chart 1Earnings Surprises Are Unprecedented Decoding The S&P 500 Earnings Season Results While we are impressed with the earnings results delivered by the US companies, our reaction to these superb growth numbers and beats is tepid, like the market’s reaction. The average reaction to an EPS beat this earnings season was about 0.9%. Misses were penalized harshly with stocks falling 1.1%. S&P 500 is up only 2% since the beginning of the reporting season. There are a few reasons for this lukewarm reception: Analyst targets were too low: Ubiquitous beats of earnings and sales expectations indicate that the analyst targets were too low despite upgrades throughout the earnings season (downgrades are more typical). The bar was set too low because a whopping 38% of the companies provided negative forward guidance for the Q2-2021 results. Growth was lumpy: Much of the robust growth can be explained by what we can call two sides of the same coin, one being a low base for the comparisons – after all, in the summer of 2020, the economy was close to a standstill – and the other is a pent-up demand for goods and services. In other words, all the growth postponed in 2020 was delivered at once over this past couple of quarters. With that, a 14% annualized growth rate for the S&P 500 earnings since 2019, which smooths results over time, is strong but not exceptional. Corporate guidance was cautious: Many companies have warned investors that their high growth rates are unsustainable (31% of companies guided lower for Q3-2021). Since the markets are forward-looking, reported earnings growth is seen in the rearview mirror and is priced in, and it is future growth that matters. Earnings growth has returned to trend: Earnings have fully recovered from the pandemic dip. The street bottom-up EPS growth projections (according to Refinitiv) for the rest of 2021, 2022, and 2023 are based on that assumption (Chart 2). The corollary to the point above is that earnings growth has peaked (Chart 3, RHS): Earnings will grow forward along the trend line at about 6-8% annually, which is the historical average. Chart 2Earnings Growth Is Returning To Trend What To Expect Over The Next Four Quarters? According to the data compiled by Refinitiv, analysts expect Q3-2021 earnings to be 5% (QoQ) below their Q2-2021 level, staying flat for the next couple of quarters and exceeding the current level only in Q2-2022 (Chart 3, LHS). Aggregating quarterly growth rates into next 12 months growth rate, analysts expect 12.6% YoY growth over the next 12 months. Chart 3Growth Has Peaked And Quarterly Earnings Are Expected To Be Almost Flat We believe that these growth expectations are too low, as they are based on the expectation that over the next four quarters EPS will stay practically flat. Therefore, most of the 12.6% YoY growth can be attributed to a base effect. It is likely that YoY growth will be higher: Some sector earnings are still at a pre-pandemic level, while others should grow simply because the economy is expanding. IBES expects EPS NTM to grow at 17% over the next 12 months, which is slightly more realistic in our opinion (Chart 4). The difference with Refinitiv is in the calculation methodology. Our working assumption is that next year’s growth will be within the 12-17% YoY range. From Multiple Expansion To Earnings Growth! Return decomposition demonstrates that in 2020, the S&P 500 return was 26%, with 43% contributed by the multiple expansion, and 19% detracted by the earnings contraction: Over the past year, returns have been borrowed from the future, but this year is payback time. The source of the equity returns is shifting from multiple expansion to earnings growth. This means that 12%-17% expected EPS growth (and possibly more if we get a positive earnings surprise) in the upcoming four quarters will propel the markets higher (Chart 5). Chart 4IBES Expect Next 12 Months Growth To Be 17% Chart 5Earnings Growth Replaces Multiple Expansion As A Driver Of Returns Will the S&P 500 Grow Into Its Big Valuations Shoes? Not So Fast At present, the S&P 500 is trading at 21.3x forward earnings (PE NTM), which is steep compared to a historical average of 18x. PE NTM multiples will compress if earnings growth exceeds index price appreciation. While we do expect multiple expansion to pass the baton to earnings growth over the next 12 months, we are curious to know by how much earnings would have to grow for PE to come down to 18x. To get an answer, we created a scenario analysis matrix, varying price and earnings growth simultaneously. The most likely scenario is for the earnings to grow at 3-5% each quarter over the next 12 months (13-16% annualized) and, assuming that the S&P 500 price does not move, it will trade at 20.5-21x forward earnings multiples. For PE to come down to 18x, earnings would have to grow by more than 10% every quarter, or 30% over the next 12 months, which is way above the growth rates expected by the market. Therefore, we are unlikely to see significant multiple compression without a market correction (Table 2). US equities are expensive, no excuses. Table 2Earnings Have To Grow in Double-Digits For PE NTM To Come Down To 18x Zooming In On The US Equity Market Segments Table 3Style Indices Q2-21 Sales And Earnings GrowthValue Outgrew Growth: Earnings of Value grew 31% faster than earnings of Growth (Table 3). However, looking under the hood, annualized EPS growth of Growth was 16% p.a. since 2019, while EPS of Value contracted by 2% p.a. This means that for many Value companies, the earnings surge is a function of the base effect; earnings have not yet reached their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 6) and have room to run further. Chart 6Small Delivered Spectacular 2019-2021 Growth Small Crushes Earnings: Small Caps' quarterly results have been nothing short of astonishing: EPS in Q2-21 is 10 times higher than during the same quarter a year ago. This growth surge can’t be attributed just to the base effect, as earnings are double what they were two years ago. The S&P 600 has an annualized earnings growth rate over the past two years of 42%, and sales growth of 6.2%. Sectors Sector results are characterized by a powerful rebound of the cyclical sectors: Industrials, Consumer Discretionary, Energy, Materials, and Financials have delivered triple-digit earnings growth, and double-digit sales growth (Table 4). Table 4S&P 500 Sectors' Q2-21 Sales And Earnings Growth However, looking at 2019-2021 CAGR, we observe that the Industrials sector earnings are still 10% below the 2019 level, and the Consumer Discretionary sector has only grown 2% annualized, much slower than the market. The case is the same for Energy. Financials and Materials growth was very strong: The former benefited from the M&A and IPO boom, while the latter has grown thanks to stimulative Chinese policy, which has been tightened lately (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyclical Sectors Did Not Grow Much Since 2019 Despite Recent Profit Rebound Profitability Is Unlikely to Return To A Previous Peak Many companies have tightened their belts during the pandemic to preserve capital in the face of uncertainty. Margins have compressed, but less than expected in such a dire situation. Currently, the majority of sectors has margins close to their historical averages (Chart 8). While most sectors, with exception of Financials and Technology, are below peak margins, it is unlikely that they will be able to return to their former highs. Sales will soar thanks to stimulative fiscal and monetary policies, strong demand by consumers, and inflation. Yet the bottom line may be impeded by the increases in labor and input costs and tighter fiscal policy, which have not yet been priced in by the market. Market Expectations For The Next 12 Months According to IBES, earnings growth will be propelled by the cyclicals, such as Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and Energy (though less so as it is a small sector). These expectations are well aligned with our investment thesis (Chart 9). Chart 8Most Sectors' Margins Are Back To Normal, But Peak Margins Are Elusive Chart 9Cyclical Sectors Are Expected To Grow The Most Over The Next 12 Months Investment Themes Consumers Are Flush With Cash One of our key investment themes is that the US consumer still has plenty of money to spend: Excess savings in the US currently stand at $2.5 trillion, and disposable incomes have been padded by the pandemic helicopter cash drops. While spending on goods had exceeded its historical trend and has recently turned, spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 10). During Q2-2021, Consumer Services earnings grew by 154%, exceeding analyst targets by 27%, though the level of earnings is only 5% above the Q2-2019 level (Chart 11). This suggests that the theme has worked, but also that it has the potential to run further only if not derailed by the fear of COVID-19 variants. However, the approach to investing in this sector needs to be granular, with overweights allocated to service industries such as hotels, restaurants, and leisure (S&P leisure products, S&P hotels, S&P restaurants). Chart 10Real Spending On Services Is At Pre-Pandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Chart 11The Consumer Discretionary Sector Growth Will Stay Robust We recommend staying away from Internet Retail (downgrade is pending) and the other sectors that have outsized exposure to consumer goods. Amazon earnings were a case in point: The company disappointed analysts with weaker revenue growth as well as provided a more cautious outlook as it finds it difficult to surpass its stellar pandemic numbers. Brick and mortar retail is likely to fare better, as going out to shop now falls into the “experiences” basket. China Slowdown: Underweight The Materials Sector Chinese growth is slowing, which has an adverse effect on demand for industrial metals (Chart 12). As a result, we have underweighted the Materials sector, along with the Metals and Mining industry. This call was on the money: While Materials more than doubled earnings over the past year, its earnings surprise at 6.40% is the smallest of all the sectors. The Materials sector has underperformed S&P 500 by 8% since the beginning of June. Chart 12Materials Sector Earnings Growth Is Slowing Post-COVID-19 Normalization: Overweight The Health Care Sector We upgraded this sector to an overweight three weeks ago. We intended to add a defensive sector in our portfolio to make it more robust in the face of an imminent market pullback, likely volatility on the back of elevated valuations and the upcoming debt ceiling kerfuffle. This quarter, Health Care posted mixed results despite being among the key beneficiaries of the pandemic. There are several factors at play. One is that some US vaccine manufacturers pledged to produce vaccines at no profit (J&J). Another reason is that the pandemic forced hospitals to halt their non-emergency operations that serve as an important end-demand market for the S&P Health Care sector. Weak Q2-2021 earnings suggest untapped demand for medical services and elective procedures. Just now, hospitals started reopening, and we expect a spike in the number of hospital visits, with positive spillover effects for medical equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. We are sticking to our overweight unless Delta and Lambda take over the hospital beds. US Manufacturing Renaissance The Industrials delivered triple-digit growth, but the sector’s earnings are still below pre-pandemic levels. There was an earnings growth dichotomy at play. Manufacturing companies that derive a high percentage of earnings from abroad have been affected by a slowdown of Chinese demand and by inflationary pressures. CAT’s recent 20% drawdown in relative terms encapsulates these headwinds. Domestic and services-oriented stocks like railroads reported exceptionally strong demand. Looking ahead, we are constructive on the sector. There is still significant pent-up demand for industrial goods and services, inventories are historically low (Chart 13) and need to be replenished, Federal infrastructure spending is a near certainty, and onshoring of US manufacturing is a new structural theme. Analysts concur: Expected EPS growth for the sector over the next 12 months is 46%. Chart 13Inventories Are At All Time Low Chart 14Value-Growth Earnings Growth Differential Is Closing Rate Stabilization: Overweight Technology and Growth vs Value Technology is one of our core overweights in the portfolio and the sector fared well last quarter. One of the drivers behind the strong quarter is an accelerating shift to remote work as companies re-evaluate the need for offices, especially given the possibility of new virus variants. A similar upbeat message came from the semiconductor industry: A shortage of chips that touches all corners of manufacturing from cars to computers, translates into strong earnings growth, which is likely to continue far into the future. As our BCA colleague, Arthur Budaghyan observed, semiconductor chip manufacturing is becoming a strategic asset, especially in a standoff between China and the US, and the country that controls the production of semis controls the production of most tech goods. We have been overweight Growth vs Value in our portfolios since the beginning of June. Since then, Growth has outperformed Value by about 6%. While Value was growing faster than Growth in Q2-21, the earnings growth expectation between Growth and Value is closing. After a strong run, Growth is expensive again, trading at 28x forward earnings compared to 16x for Value. We expect the yield curve to steepen and yields to rise this fall once workers return to work and the unemployment rate falls further. In other words, we are edging closer to downgrading Growth to neutral; we are just waiting to get more visibility on the Delta variant scare. Upgrade Small vs Large When Rates Rise Again Back in June, we wrote a deep-dive report on Small / Large cap allocation and concluded that an equal-weighted allocation was warranted. This call has not worked so far as Small has underperformed Large by about 5%. Our reasons for not overweighting Small vs Large were manifold: Slowing growth, flattening yield curve, mean reversion of high-yield spreads and, most importantly, a significant downgrade of earnings expectations (Chart 15). Chart 15Small Cap Downgrades Likely Ran Their Course However, we are warming up to Small: Reported earnings and sales growth was impressive. Furthermore, we expect the yield curve to steepen (helping banks in the S&P 600) as people go back to work in September, and rates to go up to as high as 1.8% by the end of the year. When the timing is right, we will swap overweight in the Growth stocks to an overweight in Small. Investment Implications The earnings season was impressive, but growth is returning to trend and is past its peak. The markets expect 12-17% earnings growth over the next 12 months. Earnings growth will pick up the baton from multiple expansion and will propel US equity markets further. Yet returns will be lower than in the past due to a high valuation “speed limit.” The US equity market is expensive, and earnings growth with a 10% handle will not deliver a significant re-rating, while growth rates above 20% are unlikely. We still like the consumer theme: Earnings results were strong, and more growth is expected ahead, especially in the consumer services space. Overweight Health Care: Pent-up demand for elective procedures will propel earnings growth higher. Overweight Industrials which will benefit from the US manufacturing Renaissance over the long term, and from a rebound in earnings growth in response to the inventory restocking cycle and infrastructure spending over the short term. Stay underweight Materials: China slowing will take a toll on the earnings growth of industrial metals miners and on the Materials sector as a whole. Overweight Growth vs Value for now. Watch for a persistent rise in rates and steeping of the yield curve – once that happens, rotate into Value and Small Caps, which thrive in such a macroeconomic environment. Bottom Line The earnings season produced peak growth, and the next phase of the cycle is earnings growth returning to trend. This normalization will be a tailwind for the equity markets and will replace multiple expansion as a driver of equity returns. We are sticking to our overweights in Industrials, Health Care and Consumer Discretionary, and our underweight in Materials. We are reconsidering our overweight in Growth and neutral positioning in Small Caps. Once rates turn up decisively, a rotation into Small and Value is warranted.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation

Highlights The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is symbolic – the US is conducting a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific to confront China. US-Iran negotiations are the linchpin of this pivot. If they fail, war risk will revive in the Middle East and the US will remain entangled in the region. At the moment, there is no deal, so investors should brace for a geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. That is, as long as global demand holds up despite COVID-19, and as long as the OPEC 2.0 cartel remains disciplined. We think they will in the short run. The US and Iran still have fundamental reasons to agree to a deal. If they do, the US will regain global room for maneuver while China’s and Russia’s window of opportunity will close. The implication is that markets face near-term oil supply risks – and long-term geopolitical risks due to Great Power rivalry in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Feature Events in Afghanistan have little macroeconomic significance but the geopolitical changes underway are profound and should be viewed through the lens of our second key view for 2021: the US strategic pivot to Asia. Chart 1The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan As we go to press the Taliban is reconquering swathes of Afghanistan while US armed forces evacuate embassy staff and civilians. The chaotic scenes are reminiscent of the US’s humiliating flight from Saigon, Vietnam in 1975. As with Vietnam, the immediate image is one of American weakness but the reality over the long run is likely to be different. Over the past decade we have chronicled the US’s efforts to disentangle itself from wars of choice in the Middle East and South Asia. In accordance with US grand strategy, Washington is refocusing its attention on its rivalries with Russia and especially China, the only power capable of supplanting the US as a global leader (Chart 1). The US has struggled to conduct this “pivot to Asia” over the past decade but the underlying trajectory is clear: while trying to manage its strategic interests in the Middle East through naval power, the US will need to devote greater resources and attention to shoring up its economic and military ties in Asia Pacific (Map 1). The Middle East still plays a critical role – notably through China’s energy import needs – but primarily via the Persian Gulf. Map 1The US Seeks Balance In Middle East In Order To Pivot To Asia And Confront China Thus the critical geopolitical risks today stem from Iran and the Middle East on one hand, and China on the other. They do not stem from the US’s belated and messy exit from Afghanistan, which has limited market relevance outside of South Asia. First, however, we will address the political impact in the United States. US Political Implications Chart 2Americans Agree With Biden And Trump On Exit From Afghanistan American popular opinion has long turned against the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cumulatively have cost $6.4 trillion and about 7,000 American troops dead1 (Chart 2). Three presidents, from two political parties, campaigned and won election on the basis of winding down these wars. The only presidential candidate since Republicans George W. Bush and John McCain who took a hawkish stance for persistent military engagement, Hillary Clinton, nearly lost the Democratic nomination and did lose the general election to a Republican, President Trump, who had reversed his party’s stance to advocate strategic withdrawal. War hawks have been sidelined in both parties. This is notable even if it were not the case that the current President Biden, whose son Beau fought in Afghanistan, had opposed the troop surge there under Obama. True, Biden will use drones, surgical strikes, and limited troop rotations to manage the aftermath in Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. Americans are still concerned about terrorism in general and any sign of a resurgent terrorist threat to the US homeland will be politically potent (Chart 3). But neither Biden nor the US can roll back the Taliban’s latest gains or achieve anything in Afghanistan that has not been achieved over the past twenty years.   Chart 3American Public Cares About Terrorism, Not Afghanistan Per Se True, Biden will suffer a political black eye from Afghanistan. His approval rating has already fallen to 49.6%, slipping beneath 50% for the first time, in the face of the Delta variant of COVID-19 and the Afghan debacle. In both cases his early optimistic statements have now become liabilities. Biden is also 79 years old, which will make the 2024 campaign questionable, and he faces mounting problems in other areas, from lax border security and immigration enforcement to rising domestic crime. Nevertheless, Biden still has sufficient political capital to push through one or both of his major domestic legislative proposals by the end of the year, despite thin majorities in both the House and Senate. Afghanistan will not affect that, for three reasons: 1. The US economy is likely to continue to recover despite hiccups due to the lingering pandemic, since the vaccines so far are effective. The labor market is recovering and business capex and government support are robust. Setbacks, such as volatile consumer confidence, will help Biden pass bills designed to shore up the economy. 2. The public fundamentally agrees with Biden (and Trump) on military withdrawal, as mentioned. Voters will only turn against him if a major attack reinforces an image of weakness on terrorism. A major attack based in Afghanistan is not nearly as likely to succeed as it was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. But Biden also faces an imminent increase in tensions in the Middle East that could result in attacks on the US or its allies, or other events that reinforce any image of foreign policy failure. 3. Biden has broad popular support for his infrastructure deal, which also has bipartisan buy-in, with 19 Republican Senators already having voted for it. Further, the Democratic Party has a special fast-track mechanism for passing his social spending agenda, though conviction levels must be modest on this $3.5 trillion bill, which is controversial and will have to be winnowed to pass on a partisan vote in the Senate. If we are correct that Afghanistan will not derail Biden’s legislative efforts then it will not fundamentally affect US fiscal policy or the global macro outlook. Note, however, that a failure of Biden’s bills would be significant for both domestic and global economy and financial markets as it would suggest that US fiscal policy is dysfunctional even under single party rule and would thus help to usher back in a disinflationary context. Might Afghanistan affect the midterm elections and hence the US policy setup post-2022? Not decisively. Republicans are more likely than not to retake at least the House of Representatives regardless. This is a cyclical aspect of US politics driven by voter turnout and other factors. Democrats are partly shielded in public opinion due to the Trump administration’s attempts to pull out of foreign wars. But surely a black eye on terrorism or foreign policy would not help. Similarly, a major failure to manage the Middle East, South Asia, and the pivot to Asia Pacific would marginally hurt the Democrats in 2024, but that is a long way off. Geopolitical Implications The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan has very little if any direct significance for global financial markets. Pakistan and India are the two major markets most likely to be directly affected – and their own geopolitical tensions will escalate as a result – yet both equity markets have been outperforming over the course of the Taliban’s military gains (Chart 4). Afghanistan’s impacts are indirect at best. However, the US withdrawal connects with major geopolitical currents, with both macro and market significance. Afghanistan often marks the tendency of empires to overreach. Russia’s failure in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though Russia’s command economy was unsustainable anyway. British failures in Afghanistan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not lead to the British empire’s decline – that was due to the world wars – but Afghanistan did accentuate its limitations. Since 9/11 and the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public’s economic malaise, political polarization, and loss of faith in public institutions have gotten worse. In turn, political divisions have impeded the government’s ability to respond cogently to financial and economic crisis, the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, nuclear proliferation, constitutional controversies, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again Afghanistan marked imperial overreach. It is natural for investors to be concerned about the stability of the United States. And yet the US’s global power has recently stabilized (Chart 5). The US survived the 2020 stress test and innovated new vaccines for the pandemic. It is passing laws to upgrade its domestic technological, manufacturing, and infrastructural base and confronting its global rivals. Chart 4If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You Chart 5US Geopolitical Power Is Stabilizing Chart 6US Not Shrinking From Global Role The US is not retreating from its global role, judging by defense spending or trade balances (Chart 6). While the desire to phase out wars could theoretically open the way to defense cuts, the reality is that the great power confrontation with China and Russia will demand continued large defense spending. The US also continues to run large trade deficits, due to its shortage of domestic savings, which gives it influence as a consumer and provider of dollar liquidity across the world. The critical geopolitical problem is Iran, where events have reached a critical juncture: To create a semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East, the US needs an understanding with Iran, which is locked in a struggle with Saudi Arabia over the vulnerable buffer state of Iraq. President Biden was not able to rejoin the 2015 détente with Iran prior to the inauguration of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, who is a hawk and whose confrontational policies will lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in the short term – and, if no US-Iran deal is reached, over the long term. Iran recognizes the US’s war-weariness, as demonstrated by withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also exposed to economic sanctions after the US’s 2018-19 abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal – it cannot trust the US to hold to a deal across administrations. Still, both the US and Iran face substantial strategic forces pressuring them to conclude a deal. The US needs to pivot to Asia while Iran needs to improve its economy and reduce social unrest prior to its looming leadership succession. But the time frame for negotiation is uncertain. Any failure to agree would revive the risk of a major war that would keep the US entangled in the region. Thus the pivot to Asia could be disrupted again, with major consequences for global politics, not because of Afghanistan but because of a failure to cut a deal with Iran. If the US succeeds in reducing its commitments to the Middle East and South Asia, the window of opportunity that China and Russia have enjoyed since 2001 will close. They will face a United States that has greater room for maneuver on a global scale. This is a threat to their own spheres of influence. But neither Beijing nor Moscow has an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, so a US-Iran deal is still possible. Unless and until the US and Iran normalize relations, the Middle East is exposed to heightened geopolitical risk and hence oil supply risk. Global oil spare capacity is sufficient to swallow small disturbances but not major risks to stability, such as in Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz. Investment Takeaways Chart 7Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Back in 2001, the combination of American war spending, and conflict in the Middle East, combined with China’s massive economic opening after joining the WTO, led to a falling US dollar and an oil bull market. Today the US’s massive budget deficits and current account deficits present a structural headwind to the US dollar. Yet the greenback has remained resilient this year. While the pandemic will fade as long as vaccines continue to be effective, China’s potential growth is slowing even as it faces an unprecedented confrontation with the US and its allies. Until the US and Iran normalize relations, geopolitics will tend to threaten Middle Eastern oil supply and put upward pressure on oil prices. However, if the US manages the pivot to Asia, China will face more resolute opposition in its sphere of influence, which will tend to strengthen the dollar. The dollar and oil still tend to move in opposite directions. These geopolitical trends will be influential in determining which direction prevails (Chart 7). Thus geopolitics poses an upward risk to oil prices for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Crawford, Neta, "United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post 9/11 Wars Through FY 2020: $6.4 trillion", Watson Institute, Brown University.

Special Report

Please note: There will be no European Investment Strategy report Monday, August 23. Our next report will be on Monday, August 30. Feature The past year has seen an unprecedented explosion of nonfinancial corporate debt as companies took on extraordinary leverage to weather the pandemic (Chart 1). This is a risk we recently highlighted in BCA Research European Investment Strategy, arguing that while euro area debt loads are not bad enough to make us turn bearish on European credit immediately, they still represent a concern for the future.  Rising debt servicing costs are also a risk, with aggregate euro area nonfinancial corporate debt servicing costs, as a percentage of operating cash flows, now pulling ahead of global peers. This increase has been led by France, where debt servicing costs now eat up a whopping 73.2% of cash flows. At the same time, value has steadily disappeared from European credit markets, with investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) spreads nearing 2018 lows (Chart 2). Our 12-month breakeven spread metric, which measures the amount of spread widening required over a 12-month period for corporate bond returns to break even with a duration-matched position in government bond securities, confirms this message. Ranked against their own history, IG and HY breakeven spreads are now at only their 16th and 13th percentiles, respectively. Chart 1Euro Area Debt Loads Are Rising Chart 2Value Has Disappeared From European Credit Against this backdrop, it pays to adopt a more cautious approach towards European credit. To that end, we are introducing our new and improved bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors (CHMs) for investment grade and high-yield issuers in the euro area. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in major developed economies. Before we jump into the message from our new European CHMs, however, it is important to review the methodology used to construct these indicators. A Quick Note On Methodology We begin by constructing a representative sample of euro area issuers to assess broader nonfinancial corporate health in the euro area. To accomplish this, we use the list of issuers from the Bloomberg Barclays IG and HY Corporate Bond Indices. Financials (mostly banks) are excluded from the calculations as they have very different balance sheet profiles, requiring a different set of metrics to properly assess the health of that sector. As an improvement of the previous euro area CHMs, we now use a dynamic sample of issuers that is updated every year. This allows us to account for the changing compositions of these indices over time, as issuers move up and down in quality, and are added or dropped from the index. This also accounts for the survivorship bias that arises as companies that go out of business are dropped from the sample. Note that our sample is static prior to 2012. Before this date, we do not have the data on index constituents needed to construct a dynamic sample. As of Q1/2021, the sample for the euro area IG CHM consists of roughly 200 issuers, covering 50% of the index, while the sample for HY consists of 50 issuers or so, covering only 25% of the index. As we can only get bottom-up data for publicly-listed companies, we are unable to include private companies that issue corporate debt but do not necessarily tap into the public equity market.    We then pull key financial statement ratios for these issuers on a quarterly basis. Specifically, we use the following six ratios: Profit Margins: Operating profits as a percent of corporate sales Return On Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBIT divided by value of interest expense Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Total current assets excluding total inventories divided by the value of total current liabilities It is important to note that we are using the same financial ratios as the CHMs that we have previously published for other developed markets. This could prove useful later when we search for relative performance relying exclusively on CHMs. To construct the CHM, we pick the medians of the individual ratios for every quarter, which we then de-trend, by subtracting out the 12-quarter moving average, and standardize. Finally, we take an equal-weighted average of all six ratios to calculate the CHM. Using median ratios precludes excessive influence from outliers, while de-trending them introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Lastly, we calculate a version of the CHM that includes only domestic issuers, which allows us to look at the health of European nonfinancial firms in isolation. This is important, as foreign issuers make up roughly 60% of both the IG and HY samples. US issuers account for most of the foreign issuers for both samples, meaning that part of the message from our overall indicator is on US corporate health. However, we include our overall indicator for the sake of completeness. Unveiling Our New European Corporate Health Monitors Chart 3 presents the all-issuer and domestic issuer versions of our new European IG corporate health monitor. A negative indicator signals improving nonfinancial corporate health and vice versa. Both indicators have shown steady improvement since Q2/2020, with the domestic indicator peaking out in Q1/2020. However, there has recently been a notable divergence between the two, with domestic issuers recovering at a significantly slower pace. The recovery in the IG CHMs has been broad-based, with all component ratios showing an improving trend (Chart 4). However, domestic firms have clearly lagged behind, with the overall indicator especially outperforming on the return on capital, leverage, and interest coverage metrics. It is important when looking at falling leverage, however, to consider the “denominator effect” of rising share prices on equity market value. Chart 3Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Health Monitor Chart 4Euro Area IG CHM: Component Ratios The HY monitor offers a more balanced picture between the domestic and all-issuer CHMs, with both indicators signaling a modest improvement in corporate health (Chart 5). This picture is confirmed by the constituent ratios, which, in the case of HY, tend to track more closely between domestic and all-issuer (Chart 6). Again, decreasing leverage contributed positively to the situation, while rebounding profits provided a strong boost to interest coverage ratios.     Chart 5Euro Area High-Yield Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Euro Area HY CHM: Component Ratios Overall, the underperformance of domestic issuers on corporate health can largely be explained by a delayed reopening in Europe and weaker overall European fiscal stimulus response relative to the US. However, we expect this picture to change in coming quarters as vaccination rates continue to climb, European stimulus expands, and pent-up demand is released.  For both HY and IG, metrics such as profit margins or leverage have not yet returned to pre-Covid levels. While it may appear difficult to reconcile this with the highly optimistic readings from the CHM, we note again that the ratios are de-trended before they are incorporated into the CHM. That makes the CHM a better indicator of how corporate health is turning on the margin rather than in absolute terms.    Chart 7Euro Area: CHMs Vs. Spreads Our new CHMs undoubtedly provide an important signal on corporate health, but we are interested in the implication for corporate credit spreads. Chart 7 shows that the domestic issuer CHMs have been reliable at catching periods of major spread widening/tightening. Generally speaking, the year-over-year change in the CHM is a coincident indicator and can be used to confirm if movements in spreads are in line with underlying corporate fundamentals. Clearly, the recent narrowing in spreads has not kept pace with the drastic improvement in the CHM over the past two quarters. This likely reflects how close spreads are to post-crisis lows, meaning that they have little room left to fall regardless of how much corporate health improves. This asymmetry of returns, where credit has little to benefit from improving nonfinancial corporate health while remaining exposed to a deterioration, is a longer-term concern for investors. While spreads in level terms have been on a slow and steady narrowing trend this year, they are, on a rate of change basis, moving towards a more neutral level. This message will be confirmed by the CHMs in coming quarters as the monitors revert to the mean from their most recent optimistic readings. While Chart 7 displays the coincident properties of the indicators, we can also tune into the forward-looking aspect by looking at how spreads have performed historically over different time horizons given the levels of the CHMs. Table 1 presents the performance of both IG and HY spreads over the subsequent 3-12 month period when their respective CHMs were positive or negative. Table 1CHM Direction And Subsequent Spread Performance Over 3-12 Months For both IG and HY, there are a few key conclusions. Firstly, when the domestic-only CHM is negative, spreads tend to widen in the subsequent 3-12 months. Conversely, they narrow, on average, when it is positive. This reflects the mean-reverting property of our indicators. After the indicator has been positive for a while, indicating deteriorating health, it is naturally going to trend back towards zero. Spreads tighten in the coming quarters as a reaction to this marginal improvement in corporate health. The same relationship holds in the opposite direction.    On the whole, however, the domestic-only CHM is more reliable than the overall CHM as an indicator of whether spreads are going to widen/narrow. This discrepancy is most pronounced for HY, where the all-issuer version largely provides a misleading signal, with spreads usually continuing to narrow after the CHM is negative and widening after it is positive. One possible explanation for this is that European spreads are sensitive to European events, and since the overall CHM has a large presence of US corporate issuers, it does not properly reflect how investors should be compensated with regard to nonfinancial corporate health. Beyond just looking at the change in spreads following a positive or a negative reading on the CHMs, we can also see how spreads change when the CHMs fall into different ranges. Table 2 presents spread performance for periods when the CHM was within specific ranges: below -1, between -1 and 0, between 0 and +1, and greater than +1. This analysis makes an even stronger point on the mean reverting property of the indicator. When the CHMs reach extremely stretched positive (negative) readings, spreads tend to narrow (widen) a lot. The impact is also most pronounced over a 12-month horizon, with HY spreads narrowing, on average, a whopping 452bps twelve months after the CHM hits a level greater than +1. Table 2CHM Level And Subsequent Spread Performance Over 3-12 Months Bottom Line: Our new bottom-up European CHMs have been signaling a broad-based and consistent improvement in corporate health since Q2/2020. The CHMs are coincident indicators that can be used to confirm if changes in spreads are in line with fundamentals. On a forward-looking basis, stretched positive (negative) levels of the CHM indicate potential for future spread tightening (widening). Investment Conclusions While our CHMs are currently flashing a positive message on nonfinancial corporate health, there are some reasons to be cautious on European credit. Firstly, debt loads are at historically high levels in the euro area, a message confirmed by the bottom-up data shown in Charts 4 and 6. Spreads, on an absolute and breakeven basis, are also near post-crisis lows, implying meagre prospects for further tightening and are, on the other hand, exposed to any deterioration in corporate health. Lastly, the mean-reverting property of our CHM indicates that the monitors are likely to move back towards “deteriorating” territory on the margin, a historically negative sign for spreads. However, it is hard to recommend staying out of European credit at a time when fiscal and monetary policy are overly accommodative, and growth looks poised to surprise to the upside. The European Central Bank has already marked itself as one of the most dovish developed market central banks and will likely do “whatever it takes” to prevent a blow-up in spreads and the associated tightening in financial conditions. And currently, spreads still offer a decent yield pickup over sovereigns, even if they do not have much room to tighten. Thus, balancing the positives and negatives suggests it still makes sense to hold neutral exposure to credit within a European fixed-income portfolio, but adding to this exposure is now unwarranted. In the euro area, BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy is currently neutral on investment grade and overweight on high-yield credit.  Within high-yield, we recommend staying up in quality, favoring Ba-rated credit and avoiding lower tiers which will be hit first if corporate health deteriorates and do not offer adequate compensation for credit risk. Likewise, our European Investment Strategy recommends a selective approach, favoring sectors with more defensive risk profiles. Bottom Line: Even though there is some cause for concern on the horizon, it is too early to pivot out of European credit with the macro backdrop still accommodative. Remain neutral on euro area investment grade and overweight high-yield while avoiding riskier sectors and credit tiers within the high-yield allocation.               Jeremie Peloso,                         Associate Editor                          JeremieP@bcaresearch.com  Shakti Sharma, Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com

Dear client, FX will be taking a summer break next week. We will resume our regular publication the subsequent week. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights Our broad finding is that buying a currency when it is cheap and selling it when it is expensive generates excess returns over time. Even if you rebalance monthly, a 5% valuation gap is sufficient to allow outperformance both tactically and cyclically. We investigated this rule with our in-house PPP models, and as we argue in this report, it certainly holds true for our intermediate-term timing models (ITTM). That said, there is no silver bullet for all currencies: some mean-revert to their PPP fair value much faster than to other fundamental fair values, like our ITTM. The recommendations today are a barbell strategy: to be long procyclical currencies (especially the NOK and the Japanese yen). Feature Chart I-1The ITTM Model Works With A Trading Rule In April 2020 last year, we decided to simplify our FX framework into a trading model. The idea was to see whether the pillars of our framework were sitting on solid bedrock. These three pillars were the macroeconomic environment (rising or falling interest rates), valuation, and sentiment. Once armed with the conclusion that these pillars were indeed robust, we have been constantly evaluating ways to make them more deterministic. Back then, we used purchasing power parity (PPP) as our valuation tool of choice, but we had to overhaul the model from industry standards, to allow for positive results using a trading rule. And like most models, performance was not uniform across currencies. This week, we are both updating and testing our intermediate-term timing models (ITTM), another valuation tool we use for currencies. The models use two key variables, real interest rate differentials and a risk factor, to determine when a currency should mean-revert. The trading results add value over time, but two important conclusions arise from this work (Chart I-1): Valuation can indeed be used as timing tool for currencies. Even if you rebalance monthly, a 5% valuation gap is sufficient to allow for outperformance. Even a 1% valuation gap can add value both tactically and cyclically, used in conjunction with a momentum rule. Chart I-2Model Versus Qualitative Trades Combining a few models together does indeed increase the Sharpe ratio. Since the 2000s, both valuation models have outperformed a buy-and-hold currency strategy with much lower volatility. There are three important considerations. First, the trading rules are generated monthly, which might be too frequent for certain investors. Second, we do not include carry considerations, which might be negligible near term, but will matter over time. Finally, the model does not account for sizing. We intend to incorporate these in future iterations. The ITTM (and PPP) models have variables that are highly statistically significant and of the expected signs. These models thus confirm that paying attention to valuation can help investors with currency strategy both in the short term and in the longer term. These models are especially useful as timing indicators on a three-to-nine month basis, as their error terms revert to zero quickly. Finally, what these models help us do in our role as strategists is stop for a sanity check. As such, since we rolled out our initial model, we have tracked the returns relative to our more qualitative recommendations (Chart I-2) and a simple long DXY strategy. The US Dollar   According to our ITTM model, the dollar is overvalued by 4.3%, or less than 1 standard deviation from its fair value. Our ITTM valuation tool has in general performed worse than our PPP models, but has also provided much lower volatility (Chart I-3). Chart I-3USD Is Overvalued By 4.3% The key driver in this model is real interest rates, and this week’s CPI release suggests that inflation could continue to remain much higher in the US relative to other countries. Headline CPI remained very strong at 5.4% in July, while the core measure came in at 4.3%, bigger numbers than most G10 countries. Unless the Federal Reserve increases interest rates sometime soon, this will keep real rates very depressed in the US. As such, the model recommends that investors short the dollar, once the near-term uptrend in the DXY reverses, which we believe will occur closer to the 94 level. The Euro   The ITTM model has worked relatively well for the euro, even more so than for the US dollar. With the euro about 6.7% cheaper versus the dollar, a buy signal is awaiting a bottom in EUR/USD over a month or two (Chart I-4). It is especially impressive that the ITTM approach has delivered similar results to PPP, but with less volatility. Chart I-4EUR/USD Is Undervalued By 6.7% Both the Sentix investor confidence index and the ZEW economic sentiment index rolled over significantly in August. This suggests it might be better to wait before bottom fishing the euro. Structurally, however, we continue to favor the euro as the risk of a breakup, specifically emanating from the southern periphery, remains muted for now. The Yen   The yen is about 4.9% cheaper versus the dollar, according to this model. The ITTM model has been somewhat successful in trading the yen, with very few drawdown periods (Chart I-5). This is important as the yen has been a difficult currency to model, based on the 3-factor approach we described at the beginning of this report. Chart I-5USD/JPY Is Overvalued By 4.9% One guess is that yen spends most of the time in the “belly” of most indicators, and so timing extremely potent turns in the currency are rare. Another guess is that the yen’s safe-haven nature probably reduces its correlation with the independent variables in the model. It is important to note that during normal environments (falling corporate spreads, and rising commodity prices), the yen tends to be negatively correlated to the dollar (like other currencies). During risk-off periods, the yen tends to become positively correlated to the dollar (unlike other currencies). This makes the yen a perfect hedge for a currency portfolio and underpins our current long position. The British Pound   Cable is undervalued by around 5.1%. The ITTM model has worked well for the pound especially since the cable spot has been essentially flat for two decades (Chart I-6). Chart I-6GBP/USD Is Undervalued By 5.1% Going forward, the model should continue to favor the pound. This week’s GDP release for the UK was very positive. In fact, UK real GDP has been outperforming both the US and the euro area in Q2. This will allow real interest rates to rise in the UK, as the BoE embarks on a normalization plan. Given valuation has been important for gauging shifts in the pound, the falling productivity in the UK (which could lead to structural inflation and lower real rates) would be a worry over the longer term. The Canadian Dollar   The Canadian dollar is undervalued by about 3.3% (Chart I-7). The model has generated poor returns in CAD, but with lower volatility. However, the PPP model has successfully added value over time, highlighting the benefit of a balanced approach. Chart I-7USD/CAD Is Overvalued By 3.3% The CAD might be caught in a tug of war between improving real rates, and a drop in commodity prices in the near term. Meanwhile, recent economic data have been below expectations. Employment in July came in at 94K, below expectations of a 176K increase. The PMIs in Canada are also rolling over. As such, the model is correct in being more cautious on CAD.  The Swiss Franc   The ITTM model suggests the franc is undervalued by 3.6%. But unlike for the JPY, the ITTM has a more mundane track record for the CHF (Chart I-8). In general, the franc has been a more difficult currency to model, with our PPP model just barely matching the structural increase in the franc since 2002. Chart I-8USD/CHF Is Overvalued By 3.6% Structural improvement in the franc is likely to continue, as any inflation in Switzerland will be much muted, compared to the US.  The Australian Dollar   The Aussie is undervalued by 9% versus the dollar. The ITTM model has an excellent record of adding value, compared to our PPP model (Chart I-9). This is particularly the case in avoiding losses, with very little drawdowns. This increases our confidence in listening to this model when making calls on AUD/USD. Chart I-9AUD/USD Is Undervalued By 9% The Australian economy has been under strain lately and is like to continue in a stop-and-go fashion until the population gets vaccinated. That said, the Aussie is cheap, even versus the kiwi and we are long AUD/NZD as a hedged trade. The New Zealand Dollar The kiwi is undervalued by 5.6% but unlike the Aussie, our ITTM model has had a poor track record of adding value, compared to the PPP models (Chart I-10). That gives us more confidence in our long AUD/NZD position. Chart I-10NZD/USD Is Undervalued By 5.6% The New Zealand economy is certainly benefitting from having put COVID-19 mostly behind it. However, the bottlenecks in the economy, especially on the labor front, are becoming acute as migrant labor is nonexistent. Meanwhile, the RBNZ is intent on raising rates. The combination will boost real rates but nudge the economy closer to vulnerability. For now, the kiwi remains insulated, as rising real rates will lift its fair value.   The Norwegian Krone Our ITTM model for the Norwegian krone shows it as squarely undervalued (by 9.8%), but also has a poor record of adding value. Since 2002, the model has been roughly in line with a flat krone (Chart I-11). Chart I-11USD/NOK Is Overvalued By 9.8% Our bias is that the krone could see another mini cycle upwards. First, the Norges bank will raise rates sooner than many central banks, especially with inflation near 3%. This will begin to lift Norwegian real rates. Second, if oil prices stay well bid, as our commodity strategists expect, this will put a floor under Norwegian exports and the krone. The Swedish Krona Like its Scandinavian counterpart, the Swedish krona is also quite cheap (by 10.2%) and is one of our favorite longs (Chart I-12). Our ITTM model however has not markedly outperformed over time. Chart I-12USD/SEK Is Overvalued By 10.2% Swedish industrial orders and industrial production continue to boom, according to data this week, with growth admittedly slowing from high levels. If the CPI data coming out shortly surprises to the upside, that could mark the beginning of SEK’s outperformance. We are long the SEK both against the EUR and USD. Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Following up on yesterday’s Sector Insight report where we addressed the question of “how much inflation is too much” for the SPX multiple, today we conduct a similar analysis, but for earnings. Table 1 below illustrates that as long as inflation remains below 3%, earnings are not affected by the rising prices. However, crossing the 3% mark results in turbulence, especially once inflation accelerates beyond 4%. Specifically, column 6 of the table that corresponds to CPI rising above 4% displays mean and median YOY LTM earnings growth of negative 11% and negative 18%, respectively. One of the reasons why earnings suffer during high inflation is because companies have trouble passing on cost increases and are forced to sacrifice margins and earnings. These results are also consistent with the interplay between inflation and SPX multiple we showed yesterday. Bottom Line: While inflation is a concern, our view remains that as long as long-term inflation readings stay below 3%, equity earnings growth will shrug off price increases. Table 1Inflation Lagged 12 months vs LTM Earnings YoY