Developed Countries

Highlights Q3/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark by +19bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +10bps, led by overweights in US (+13bps), Canada (+2bps) and Italy (+4bps) that favored allocations to inflation-linked government bonds out of nominals. Spread product generated a similar-sized outperformance (+9bps), led by overweights to US investment grade corporates (+8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar. Feature As we enter the final quarter of 2020, global financial markets are dealing with many near-term uncertainties related to the upcoming US presidential election, potential next moves in global policy stimulus and, perhaps most worrying, a second wave of coronavirus infections in Europe and the US. That means the “easy money” has been made in global fixed income from the unwind of the blowout in credit spreads, and collapse of government bond yields, seen following the COVID-19 related market turbulence of February and March. Investors should expect substantially lower fixed income returns in the coming months. Relative performance between countries and sectors will be the more dominant influence on bond portfolio returns in the absence of big directional moves in yields or spreads. Alternatively put, expect alpha to win out over beta. This week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Another Positive Quarter, Led By Linkers & Corporates Chart of the WeekQ3/2020 Performance: Gains From Both Sides Of The Portfolio The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was 3.14%, modestly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +19bps (Chart of the Week).1 This is the second consecutive positive quarter, lifting the year-to-date outperformance into positive territory (+12bps) – an impressive accomplishment given the sharp drawdown that occurred during the market volatility of February and March. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +10bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +9bps. That government bond return includes a substantial gain (+17bps) from inflation-linked bonds, which we added as a new asset class in our model portfolio framework back on June 23.2 In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the relatively higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada and Italy was an important source of outperformance, delivering a combined excess return of +19bps (including inflation-linked bonds). This was only partially offset by the negative active returns from underweights in low-yielding countries such as Germany, France, and Japan (a combined drag of -9bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Overall Return Attribution In spread product, our overweights in US investment grade corporates (+8bps), UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) and US Agency CMBS (+4bps) were the main sources of outperformance, while the negative active return from underweighting Euro Area high yield (-2bps) was minimal. Our preference to favor higher-rated US high-yield relative to lower-rated US junk bonds, even as riskier credit rallied, did little damage to portfolio performance, with a combined excess return across all three US junk credit tiers of just -2bps. The moderate outperformance of the model bond portfolio versus the benchmark in Q3 is in line with our cautious recommended stance on what are always the largest drivers of the portfolio returns: overall duration exposure and the relative allocation between government debt and spread product. We have stuck close to benchmark exposures on both, eschewing big directional bets on bond yields or credit spreads while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors – particularly in sectors most strongly supported by central bank easing actions, like US investment grade corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Long US TIPS (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade industrials (+5bps) Overweight US Agency CMBS (+4bps) Overweight UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) Overweight US high-yield Ba-rated corporates (+3bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight French government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-4bps) Underweight US high-yield B-rated corporates (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2020. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2020 The top performing sectors within our model bond portfolio universe in Q3 were well distributed among government bonds and spread products: Italian government bonds (relative index return of +3.8), New Zealand government bonds (+3.0%), EM USD-denominated sovereign (+2.6%), US high-yield corporates (2.4%), Spanish government bonds (+2.3%), and investment grade corporates in the UK (+2%) and US (1.9%). Importantly, we were overweight or neutral all of those markets during the quarter, driven by our main investment themes of “buying what the central banks are buying” and “yield chasing.”4 On the other side, we had limited exposure to the worst performing sectors during Q3, with underweights to government bonds in Germany and Japan, US Agency MBS and euro area high-yield. Cutting our long-standing overweight on UK Gilts to neutral in early August also benefitted the portfolio performance, with Gilts being the worst performer in our model bond universe by far in Q3. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio modestly outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +19bps – a positive result driven by our relative positioning that favored higher yielding government debt and spread product sectors directly supported by central bank purchases. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. This is in line with the current strategic investment recommendations of the BCA Research fixed income services. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. The overall duration of the portfolio is in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 5), consistent with our strategic investment recommendation to be neutral on exposure to changes in interest rates. With central banks actively seeking to keep policy rates as low as possible until inflation returns – i.e. aiming to push real rates even lower - we expect the negative correlation seen between global inflation breakevens and real bond yields to persist over at least the next 6-12 months. Offsetting moves in both will continue to dampen the volatility of nominal bond yields, as has been the case over the past six months (Chart 6). Chart 5Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: At Benchmark Central banks aiming for an inflation overshoot and negative real rates will also continue to boost the relative performance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal equivalents. Chart 6Within Governments, Continue Overweighting Linkers Vs Nominals We see this as a similar environment to the years following the 2008 financial crisis, with central banks keeping rates at 0% while rapidly expanding their balance sheets via quantitative easing and cheap liquidity provision for banks. The result was a multi-year period where linkers outperformed nominal government bonds (Chart 7). Thus, we are maintaining a large core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy and Canada. Chart 7The Strategic Case For Inflation-Linked Bond Outperformance Chart 8Overall Portfolio Allocation: Moderately Overweight Credit Vs Governments In terms of country allocations on the government bond side of the portfolio, we continue to favor overweights in higher-yielding markets with overall global yield volatility likely to remain subdued. Chart 9Global QE Continues To Support Credit Markets That means overweighting the US, Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, while underweighting Germany, France and Japan. The UK belongs in that latter list, but we are maintaining a neutral stance on the UK, for now, given the near-term uncertainty surrounding final Brexit negotiations and the surge in new UK COVID-19 cases. Turning to spread product, we are maintaining only a moderate aggregate overweight allocation versus government bonds, equal to 4% of the portfolio (Chart 8). The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy and expansion of central bank balance sheets that is good for relative inflation-linked bond performance also benefits global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has proven to be an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 9). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 40% pace, corporate bonds are likely to continue to outperform government debt over the next 6-12 months. Thus, our allocation to inflation-linked bonds and corporate credit, both out of nominal government bonds, are both motivated by the same factor – monetary policy reflation. The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. At the same time, we continue to maintain a cautious stance on allocations to countries and sectors within that overall overweight tilt towards spread product in the model bond portfolio. We prefer to stay relatively up-in-quality within global corporate debt, even with high-yield bonds in the US and Europe offering relatively high spreads using our 12-month breakeven spread metric (Chart 10).5 Chart 10US & European HY Offer Relatively Wide Breakeven Spreads Chart 11US & European HY Offer No Spread Cushion Against Rising Defaults The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. Our measure of the default-adjusted spread, calculated by taking the option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays high-yield index and subtracting default losses, shows that high-yield spreads on both sides of the Atlantic will be dwarfed by expected default losses over the next year, assuming a typical pattern of defaults after recessions (Chart 11). We continue to prefer staying up-in-quality within our recommended corporate allocations, favoring Ba-rated US high-yield over B-rated and Caa-rated credit while also underweighting euro area high-yield relative to euro area investment grade corporates. This strategy lowers the yield of the model portfolio, which is currently in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 12), at the expense of stretching for yields in riskier credit that may not be sustainable over the medium-term. Chart 12Overall Portfolio Yield: At Benchmark Chart 13Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate At the same time, our measured stance on relative corporate exposure also acts to reduce portfolio risk – a useful outcome as we are targeting a relatively moderate tracking error (relative portfolio volatility versus that of the benchmark) within the model portfolio (Chart 13). Given the near-term uncertainties over the US elections and the potential second wave of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, staying relatively cautious on the usage of the “risk budget” of the portfolio seems prudent. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In past quarterly reviews of our model bond portfolio, we have presented forecasts for the performance of the overall portfolio based off scenario analysis and some simple quantitative model-based predictions of various fixed income sectors. Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 shock, we chose to avoid such model driven forecasts based on historical coefficients and correlations that may not be applicable. As it turns out, we may have been too cautious in that decision. The “risk-factor” models that we have used to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A) - have actually done a reasonable job of predicting yield changes over the past year. This can be seen in the charts shown in the Appendix on pages 18-20. Only in the case of US Caa-rated high-yield and EM USD-denominated corporates – two sectors where we are underweight given our concerns about valuation - have yields fallen by a far greater amount than implied by our models. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. For the government bond side, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those into changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Chart 14Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs (Chart 14): Base Case: The US election result is initially uncertain, but a clear winner is determined within a few days. COVID cases continue to increase, but with less severe economic restrictions than during the first wave. Global growth continues to show steady improvement. There will be some additional global fiscal stimulus, with central banks keeping foot on monetary accelerator. There is mild bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with moderate widening of US inflation breakevens. The VIX reaches 25, the USD dollar depreciates by -5%, oil prices climb 10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. Optimistic Scenario: The US election goes smoothly and a clear winner is declared on election night. The current uptick in global COVID cases does not turn into a full-blown second wave requiring severe economic restrictions. Global growth continues to steadily improve, with additional global fiscal stimulus and central banks staying highly dovish. The US Treasury curve bear steepens as US inflation expectations steadily increase. The VIX falls to 20, the USD dollar depreciates by -7%, oil prices climb 20%, and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 15US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Pessimistic Scenario: There is a contested US election result taking weeks to resolve, leading to major US social unrest. A full-blown second COVID-19 wave hits the world and severe economic restrictions are implemented. Governments become more worried about debt/deficits and deliver underwhelming stimulus. Central banks do not provide enough additional stimulus to offset the shocks. The US Treasury curve bull-flattens as US inflation breakevens plunge. The VIX soars to 35, the USD dollar rise by 5%, oil prices fall -20%, while the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B and Chart 15). The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +17bps in the base case and +27bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -1bp in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of lobal Inflation Expectations", dated June 23 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 The 12-month breakeven spread measures the amount of spread widening that must take place for a credit product to have the same return over a one-year horizon as a duration-matched position in government bonds. We compare those breakeven spreads to their own history in a percentile ranking to determine the relative attractiveness of a credit product strictly from a spread and spread volatility perspective. Appen dix Appendix Chart 1US Investment Grade Sectors Appendix Chart 2US High-Yield Credit Tiers Appendix Chart 3US MBS & CMBS Appendix Chart 4Euro Area And UK Credit Appendix Chart 5Emerging Markets USD-Denominated Debt Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

We have shown in recent research that the fourth year of presidential cycles finds the SPX ending the year on average in the green with a calendar return in the high single digits. Peering back in 2016 is instructive as that presidential election cycle year was in some ways similar to the current one. The economy, in particular, was fighting off a manufacturing recession that spread and infected the services sectors as the vast majority of S&P GICS1 sectors contracted profits and more importantly revenues. The chart shows a number of asset classes and compares 2016 with 2020. The 10-year US Treasury yield appears poised to rebound significantly, especially if Congress passes a fresh fiscal package that aides the parts of the economy that need the stimulus checks most. Fiscal easing uncertainty remains a thorny issue across different markets and if history is an accurate guide, the SPX could glide lower into the November election before rallying into year-end. Bottom Line: We are in the tail end of the equity market correction and as election and fiscal policy uncertainties recede they will pave the way for a robust SPX rally. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Chart 1Spending Held Up In August The bulk of the CARES act’s income support provisions expired at the end of July and Congress has still not reached consensus on a follow-up package. Unsurprisingly, consumer spending responded by growing much more slowly in August, but at least so far, absolute calamity has been avoided (Chart 1). The failure of consumer spending to collapse has caused some, like St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard, to question whether more stimulus is even necessary.1 We are less optimistic. The most recent personal income report shows that households still received $867 billion (annualized) of CARES act stimulus in August and the recovery in consumer confidence has been tepid at best (see page 12), suggesting that the savings rate will not drop quickly. We expect Congress to ultimately deliver more fiscal support, which will lead to a bear-steepening Treasury curve and spread product outperformance on a 6-12 month horizon. But continued brinkmanship warrants a more cautious near-term stance. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -394 bps. Last month’s sell-off caused some value to return to the sector. The overall index’s 12-month breakeven spread is back up to its 31st percentile since 1995 and the equivalent Baa spread is at its 38th percentile (Chart 2). Both levels appear somewhat expensive at first blush. However, considering the strong tailwinds from the Fed’s extraordinarily accommodative interest rate policy and emergency lending facilities, we see a lot of room for further spread tightening. Corporate bond issuance was up in August, but nowhere near the extreme levels seen in the spring (panel 4). The fact that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – turned negative in the second quarter suggests that firms have sufficient cash to cover their investment needs, and that further debt issuance is unnecessary (bottom panel). At the sector level, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to subordinate bank bonds,2 Healthcare and Energy bonds.3 We also advise underweight allocations to Technology4 and Pharmaceutical bonds.5   Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 107 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -455 bps. Oddly, Ba-rated was the worst performing credit tier on the month and the lowest-rated (Caa & below) credits actually beat the Treasury benchmark by 42 bps. As we wrote last week, this suggests that there remains scope for low-rated junk to sell off in the event of a shock to economic growth expectations.6 Such a development could arise if Congress fails to pass a new stimulus bill. In terms of value, if we assume a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses, then the High-Yield index is priced for a default rate of 4.8% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). Such a large drop in the default rate would necessitate a rapid economic recovery and we are not yet confident that such a recovery can be achieved. Job Cut Announcements – a variable that correlates tightly with the default rate – ticked higher in September and they remain well above pre-COVID levels (bottom panel). At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology7 and Energy bonds.8 We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.9   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -51 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 4 bps on the month, and it continues to trade at a premium compared to other similarly risky sectors. The MBS index OAS is currently 80 bps. This compares to an OAS of 79 bps for Aa-rated corporate bonds, 66 bps for Agency CMBS and 30 bps for Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the OAS advantage, we are concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk could flare during the next few months (Chart 4). Even if Treasury yields are unchanged, a further 50 bps drop in the mortgage rate due to spread compression cannot be ruled out. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. With that in mind, we are concerned about the low level of expected prepayment losses (option cost) priced into the MBS index (panel 3). A fourth quarter refi wave would undoubtedly send that option cost higher, eating into the returns implied by the OAS. The recent spike in the mortgage delinquency rate does not pose a near-term risk to spreads as it is being driven by households that have been granted forbearance from the federal government (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders only comes into play if many households are unable to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period expires early next year. But even in that case, further government intervention to either support household incomes or extend the forbearance period would mitigate the risk.   Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -313 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 99 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -562 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 13 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -706 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -341 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 15 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 3 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -12 bps. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, most of this year’s dollar depreciation has occurred against other Developed Market currencies, not EMs (Chart 5). Added to that, dollar weakness against all trading partners helps US corporate sector profits, and Baa-rated corporate bonds continue to offer a spread pick-up versus EM Sovereigns (panel 4). We looked at EM Sovereign valuation on a country-by-country basis two weeks ago and concluded that Mexican and Russian Sovereigns offer the most compelling risk/reward trade-offs relative to the US corporate sector.10 Of those two countries, Mexican debt offers the best opportunity as the peso is on an appreciating trend versus the dollar. The Russian Ruble has been depreciating versus the dollar, and is vulnerable in the case of a Democratic sweep in November.     Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -503 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Short-dated municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries were stable in September, but long-maturity spreads widened. The entire Aaa muni curve remains above the Treasury curve, despite municipal debt’s tax-exempt status (Chart 6). Municipal bonds also remain attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. Aaa munis offer more after-tax yield than Aaa corporates for investors facing an effective tax rate above 15%. The breakeven effective tax rates for Aa, A and Baa-rated munis are 11%, 13% and 17%, respectively. Extremely attractive valuation causes us to stick with our municipal bond overweight, even as state and local governments face a credit crunch. State & local government payrolls shrank in September and, without federal support, cutbacks will no doubt continue (bottom panel). However, we expect that the combination of austerity measures and all-time high State Rainy Day Fund balances will be sufficient to prevent a wave of municipal ratings downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened somewhat in September, though even the 30-year yield only fell 3 bps on the month. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes flattened 2 bps and 3 bps, reaching 56 bps and 118 bps, respectively. One easy way to think about nominal Treasury yields is as the market’s expectation of future changes in the fed funds rate.11 With that in mind, the Fed’s recent shift toward a regime of average inflation targeting will likely lead to nominal yield curve steepening on a 6-12 month horizon. That is, the Fed will keep a firm grip on the front-end of the curve but long-maturity yields will rise as investors price-in eventual Fed tightening in response to higher inflation. We recommend positioning for this outcome by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. We expect the economic recovery to be maintained over the next 6-12 months, allowing this steepening to play out. However, we also see near-term risks related to the passage of a follow-up stimulus bill. Those not already invested in steepeners are advised to wait until a deal is struck. Valuation is a concern with our recommended curve steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year yield looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 54 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -130 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates fell 18 bps and 16 bps on the month. They currently sit at 1.65% and 1.83%, respectively. Core CPI printed a strong +0.4% in August and the large divergence between core and trimmed mean inflation measures leads us to conclude that inflation will continue to rise quickly during the next few months (Chart 8). For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is no longer cheap according to our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).12 We could see inflation pressures moderating once core and trimmed mean inflation measures re-converge.13 This could give us an opportunity to reduce our exposure to TIPS sometime later this year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, this means that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +63 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 32 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +128 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a June report.14 We noted that stimulus received from the CARES act caused disposable income to increase significantly between February and July. Then, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used much of that windfall to pay down consumer debt (panel 4). Granted, further income support from fiscal policymakers is needed now that the CARES act’s enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. But given the substantial boost to savings that has already occurred, we are confident that more stimulus will arrive in time to prevent a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -259 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 46 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -63 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 119 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -803 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to Non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate continues. Without Fed support, Non-Aaa CMBS will struggle to deal with a climbing delinquency rate (panel 3).15 Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -12 bps. The average index spread widened 2 bps on the month to 68 bps, well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). The Fed is supporting the Agency CMBS market by directly purchasing the securities as part of its Agency MBS purchase program. The combination of strong Fed support and elevated spreads makes the sector a high conviction overweight. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 2nd, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 2nd, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 63 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 63 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 2nd, 2020)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-30/fed-s-bullard-says-debate-on-fiscal-aid-can-be-delayed-to-2021?sref=Ij5V3tFi 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Out Of Bullets”, dated September 29, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market”, dated September 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 For more details on this forecasting framework please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 15 For a deeper dive into the outlook for US commercial real estate please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Working From Home, Urban Flight, And Commercial Real Estate Loans: How Bad Can Things Get?”, dated August 28, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Buybacks are down but not out. While financials have been weighing heavily on the S&P buybacks index, we would not write off the artificial engineering of higher EPS via equity retirement, especially in a world of ZIRP likely for the next five-to-seven years. COVID-19 has permanently scarred demand while non-residential construction is elevated. This combination will deflate commercial real estate (CRE) prices further, which risks unraveling a CRE debt deflation spiral. Continue to avoid the S&P real estate sector. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities sunk late last week, as diminishing chances of fiscal easing coupled with news that the POTUS and the First Lady tested positive for COVID-19 more than offset buyers taking advantage of oversold conditions. Our sense is that the SPX will bounce around key moving averages during October (Chart 1), until the election outcome breaks the stalemate. In the back half of the month, banks also kick-start Q3 earnings season, which is important because banks’ wellbeing rests on a fresh stimulus bill. Peering over at the bond market is instructive in order to try to make sense of these crosscurrents. Two weeks ago, we first highlighted that the corporate bond market was waving a yellow flag. The selloff in the LQD ETF will continue to weigh on equities (top panel, Chart 2) and corroborates our view that the Fed is now a bystander, which puts added pressure on fiscal authorities to act. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s balance sheet impulse peaked first and soon thereafter so did the LQD. Chart 1Trapped Between Moving Averages Worrisomely, the total return stock-to-bond ratio failed to break out to fresh all-time highs and has likely formed a head and shoulders pattern. The implication is that stocks are not out of the woods yet (bottom panel, Chart 2). Chart 2Bond Market… Junk spreads are also firing a warning shot. The high-yield option-adjusted spread (OAS) was in a tight range between 2017 and 2019. Then spreads exploded higher because of the pandemic. However, unlike the SPX making new all-time highs, junk spreads failed to make new all-time lows and more importantly have not settled back down to the 2017-2019 range (middle panel, Chart 3). The VIX index is following a similar pattern to the high-yield OAS, which is quite unnerving for equity bulls. Put differently, still elevated VIX futures in the 30s warn that in the near-term more turbulence lies ahead for the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 3). As a reminder, we first recommended buying the December VIX futures on July 27 in a joined Special Report with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, and we continue to recommend such a hedge to long equity exposure. Chart 3…And VIX Signal Trouble For Stocks Bye-Bye Buybacks? According to the flow of funds data, a large dichotomy has taken shape between corporate debt issuance and net equity retirement. Up to very recently, the two moved in tandem. But now, the pandemic has caused a knee jerk reaction in non-financial corporate businesses that are tapping their credit lines and issuing debt at a breakneck pace. Worryingly, very little of these funds are used for equity retirement, which is a big break from recent past behavior (Chart 4). Not only does the Fed’s flow of funds data signal that buybacks have nearly ground to a halt, but also Standard and Poor’s data show that SPX buybacks collapsed to $88bn in Q2, from roughly $200bn in Q1. Crudely put, SPX buybacks have fallen by a whopping 67% quarter-over-quarter. Such a corporate buyer’s strike is negative for the near-term prospects of the S&P 500 (top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Unsustainable Dichotomy Chart 5Buybacks Are Down… True, buybacks have come under intense scrutiny especially for bailed out sectors of the economy, nevertheless, the V-shaped economic recovery all but guarantees a rebound in depressed share buybacks sometime in 2021 (Chart 6). While our conservative $125/quarter buyback estimate proved overly optimistic in Q2, we maintain such an estimate for the next year (which it is the past decade’s average). On a cyclical 9-12 month horizon we have high conviction that SPX profits will return close to trend EPS of $162, and recovering CEO confidence should pave the way for a resumption of shareholder friendly activities, including equity retirement (middle panel, Chart 6). Drilling deeper beneath the surface is revealing. When we disaggregate the headline buybacks number into GICS1 sectors, we observe that once again the tech titans (comprising the S&P technology and the S&P communication services indexes) are doing all the heavy lifting accounting for 70% of the overall number (Chart 7). Q2 was the first time in recent memory where tech accounts for more buybacks that all the other sectors put together (bottom panel, Chart 5)! Chart 6But Not Out Chart 7GICS1 Sector Buyback Breakdown: Q1 & Q2 Chart 8 shows the ebbs and flows of sectoral SPX buybacks since late-2006. In order for our estimate to prove accurate in 2021, the Fed will have to allow financials to resume their buybacks, which collapsed from over $45bn in Q1 to just above $5bn in Q2 (Chart 7). Chart 8GICS1 Sector Buyback Breakdown: An Historical Perspective With regard to investable buyback indexes, financials dominate both the S&P 500 buyback index (Chart 9) and the NASDAQ US buyback achievers index. However, if the Fed does not relent and sustains a tight noose around banks’ shareholder friendly activities next year, then this index composition will change significantly in the 2021 rebalancing. While financials have been weighing heavily on the S&P 500 buyback index, its equal weighting methodology also partially explains why it has trailed the market cap weighted SPX by roughly 20% year-to-date (YTD). Nevertheless, in the long-haul buyback achievers come out on top. In fact, the S&P 500 buyback index has more than doubled the SPX’s return since the turn of the century (top panel, Chart 10) and such a portfolio tilt typically manages to shake off recession-related wobbles. Chart 9S&P 500 Buyback Index Sector Composition Bottom Line: We would not write off the artificial engineering of higher EPS via equity retirement, especially in a world where ZIRP is likely for the next five-to-seven years. Already buyback announcements have troughed (bottom panel, Chart 10) and factors are falling into place for a sizable resumption of buybacks in 2021 as the economy stands back on its own feet. Chart 10Buyback Comeback? Is CRE The Next Shoe To Drop? Last December in our 2020 Key Views report, the S&P real estate sector was one of our high-conviction underweight sectors for the year. However, frenetic trading in March compelled us to close out all our high-conviction trades and cement average relative gains of 3.4% in our eight high-conviction calls including 1.1% in the high-yielding S&P real estate sector. Nevertheless, we remained bearish on the prospects of this sector levered to commercial real estate (CRE) because the aftermath of the pandemic would leave this niche sector badly bruised. 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% (Chart 11). In other words, the resilience of these mega cap tech-related REITs masks the carnage ongoing beneath the surface. Chart 11Specialized REITs Masking True Picture Charts 12 & 13 break down the YTD relative performance of the real estate sector’s sub-groups and it is clear that most REITs categories are in distress with the exception of specialized and industrial REITs. Chart 12REITs Are Weak… Chart 13…Across The Board Not only will the long-term negative ramifications due to the pandemic scar office-, apartment- and mall-exposed REITs, but also uncertainty surrounding the fiscal stimulus bill risks a fresh down-leg in the S&P real estate sector. 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, Chart 14). A fresh stimulus bill could transfer funds directly to unemployed consumers and to cash-strapped business owners and extend the eviction/foreclosure moratorium as well as mortgage forbearance agreements. Absent this help, CRE will remain distressed. 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, Chart 14). Recent news that “Cerberus repackaged near junk rated CMBS paper into a AAA rated CDO” (effectively creating a AAA security out of thin air) is eerily reminiscent of the subprime crisis in 2008 and a stark warning that CRE excesses have yet to fully flush out.1 Chart 14More Pain Looms Chart 15Deflation Warning The downdraft in demand for CRE is already showing up in declining occupancy rates (Chart 15). We fear that there are more skeletons hiding in the closet. First the “amazonification” of the economy is still wreaking havoc on retail/shopping center REITs. Second the new “work from home” reality is putting strains on office landlords. Lastly, lodging will remain in distress at least until a vaccine is readily available. As a result, REITs cash flow growth will remain elusive, which will further dampen prospects of a recovery in the relative share price ratio (Chart 15). Finally, the relentless increase in supply is not showing any signs of abating. Non-residential construction is hovering near previous highs, and multi-family housing starts are perched close to prior cyclical peaks of 400K/annum (Chart 16). Undoubtedly, this excess supply backdrop will continue to weigh on CRE prices. Chart 16Mind The Supply Overhang Chart 17Valuations Have Yet To Fully Flush Out Despite all this dour news and near all-time lows in relative performance, valuations have only corrected down to the neutral zone, leaving ample room for an undershoot phase (middle panel, Chart 17). Encouragingly, persistent recent selling has pushed our relative Technical Indicator deep in oversold territory signaling that a near-term reflex rebound may be forthcoming. Netting it all out, COVID-19 has permanently scarred demand while non-residential construction is elevated. This combination will deflate commercial real estate (CRE) prices further, which risks unraveling a CRE debt deflation spiral. Continue to avoid the S&P real estate sector. Bottom Line: Stay 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.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-01/cerberus-is-repackaging-near-junk-cmbs-into-top-rated-securities   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps 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

Highlights Aggregate household net worth reached an all-time high in the second quarter and likely rose further in the third quarter: The first quarter’s record quarter-on-quarter decline was completely unwound in the second quarter and resurgent financial and housing markets should have pushed wealth higher in the third quarter. Rising household net worth bodes well for consumption: Increases in household net worth lead increases in personal consumption expenditures by one or two quarters. Spending will roll over at some point in the fourth quarter without a new round of fiscal aid, but households retain some CARES Act support in the form of an enormous buildup of savings. Households do not appear to be overinvested in equities: Aggregate equity allocations are elevated relative to history, but the longstanding trend favoring corporate heft and consolidation may skew comparisons across time. Feature Chart 1A Ginormous Fiscal Response The Fed’s latest quarterly Flow of Funds report reinforced the view that the pandemic provided households with an opportunity to shore up their financial positions. Shock-and-awe monetary and fiscal stimulus (Chart 1), combined with an inability to spend at shuttered businesses, turned out to be a heady brew for household finances. Surging financial markets boosted the value of wealthier households’ investment portfolios; a tidal wave of fiscal transfers produced an income surge for households in the lower half of the distribution; consumer confidence was dented by the myriad uncertainties posed by COVID-19, encouraging increased savings; and even those inclined to spend some of their windfall were hindered by the difficulty of finding an outlet for doing so. Testifying to the roller coaster nature of 2020, household net worth made a new all-time high at the end of the second quarter, thanks to a record three-standard-deviation quarter-over-quarter gain that unwound the first quarter’s record four-standard-deviation decline (Chart 2). Household net worth should make another new high on September 30, given the S&P 500’s 8.5% third-quarter advance, tighter corporate bond spreads, rising home prices and still-surging savings. It is unclear when or even if the wealth increase will translate to more consumption, given that spending ultimately comes down to fickle preferences, though we are confident that income gains will aid credit performance, helping the economy dodge a vicious circle of defaults and bankruptcies. Chart 2Yet Another 2020 Extreme Wealth And Consumption There is no assurance that the formidable amount of wealth that households have amassed since the first quarter via a combination of fiscal transfers and investment gains will be directed to consumption. It is entirely possible that the savings rate will remain elevated for an extended period. Uncertainty still runs rampant for businesses disrupted by the pandemic and their employees, vendors, landlords and lenders. The travel, hospitality, food service, entertainment and real estate industries have a broad reach and their fates will ripple across much of the rest of the economy. There is a clear relationship between wealth gains and spending gains, ... In the past, however, smoothed year-over-year changes in household net worth have reliably correlated with smoothed year-over-year changes in personal consumption expenditures (PCE). The simple regression equation linking PCE and household net worth moves is nearly identical whether the lag between the two series is one or two quarters, as is the share of PCE’s variability that is explained by changes in wealth (r-squared). We show the scatterplot of household net worth growth (x-axis) lagged by two quarters with PCE growth (y-axis) in Chart 3, which reveals how rarely the four-quarter moving average of nominal PCE fails to grow from one year to the next. Every previous smoothed consumption decline occurred in the wake of the GFC in 2009-10 after having been preceded by significant wealth declines. At 6.6 percentage points below the best-fit regression line, the current observation is a notable outlier and suggests that households have stored up considerable dry powder. Chart 3Wealth Gains Typically Lead To Spending Gains When and if that dry powder will be deployed is a mystery. The 62-year history of the savings rate, which is simply savings divided by disposable, or after-tax, income does not suggest a powerful pull toward mean reversion. Rather, the series has been characterized by three long waves: a steadily, albeit modestly increasing trend from inception until the mid-seventies; an extended decline well into the aughts; and a post-GFC increase back to the levels that prevailed in the late-eighties and early-nineties (Chart 4). Regardless of the savings rate’s ultimate normalized range, we view the pandemic levels as an anomaly. Once households become more comfortable inhabiting a post-COVID world, income hoarded this spring and summer will provide a tailwind for consumption. ... but it may not take hold until the savings rate, which rose to record levels in the spring, settles back into a normalized range. Chart 4It Is Not Clear When Or Where The Savings Rate Will Normalize Bottom Line: Capricious sentiment will ultimately dictate when households deploy their pandemic savings, but there is a clear relationship between wealth gains and consumption. The second quarter Flow of Funds report buttresses the conclusion from the monthly personal income data that household wealth has benefited from pandemic policies so far. Are Households Overinvested In Equities? The Flow of Funds report also provides insight into the composition of aggregate household investment, grouping financial assets into five broad categories: Deposits (cash), Fixed Income, Corporate Equity, Life Insurance and Pensions, and Equity in Noncorporate Businesses. (The remainder of household wealth is concentrated in equity in homes and the property inside them.) Leaving out the value of life insurance and pension benefits, we reviewed the financial asset data for signs that households may have gotten over their skis in terms of their aggregate equity allocation. If they have, it might indicate that stocks are ripe for a reversal. Relative to the Flow of Funds’ 70-year history, the aggregate allocation to cash is a little low (Chart 5, top panel). With deposits sure to generate negative real income in a ZIRP world, however, a low cash allocation is rational and follows the historical pattern of moving with short rates (Chart 5, bottom panel). The fixed income allocation is lower, though not extreme (Chart 6, top panel). Households may tend to be backward-looking when allocating between stocks and bonds (Chart 6, bottom panel), but the currently elevated equity risk premium provides forward-looking support for preferring the former. Chart 5Cash Balances Were Low Before The Pandemic, But So Were Short Rates Chart 6Mirror Image On its face, households’ equity allocation looks somewhat frothy at one-and-a-half standard deviations above the mean (Chart 7, top panel). Like the forward P/E ratio, the household share of financial assets invested in equities has only ever been higher in the 1999-2000 crescendo to the dot-com boom. The household share of equity in noncorporate businesses has been plunging since the early eighties, however, and when all equity stakes are considered holistically, households don’t look overinvested (Chart 7, bottom panel). An investor could have reached that conclusion in 1999 to his/her subsequent regret, but household allocations to publicly traded holdings should have increased to reflect secular trends favoring concentration. This indicator is surely yellow, but we do not yet view it as red. Chart 7The Proceeds From Family Business Sales Have To Go Somewhere Bottom Line: Individual investors tend to make allocation decisions based on the action in the rear-view mirror, but the aggregate household exposure to public equities does not appear worrisome after considering the secular decline in noncorporate businesses’ importance. Income And Credit Performance Changes in aggregate wealth do not link cleanly to credit performance. Households service debt out of their income, because if they didn’t need to augment or smooth out incoming cash flows they wouldn’t have borrowed in the first place. While there must be some link between the recent paydowns of credit card balances and increased household wealth, changes in wealth have far less bearing than changes in income when it comes to explaining consumer credit performance. Risk assets will eventually suffer in the absence of an additional fiscal aid package because cracks will start showing up all over the economy without more transfers. Current income in the form of generous fiscal transfers have made it possible for households to take the unprecedented step of paying down their credit card balances at the outset of a recession. Those transfers have also bolstered apartment rent collections and held down consumer loan delinquencies. Much of the transfer income has been saved and could be deployed to continue to service debt and prop up consumption, but the savings are not a panacea. Although August’s personal income release reflected an additional $85 billion in excess savings over what would have occurred under our baseline no-pandemic estimate, bringing the total excess savings from March through August to over $1.1 trillion (Table 1), it cannot plug the income gap indefinitely. Making several generous assumptions to support a back-of-the-envelope calculation, we estimate the average laid-off worker could at most go one more quarter without work before s/he fully ran down the cushion accumulated under the CARES Act (Table 2). Table 1Household Savings, With And Without The Pandemic Table 2How Long Can The Average Worker Hold Out? More help from Washington is needed, then, if the economy is to escape a potentially nasty downdraft. Our base-case scenario still holds that help will come this month, but Republican and Democratic negotiators had not reached an agreement before this report went to press. If they fail to do so before the election, all hope is not yet lost. If our average laid-off worker could hold out for September, October and November, s/he might avoid missed rent and loan payments as long the flow of aid resumed by December under a post-election bill. Investment Implications Since the pandemic arrived in the United States in full flower in March, we have viewed the big-picture economic and market backdrop as a contest between policymakers and the virus. Absent any monetary and fiscal stimulus, the US would have suffered a crippling recession in which cascading defaults and bankruptcies would have dented the economy’s growth capacity well into the long term. No modern policymaker would prescribe a Mellonian course of emetics to “purge the rottenness from the system,” but since no one knows how long COVID-19 will pose an acute threat to public health, no one can know for sure if the Fed and Congress will have the capacity and the will to provide the support to bridge the economic crater it will leave in its wake. Only Congress appears to have meaningful untapped capacity, and we expect it will regain its resolve to deploy it in time to make final campaign appeals. If no unexpected materially adverse virus development occurs – mortality and hospitalization rates remain subdued, testing capacity continues to expand, treatment protocols keep progressing and a vaccine is developed sometime in the first half of 2021 – it looks to us like a bill within the range of the latest proposals from the administration ($1.6 trillion) and the House ($2.2 trillion) would be enough to prevent the self-reinforcing wave of bankruptcies that have always been our worst-case-scenario fear. The devil is in the details, especially on Capitol Hill, but helping vulnerable businesses and workers, and reeling state and local governments, until a vaccine is in hand would support our constructive cyclical (12-month) view on risk assets. It would also support the SIFI banks, a prime beneficiary if the economy can slip the pandemic’s knockout credit punch. The market does not appear ready to embrace the SIFIs any time soon, but we will continue to recommend overweighting them as long as Congress eventually provides another sizable round of fiscal aid. The news of the president’s positive COVID-19 test could quite plausibly shake consumer and business confidence, undermining consumption and investment and making the need for fiscal aid even more acute. If he and other members of his circle recovery fully and quickly, however, economic participants might conclude that they have less to fear, helping to smooth the path of the recovery. His experience with the virus may well reshuffle election probabilities and our geopolitical strategists will be keeping a close eye on all the developments.1 As we go to press, we do not see a clear-cut market implication from the president’s illness and will stand pat with a tactically neutral equity allocation, an underweight bond allocation and an overweight cash position as we await further developments.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the October 2, 2020 Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, "Trump’s Illness Alone Not A Game Changer" available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Rotation out of the tech titans is a high probability scenario given that the easy money has already been made as AAPL, MSFT and AMZN each commanded an almost $2tn market capitalization near the peak on September 2. Thus, booking some of these tech gains and redeploying capital in other unloved deep cyclical sectors would go a long way, especially if our thesis that the economic recovery will gain steam into 2021 pans out. Using a concrete rebalancing example to illustrate such a rotation is instructive.1 The tech titans’ (top 5 stocks) market cap weight in the SPX is 22%. Were an investor to take 10% of this weight or 220bps and redeploy it to the materials sector, which commands a 2.7% market cap weight in the SPX, would effectively double the exposure on this deep cyclical sector. The same would apply to the energy sector that comprises a mere 2.2% of the SPX, while industrials with an 8.4% market cap weight would get a sizable 26% lift. Bottom Line: As the economy opens up, it pays to rotate out of fully priced tech titans and into the beaten down deep cyclicals.    Footnotes 1 Our example assumes benchmark allocation in all sectors for illustrative purposes.