Developed Countries

What matters for stocks, aside from interest rates, is EPS growth. On that front, the Street continues to expect 10% profit growth for calendar 2020 which is a tall order according to our “Three EPS Scenarios” analysis in mid-January, warning that the SPX is still 8% overvalued as per our base case EPS and multiple scenario. The tech sector sits atop the contribution to earnings growth table and leads its peers by a wide margin. Health care and financials occupy the second and third spots. While these rankings are more or less in line with the sector profit and market cap weights, what stands out is the delta between the market cap and earnings weights (see Table). According to this valuation proxy, tech, consumer discretionary and real estate sectors are the most expensive, while financials, health care, and energy are the cheapest. Bottom Line: We remain underweight real estate and consumer discretionary, neutral on tech and overweight all three most undervalued sectors: financials, health care and energy. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.

Highlights Global Growth & Market Volatility: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. Tactical Trade Overlay: We are in the process of revamping our Tactical Trade Overlay framework, thus we are closing all our recommended current positions this week. We will begin unveiling the new trade selection process - with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement - in the coming weeks. Feature Chart of the WeekLow Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop The timing of the coronavirus outbreak in China has introduced uncertainty into what was looking like a true bottom in global growth after the 2019 slowdown. The epicenter of that improvement seen in measures like the global PMI was China, where not only was there a visible pickup in soft data like the manufacturing PMI about also hard data like import growth. The coronavirus outbreak - and the severe actions to contain its spread via widespread quarantines, factory shutdowns, supply chain disruptions and travel bans – has most likely triggered a “sudden stop” in Chinese economic growth in the first quarter of the year that will spill over beyond China’s borders. This could potentially snuff out the nascent 2020 global growth recovery if the virus is not soon contained. Global government bond markets, however, have already discounted a fairly sharp slowdown in global activity. 10-year US Treasury yields are back below 1.6%. Inflation expectations across the developed economies remain well below central bank targets and short-term interest markets are discounting additional rate cuts to varying degrees. This has created a backdrop of relative tranquility in interest rate and currency markets, with option implied volatilities for the latter back to post-crisis lows (Chart of the Week). Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility.  Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. If the virus is contained and the hit to the world economy limited to just the first quarter of the year, then our underlying thesis of faster growth underpinning another year of global corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds will remain intact. Extending The “Sweet Spot” For Global Risk Assets Chart 2How Low Will These Go? Investors are right to be worried about the potential hit to the global economy from China. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, a modest improvement in Chinese import demand was underway that was finally starting to put a floor under global trade activity after the sharp 2019 downturn (Chart 2). Without that boost from Chinese demand, the world economy will be far less likely to recover in 2020. BCA Research’s Chief Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, has attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine the potential hit to global growth from a “sudden stop” of China’s economy from the coronavirus.1 Assuming that real GDP growth will essentially be zero in the first quarter of 2020, Peter calculates that global growth will slow to 1.7% in Q1 – or one-half the IMF’s expected average growth rate for 2020 of 3.4%. The bulk of that effect comes from the direct impact of Chinese growth slowing from a trend pace of 5.5% in Q1, but that also includes spillover effects to the rest of the world from weaker Chinese spending on imported goods and tourism (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 - Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Importantly, Peter sees Chinese and global growth recovering during the rest of 2020, if the virus is contained by the end of March. The potential hit to overall global growth this year would only be 0.3 percentage points under that scenario. There is obviously a lot of uncertainty involved in making such estimates, from the timing of the spread of the virus to the potential monetary and fiscal policy responses from China (and other nations) to boost growth. Yet a total hit to global growth of only 0.3 percentage points would be fairly modest and may not end up derailing the signs of an economic rebound seen in indicators like the ZEW economic sentiment surveys. The individual country expectations component of the ZEW survey have shown solid improvements for the US, the UK, the euro area and even Japan over the past few months (Chart 4). Also, the current conditions component of the ZEW survey was just starting to bottom out in the most recent readings in the US, the UK and euro area. We have found that the spread between those two measures (ZEW current conditions minus expectations) is a reliable coincident indicator of year-over-year real GDP growth in the countries surveyed. Chart 4Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? As of the latest read of the data from mid-January – importantly, before the start of the more widespread media coverage of the viral outbreak in China – the “current conditions minus expectations gap” from the ZEW survey was still trending downward (Chart 5). Chart 5The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth In other words, the boost in expectations had not yet translated into in a larger pickup in current economic activity. The risk now is that the turnaround in that gap, and in global GDP growth, will be delayed by a severe pullback in Chinese demand. The response of global business confidence to the virus is critical. According to the Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook survey taken at the end of 2019, more than half (52%) of US CFOs believe the US will be in an economic recession by the end of 2020, and 76% predict a recession by mid-2021. These numbers are similar to the 2018 survey, where 49% of CFOs thought a recession was likely by the end of 2019 and 82% predicted a recession by the end of 2020. The “CFO recession odds” are even larger outside the US, particularly in Asia and Latin America (Chart 6). Chart 6Duke/CFO Survey Respondents' 1-Year-Ahead Probability Of A Recession The Duke CFO survey also asks a question on CFO optimism about the outlook for their own businesses. That data, measured on a scale of 0 to 100, shows that companies remain relatively optimistic about their own companies (Chart 7). The levels of optimism at the end of 2019 were roughly the same as at the end of 2018, except for the US where CFO optimism has soared above the highs seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Duke/CFO Survey Respondents’ Own Company Optimism Level Chart 8US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally The interesting implication of this data is that a considerable number of global companies has believed that recession was “only a year or two away” since the end of 2018, but have not expressed similar pessimism when it comes to their own businesses. The extreme financial market volatility at the end of 2018 likely explains why investors thought a recession was likely in 2019 or 2020, while the US-China trade war last year meant those recession fears were “extended” into 2020 and 2021. Yet one big variable changed over that period since the end of 2018 – global monetary policy was eased significantly and bond yields (i.e. borrowing costs) fell sharply for both governments and companies. Looking ahead, the likely policy response to the sharp fall in Chinese growth in Q1/2020 will be continued dovishness from global central bankers. With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed (Chart 9). With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed. A softer US dollar is a necessary ingredient for that reflation. Thus, a stable-to-firmer dollar will keep global inflation pressures muted, allowing central banks to maintain their current dovish policy biases. This will help keep market volatility for bonds, currencies and equities subdued – if the China demand shock to global growth is contained to the first quarter. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable (Chart 10). Chart 9Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation We continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight allocation to corporate credit versus government bonds for global fixed income investors, focused on high-yield credit in the US. Chart 10Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Bottom Line: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. A Quick Note: Rebooting Our Tactical Trade Overlay Framework Back in 2016, we introduced a part of our service that was separate from our main framework which emphasized medium-term (6-12 month) investment recommendations.2 We called this piece our Tactical Trade Overlay and it was intended to focus on ideas with shorter-term horizons (less than 6-months) with specific “exit strategies”. The majority of past trades included in the Overlay did fit that description. The current list of open positions, however, has drifted away from the original mandate with recommendations now being held far longer than six months. We are in the process of developing a new framework for the Tactical Trade Overlay, with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement. Thus, this week, we are closing out all the recommendations currently in the Overlay (see the table on page 12). The goal is to create a list of trade suggestions for our clients with the capability and/or mandate to seek out “quicker” ideas that can also be implemented in more liquid instruments whenever possible. The new Overlay will also include ideas from smaller fixed income markets not included in our Model Bond Portfolio (i.e. New Zealand or Sweden), but with the same focus on holding periods of six months or less. We will be introducing the new Tactical Overlay framework over the next few months. We plan on publishing separate reports covering the new process for selecting ideas for different types of fixed income trades, similar to the current groupings in the Overlay (rates trades, yield curve trades, relative value trades, inflation trades). The first such report, to be published by the end of February, will introduce a methodology for identifying yield curve trades in global government bond markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From China To Iowa", dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "GFIS Overlay Trades Review", dated October 4, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Monetary Policy: A preemptive rate cut designed to offset the economic impact of the coronavirus is unlikely. In fact, investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures and maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on the view that the Fed will keep the policy rate stable in 2020. TIPS: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Recovery Delayed A little more than two months into the year and, despite elevated market volatility, a couple trends have become apparent. First, it is now clear that global economic growth bottomed near the end of last year. Second, any lift that bond yields might have received from that rebound has been more than offset by the spike in uncertainty surrounding the 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Case in point, the US Economic Surprise Index recently jumped deep into positive territory, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains muted, below its level from three months ago (Chart 1). Chart 1Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data It’s not just the Surprise index that is signaling a growth upturn. Our three preferred global growth indicators – the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have all decisively bottomed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up The Global PMI moved up to 50.4 in January, from a July low of 49.3. As of January, 45% of countries now have PMIs above 50 compared to 34% in August (Chart 2, top panel). The US ISM Manufacturing PMI shot higher in January, from 47.8 to 50.9. It is moving closer to the Services PMI, which remains very healthy at 55.5 (Chart 2, panel 2). The CRB Raw Industrials index is also now well off its 2019 low (Chart 2, bottom panel). The overall message from our three favorite indicators is that economic growth remains sluggish, but is clearly on an improving trend. A trend we would have expected to continue until the 2019-nCoV outbreak hit. Our Global Investment Strategy team estimates that the virus could trim 1.6% from global growth in the first quarter, cutting the IMF’s Q1 global GDP growth projection of 3.3% in half.1 The hit to growth will unwind once the virus’ spread is contained, but it is difficult to know how long that will take. In the meantime, we anticipate some weaker readings from our preferred global growth indicators during the next couple of months. The coronavirus could trim 1.6% from global GDP growth in the first quarter. However, it’s important to note that bond yields have already de-coupled from trends in the global growth data and are now taking their cues from news about 2019-nCoV. We noted in last week’s report that this also happened during the 2003 SARS crisis.2 Bond yields fell initially but then recovered sharply once the number of daily new SARS cases hit zero. If we map this experience to the present day, we see that the number of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases continues to rise, but the daily number of new cases has rolled over (Chart 3). Further, our China Investment Strategy team points out that it might be more market-relevant to focus on cases outside of Hubei province where the virus started, and which has now been quarantined.3 Already, we see that the daily number of new cases outside Hubei province is approaching zero (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Tracking The Coronavirus Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a bond sell-off is likely. Will The Fed Respond? Chart 4Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Markets have already moved to price-in a Federal Reserve reaction to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is down to -43 bps, meaning that the overnight index swap curve is priced for 43 bps of rate cuts during the next year (Chart 4). Last Monday our Discounter hit -51 bps, meaning that the market was looking for slightly more than 2 rate cuts during the next year. Turning to the fed funds futures market, we also see that investors are pricing-in significant odds of a rate cut between now and the end of the summer (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Odds of a March rate cut are low, but the futures market is priced for a 30% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the April FOMC meeting. Investors also see 52% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the June FOMC meeting and 72% chance of a cut between now and the end of the July meeting. But will the Fed actually respond to the nCoV outbreak by easing policy? Other central banks have taken different approaches to that question during the past week. The Reserve Bank of Australia left its policy rate unchanged on Tuesday, noting that “it is too early to determine how long-lasting the impact [from the coronavirus] will be.” In contrast, the Bank of Thailand did cut rates last week while citing the nCoV outbreak as one of several reasons for the move. The market is priced for 72% chance of a rate cut between now and August. But perhaps the most interesting example is last week’s rate cut in the Philippines. There, the central bank cited “a firm outlook for the domestic economy”, but ultimately concluded that the “manageable inflation environment allowed room for a preemptive reduction in the policy rate.” Chart 5A High Bar For Rate Cuts If the Fed were to justify a rate cut in the coming months, it would have to use a similar logic as the Philippines. Something along the lines of: The domestic US economy is solid, but inflation is low enough that an additional rate cut carries little risk. A proactive rate cut could also help lean against any potential headwinds from the coronavirus. Our sense is that the Fed will not be eager to make that argument, and that things will have to get a lot worse before a rate cut is considered. The Fed was well aware that the US/China trade war could have negative economic effects in 2019, but it didn’t cut rates until after the S&P 500 dropped by 20% and the yield curve became deeply inverted (Chart 5). We would monitor those same two indicators to assess the odds of a rate cut this year. So far, neither suggests that a cut is forthcoming. Investors should consider shorting the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. If the economic fall-out from 2019-nCoV only lasts for a few months, then the Fed will stand pat through July and the August contract will earn an un-levered 18 bps between now and the end of August. Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing also dictates that below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit if the Fed delivers less than the 43 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. Towards A Better Breakeven Model At BCA we track long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates very closely. Not only because TIPS are an interesting investment vehicle in their own right, but also because elevated long-maturity TIPS breakevens (above 2.3%) will be an important trigger for us to recommend a more defensive US bond portfolio – favoring Treasuries over spread product.4 For those reasons, it’s extremely important for us to have a framework for forecasting long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. A little more than one year ago, we unveiled a framework for thinking about TIPS breakevens based on the concept of adaptive expectations.5 We also applied that framework to a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We still think that the adaptive expectations framework is the best way to think about breakevens, but this week we present an improved application of that framework, i.e. a new model for forecasting the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Adaptive Expectations The theory of adaptive expectations essentially says that today’s long-run inflation expectations are formed based on peoples’ recent experiences with inflation. For example, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.67%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that we view as consistent with the Fed’s target. We posit that today’s inflation expectations are depressed because realized inflation has been so low during the past decade (CPI inflation has averaged only 1.75% during the past 10 years). This experience makes it very difficult for investors to believe that inflation might be high (say, above 2%) during the next decade. Building A Better Model To apply the adaptive expectations theory to a specific model, we need to make a decision about which specific inflation measures to use. For this week’s report, we tested annualized rates of change of headline CPI ranging from 1 year to 10 years. We also looked at survey measures of long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters and the University of Michigan. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 50 bps below 1-year headline CPI inflation. To test the different measures, we looked at the difference between the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and each inflation measure. We then looked at how successfully each difference predicted changes in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate during the subsequent 12 months. We identified the following three measures as the best performers (Charts 6A & 6B): Chart 6A10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value Chart 6BDeviation From Fair Value The 1-year rate of change in headline CPI The 6-year rate of change in headline CPI Median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters Table 1 shows the results of our test on 1-year headline CPI inflation. It shows that, historically, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has been more than 25 bps above the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI it has tended to fall during the next 12 months. At present, the 10-year breakeven is about 50 bps below the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI. Table 1Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 1-Year Rate Of Change In Headline CPI Table 2 shows the results of our test on 6-year headline CPI inflation. Here, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate becomes much more likely to fall when it exceeds 6-year CPI inflation by more than 10 bps. The current deviation is +14 bps. Table 2Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 6-Year Annualized Rate Of Change In Headline CPI Finally, Table 3 shows the results of our test on median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. In this case, the 10-year breakeven rate has rarely exceeded the survey measure historically. But we find evidence that the breakeven is much more likely to rise when it is more than 50 bps below the survey measure. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 56 bps below the survey measure. Table 3Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From SPF* 10-Year Median Inflation Forecast Making A Prediction Chart 7Our New Adaptive Expectations Model The final step is to combine our three chosen factors into a model that will predict the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. This model is presented in Chart 7, and it tells us that, based on the current deviation of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate from our three different inflation measures, the 10-year breakeven should rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months. This would bring the rate up to 1.84% (Chart 7, bottom panel). We will continue to experiment with different inflation measures in the coming weeks (i.e. core and trimmed mean measures) in an effort to improve our model further. Bottom Line: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “From China To Iowa”, dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Contagion”, dated February 4, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted”, dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on why TIPS breakeven inflation rates are an important trigger for our spread product allocation please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Lift exposure to neutral. An historical parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Recent Changes Lock in gains of 20% and augment the S&P hotels index to neutral. Table 1 Feature Equities ripped higher last week as the coronavirus scare subsided, the Senate acquitted President Trump and the PBoC and the Fed sustained the liquidity injections. From a macro perspective, bond yields have served as a suspension for the SPX, absorbing the economic shock and catapulting the broad equity market to fresh all-time highs. The usual suspects, tech stocks, led the charge as lower interest rates equate to higher multiples. Keep in mind that the SPX is trading near an eighteen-year high on a forward P/E ratio basis (Chart 1). Such investor complacency is worrisome, especially given the persistently soft economic backdrop. Importantly, the latest GDP release revealed that net exports had the largest contribution to real output growth – trumping even PCE – on the back of a collapse in imports (second & third panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Flush Liquidity Chart 2Net Exports Jump Is A Yellow Flag In fact, the quarter-over-quarter plunge in real imports is the steepest since the GFC, and on a par with both the 9/11 induced recession in the early-2000s and the Savings & Loan recession in the early-1990s (top panel, Chart 3). Historically, when imports crest they are a precursor of recession (bottom panel, Chart 3). While this may be a one quarter blip in the data as a result of the trade war, we will continue to closely monitor the US trade balance. Meanwhile, consumer outlays are also decelerating, corroborating last quarter’s real imports collapse (bottom panel, Chart 2). If this pillar of economic strength gives way in the coming quarters, it will stoke up recession fears anew and vindicate the bond market’s message. Ultimately, what matters for stocks, aside from interest rates, is EPS growth. On that front, the Street continues to expect 10% profit growth for calendar 2020 which is a tall order according to our analysis in mid-January, warning that the SPX is still 8% overvalued as per our base case EPS and multiple scenario.1 Chart 3Imports Flashing Red Chart 4Sector Contribution To 2020 SPX EPS GrowthChart 4 shows the sector contribution to profit growth for this year. The tech sector sits atop the table and leads its peers by a wide margin (Table 2). Health care and financials occupy the second and third spots. While these rankings are more or less in line with the sector profit and market cap weights, what stands out is the delta between the market cap and earnings weights (Table 2). Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights According to this valuation proxy, real estate, tech and consumer discretionary sectors are the most expensive, while energy, health care and financials are the cheapest (Table 2). As a reminder we remain neutral tech, and underweight both real estate and consumer discretionary, and overweight all three undervalued sectors: energy, health care and financials. This week we book gains and lift to neutral a niche consumer discretionary sub sector that the coronavirus epidemic has badly bruised, and update our view on the largest communication services sub-group. Crystalize Gains And Upgrade Hotels To Neutral Google trends data shows that peak interest in the coronavirus was registered on January 26 in China, January 30 in the US and one day later globally (Chart 5). These trends may change in the coming weeks, but it appears that the initial fears and interest on the coronavirus are quickly subsiding, highlighting that the worst may likely be behind us with regard to fear mongering. Thus, we are compelled to lift the hard-hit S&P hotels index to neutral and cement gains of 20% since inception. While Chinese, global and US outputs will likely take a hit in Q1, subsequently recover in Q2 in the aftermath of the epidemic and only Q3 will come in as a clean quarter, the beating down of this niche consumer discretionary sub-group is overdone. Macro headwinds are turning into mild tailwinds. Last week the ISM non-manufacturing report rebounded smartly, and consumer confidence remains resilient. The implication is that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index (top & middle panels, Chart 6). Tack on our vibrant industry demand indicator underscoring that the two-year bear market will likely go on hiatus (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Risks Receding Chart 6Upbeat Demand A number of other indicators we track send a similar message. Relative retail sales are rebounding with discretionary sales reclaiming the upper hand (top panel, Chart 7). While overall PCE is decelerating (bottom panel, Chart 2), relative consumer outlays on hotels is picking up momentum signaling that the bar for positive relative profit surprises is low (middle panel, Chart 7). Importantly, almost all of the negative coronavirus news flow is likely reflected in the roughly 25% forward P/E discount to the broad market that the index is changing hands at. If the coronavirus epidemic is petering out, then such undervaluation is no longer warranted (bottom panel, Chart 7). Importantly, our S&P hotels EPS growth model does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and is currently signaling that relative profit growth is slated to turn the corner in the coming quarters (Chart 8). Chart 7Grim News Is Priced In Chart 8Model Points To A Turnaround Netting it all out, receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Beyond the risk of a resurgence in the coronavirus epidemic, what prevents us from upgrading all the way to an above benchmark allocation is a challenging profit margin backdrop. Chart 9 highlights that not only are industry CEOs showing no restraint with respect to labor additions, but also lodging inflation is now contracting. Taken together, there are rising odds that the S&P hotels index may suffer from a profit margin squeeze (bottom panel, Chart 9). Netting it all out, receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P hotels index to neutral and lock in gains of 20% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HOTL – MAR, CCL, HLT, RCL, NCLH. Chart 9Margin Squeeze Is A Risk Regulation Is Coming While most mega cap tech stocks had a better-than-expected Q4 earnings season, GOOGL and FB were left behind. We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P interactive media & services index (we still consider them tech stocks) which serves as a great hedge to our overweight S&P software index. As a reminder we remain underweight this communications services subgroup on a cyclical basis, and since mid-December also on a secular ten-year time horizon.2 Regulation is a powerful force. President Trump is only slightly favored for reelection and there is bipartisan support to toughen anti-trust regulation, which his own Department of Justice has pursued. Republican Senator of Missouri Josh Hawley has spearheaded the assault on tech companies from the right wing, while leading Democratic presidential contenders represent the push from the left wing. Indeed, if the Democrats take power, they are likely to enact a federal privacy law following in the footsteps of California and the European Union. Such a law would face court battles but would ultimately have popular tailwinds: corporate protectionism, wealth inequality, and social demands for privacy across the political spectrum. Looking back to the early- and mid-twentieth century with regard to US government regulation aimed at protecting the consumer is instructive. What catches our attention are the Biologics Control Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The first two acts affected the pharmaceutical and food industries and the third act the chemicals industry. While we do not have sector data dating back to the early 1900s, we have chemicals equity prices since 1958. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 dealt a blow to chemical equity prices in absolute and relative terms (Chart 10). In fact, investments in chemical stocks were dead money for a whole decade until 1985 when they broke out in absolute terms and troughed in relative terms (Chart 10). New regulation will cast a shadow over the S&P interactive media & services index. This is true especially if a privacy law is passed, but even if it is postponed or shot down by the Supreme Court, companies will have to contend with a higher regulatory burden in order to comply with California’s and Europe’s privacy laws. Beyond the threat of privacy regulation protecting the consumer, the monopolistic power these companies exert will also come under the microscope. While we doubt the government will break up these two companies given their industry dominance, and the need to maintain international competitiveness,3 anti-monopoly probes clearly pose a big risk. This is true even under a GOP administration. During times of inequality, especially during recessions, governments will seek popularity by punishing scapegoats. The firms that are the chief beneficiaries of the business cycle will be the first in line for scrutiny. Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan’s Republican administration broke up “Ma Bell” into seven regional “Baby Bells” on January 1, 1984. Interestingly, AT&T also had the largest market capitalization in the S&P 500 in 1982. What concerns us the most is a forced sale of “crown jewel” assets as the result of a court ruling in an anti-monopoly suit. This would jeopardize the companies’ ecosystems. Imagine if Alphabet were forced to divest their Google Marketing Platform (old DoubleClick) and Google Ads, or YouTube or Google Cloud. Facebook could be forced to sell WhatsApp or Instagram. Chart 10Regulation Hurts Stocks Chart 11Risks Are Neither Reflected In Profit Estimates… All of these risks pose a threat to EPS growth and still sky-high industry profit margins. Importantly, relative profit growth is climbing at a 13% rate (middle panel, Chart 11) and coupled with the drubbing in 10-year Treasury yields, have pushed valuations to overshoot territory. As we went to print the S&P interactive media & services index was trading at a 34% forward P/E premium to the broad market (Chart 12). Similarly on a forward P/E/G ratio basis this industry is trading at roughly a 30% premium to the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, an historical regulatory parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Over the past year profit margins have been narrowing as costs have been creeping up for the industry, but are still more than twice the level of SPX margins (second panel, Chart 13). If federal regulation puts a price on consumer data in the coming years, especially through direct legislation, then this added cost will squeeze industry profit margins and dent profitability. Chart 12…Nor In Pricey Valuations Chart 13Margin Compression Looms The chief constraint on US government regulation is the desire to maintain international competitiveness in a world of great power competition, in which US rivals attempt to promote their own tech companies globally. However, neither colonialism nor the Cold War stopped earlier anti-monopoly crusades. Politicians primarily court domestic constituencies with such pursuits. Regulators would have to set the terms of any breakup with various interests in balance, but the point is that even a limited breakup that does not mortally wound the company would still come as a negative shock at first. In sum, an historical regulatory parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Bottom Line: Stay underweight S&P interactive media & services index both on a cyclical and structural ten-year time horizon. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5INMS – GOOGL, GOOG, FB, TWTR.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.\ 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Top US Sector Investment Ideas For the Next Decade” dated December 16, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?” dated August 1, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Surviving A Breakup: The Investor's Guide To Monopoly-Busting In America,” dated March 20, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Highlights The coronavirus is a real threat for the global economy and financial markets: We expect that the epidemic will be contained before it takes too much of a bite out of global output, but it has become the biggest market wild card. We are watching for a peak in new infections as a tell for when markets may move on from it. Earnings season was once again a ho-hum affair: S&P 500 earnings per share are on track to post 2% growth in 4Q19, about three percentage points above downwardly revised estimates. Profit margin contraction was in line with the previous three quarters. The biggest banks don’t see any immediate signs of credit problems, … : Net charge-off and non-performing loan ratios remain very low and the banks don’t see borrower performance worsening any time soon. … and think an uptick in business confidence is overdue: The banks’ calls occurred before the coronavirus broke out, but every management team saw the easing of trade tensions as a prelude to a pickup in corporate confidence. While We Were Out Chart 1Risk Off, Everywhere But Stocks We last published a Weekly Report on January 6th, and the ensuing five weeks have been anything but boring. The US assassinated Iran’s foremost military leader, escalating the two nations’ conflict; and the coronavirus burst forth in China’s ninth-largest city, sparking worldwide concerns. The VIX awakened, Treasury yields slid, crude oil swooned and the dollar surged, but the S&P 500 only declined 3% trough to peak, and now sits 2-3% above its January 6th close (Chart 1). The coronavirus is a significant threat to the global economy and global markets, and geopolitical tensions have escalated, but the underpinning of our market views has not changed. We continue to view monetary policy as the critical swing factor for financial markets and the macro cycles that influence them. Assuming the coronavirus or another exogenous event does not tip over the US economy, the next recession will not begin until monetary policy settings turn restrictive. Nothing that has happened since the beginning of year has changed our view that the Fed is almost certain not to hike rates before its November meeting, and we think it is unlikely that it will do so at all in 2020. As long as monetary policy remains accommodative, the economy will keep expanding, the equity bull market will roll on, and spread product will continue to generate excess returns over Treasuries and cash. When China Gets Locked Down It has long been said that when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Conversely, challenges in the rest of the world often fail to leave much of a mark on the US. Should US investors really be that concerned about a virus outbreak in China? The answer is yes, despite the S&P 500’s surge last week. There is no such thing as full-on decoupling, even for the US. The US may respond to global events with a longer lag than more export-oriented economies, but they eventually have an impact. Investors should bear in mind that the S&P 500 is considerably more attuned to global conditions than the domestic economy, given that more than a third of its revenues come from abroad. The coronavirus outbreak has turned into the main source of market uncertainty and is the largest risk to our bullish view on global growth and risk assets. For now, our base case is that the global growth recovery will be delayed, though we expect growth will pick up later this year, provided that the outbreak begins to recede by the end of March. That base case is heavily data-dependent, however, subject to the disease’s course and the Chinese government’s response. From a market perspective, tracking the number of new infections may provide a window on investor sentiment. In 2003, the bottom in equities coincided with the peak in the number of new SARS infections (Chart 2). However, a direct analogy between 2003 and 2020 may underplay the impact on growth. China exerts a lot more influence on the global economy than it did at the turn of the millennium (Table 1). A turn in investor sentiment may not be enough to support risk assets in the face of a significant growth headwind. Chart 2Infections Peak, Market Troughs Table 1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 Since it entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has grown from being the sixth-largest economy to the second, trailing only the US. It now accounts for 16% of global GDP in dollar terms. Its total imports of goods and services – the main growth transmission mechanism from China to the rest of the world – currently account for 13.5% of global trade, three times its 2002 share. The scale of the Chinese government response is also very different. While the SARS epidemic caused relatively mild disruptions to the travel and retail sectors, quarantines have put some areas in total lockdown, placing meaningful elements of the country’s overall production on indefinite hold. That’s bad enough from a domestic perspective, but it could swiftly lead to a sharp reduction in global manufacturing output if it derails global supply chains that depend on Chinese-produced components. Last week, Hyundai idled a production line in South Korea for lack of essential China-sourced parts, and Fiat Chrysler has warned that it might have to close a European factory in two to four weeks if critical Chinese suppliers are not able to operate. China exerts considerably more influence on the global economy today than it did in 2003.  Extended quarantines will have a readily observable impact. Chart 3Services Now Account For A Majority Of Chinese Output Moreover, this time around the outbreak coincided with the Lunar New Year celebration, when spending on services is usually elevated. Services engender less pent-up demand than durable goods; while demand for durables may merely be deferred until the epidemic is contained, demand for services is much more likely to be destroyed. Nonmanufacturing sectors’ increasing importance in the Chinese economy (Chart 3) implies that relative to 2003, less "lost" spending will be made up later. Using SARS’ impact on Chinese GDP to support a back-of-the-envelope estimate, our Global Investment Strategy colleagues judge that the coronavirus could zero out Chinese growth in the first quarter. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service estimates that major country sovereign bonds are pricing in two months of lost Chinese growth. The prospect of a stagnant two to three months could well force policymakers to focus exclusively on encouraging growth. They have already signaled they will pull forward some scheduled infrastructure investments, and our China strategists note that 2020 is policymakers’ deadline for meeting their target to double GDP over the decade. Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak is a serious threat to the global economy and financial markets, but we do not expect that it will induce a US recession or S&P 500 bear market. The Same Old Earnings Song-And-Dance Chart 4A Typical Quarter With 305 of the companies in the S&P 500 having reported earnings through last Thursday’s open, the fourth quarter appears to be nearly exactly like the first three quarters. Earnings growth was nothing to write home about, but it’s tracking to be a few percentage points better than expected when the big banks kicked off reporting season (Chart 4). Revenue growth continues to be in step with nominal global GDP growth, but profit margins are contracting at about the same rate that they did in the first three quarters (Chart 5). The source of the margin contraction remains a mystery, and unraveling it is near the top of our research to-do list. Chart 5The Incredible Shrinking Profit Margin Earnings don't matter much in the near term, but they've been good enough to allay the undercurrent of worry that was a prominent feature of the equity market all of last year. We have previously written about earnings’ limited effect on equity prices.1 In the near term, moves in the S&P 500 exhibit little to no correlation with either earnings growth or the magnitude of earnings beats. Earnings do matter in the long term, and the uneventful 4Q19 reports at least suggest that stocks give no indication of falling off their currently projected path. As has been the case throughout 2019, the bears’ worst fears failed to come to pass in the fourth quarter. Once the coronavirus is contained, accommodative monetary conditions should help keep them at bay in 2020, as well. Follow The Money The big banks reported their fourth quarter earnings in mid-January, and the market reaction suggested their torrid fourth quarter run has fully played out, at least until long yields perk up again. Our review of their earnings calls is not meant to tell us anything about bank stocks, however. We review the calls to gain some insight into the lending market and where it might be headed, seeking color on banks’ willingness to lend, consumers’ and businesses’ appetite for credit, borrower performance, and the banks’ bottom-up perspective on the economy. This time around, we also wanted to hear if the brand-new CECL (Current Expected Credit Loss) loan-loss provisioning standard could constrain lending. 4Q19 Big Bank Beige Book As a group, the banks were constructive on the economy.2 They agree that the consumer is in fine fettle, and they see signs that corporate confidence is returning as trade tensions recede. Overall loan growth has dipped to 4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6), while corporate and industrial (C&I) loan growth has contracted on a thirteen-week basis (Chart 7). The C&I contraction is not a sign that corporations are circling the wagons, however, it’s simply that they’ve turned to the corporate bond market instead (Chart 8). Businesses seeking credit generally have access to all they want at tight spreads, given the paucity of yield in the ZIRP/NIRP era. Chart 6Overall Bank Lending Is Decelerating, ... Chart 7... And C&I Lending Is Contracting, ... Chart 8... But The Bond Market Is Capable Of Picking Up The Slack Positive operating leverage was a mantra that all of the management teams recited. Branch footprints are being rationalized, and the biggest banks are successfully automating manual tasks and driving mundane activity to websites and apps and away from branches and ATMs. Shrinking branch counts could intensify the pressure at the margin for retail landlords, and automation could squeeze bank head counts. Every bank grew deposits faster than loans, furnishing them with dry powder for future lending, and padding their holdings of Treasury and agency securities in the meantime. Households And Businesses [S]entiment on the corporate side appears to be looking better. We’re going to be signing [the Phase I] trade agreement with China today, … and the US-Mexico-Canada agreement is well on its way. So I think that some of that uncertainty that might have been impacting discretionary spend on the commercial side of the equation has been alleviated. [W]e feel pretty good. (Dolan, USB CFO) Every bank cited trade tensions as a drag on corporate confidence last year, and pointed to USMCA and the Phase 1 agreement with China as a sign that it will rebound. [T]he US consumer remains in very strong shape, … from a credit perspective, sentiment, [and] spending, [and] obviously [the] labor market is very strong[.] [C]apital spending is still a bit soft, but sentiment is … certainly better than it was six months ago. [B]roadly speaking, [we have a] constructive outlook as we’re heading into 2020[.] (Piepszak, JPM CFO) [T]hroughout the year, we saw … a lot of things out there that [were] driving uncertainty, be it the lack of the China trade deal, USMCA, Brexit, Hong Kong and … now … the horizon looks like some of those things may clear[,] … and we [may] get a bit more action out of the C-suite. [T]he [capital markets] backlog looks pretty good[,] … [a]nd the forward calendar [does, too]. (Corbat, C CEO) [C]ustomers [in our consumer business] are coming off a strong [spending] finish in 2019. In addition, there’s good loan demand, … result[ing] from good employment levels and growing wages. We saw solid loan demand in our commercial client base throughout the year, [though it] moderated in the second half of the year as worries about global economic uncertainty … dragged on. Today we see some resolution of those issues and that combined with continued consumer strength leads us to expect to see businesses continue their solid activity and we’re hearing more optimism. All this provides a great backdrop[.] (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Borrower Performance Overall credit quality indicators in our commercial portfolio remained strong with our fourth quarter internal credit grades at their strongest levels in two years. Non-accrual loans … in the fourth quarter [were at] their lowest level in over ten years. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) [Credit quality metrics] show … that asset quality remained strong in [consumer and commercial] categories. (Donofrio, BAC CFO) [C]redit quality was stable in the fourth quarter. … The ratio of non-performing assets … improved linked quarter and year-over-year. (Dolan, USB) [CLO is] still an asset class that we feel comfortable with the risk/reward … in spite of where we are in the cycle[.] (Shrewsberry, WFC) [There’s nothing] we’re overly concerned about [in our own loan portfolio], given how [conservatively] we manage [lending], but we’re certainly paying attention to leveraged lending. We’re certainly paying attention to energy with respect to natural gas prices, we’re certainly looking at retail … malls. (Donofrio, BAC) CECL Impacts We would expect provisions to be a little higher than net charge-offs in 2020 due to CECL. … All else equal, [the new increased provision] would lower our Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio by roughly 20 basis points[, but we have a sizable capital buffer, and the capital charge] is phased in … evenly through 2023. (Donofrio, BAC CFO) [I]t’s fair to say, under CECL, [that] you could have incremental volatility [of provisioning expenses]. [But] incremental volatility would [not] be material for us. … It’s just timing [of expense recognition, not any increase in expenses.] (Piepszak, JPM) [A]t this point, it’s not likely that [CECL would] change our appetite for longer-duration consumer loans[.] … [I]t hasn’t caused anything to drop below a hurdle level that says to us, we need to either meaningfully reprice it or … [consider] whether [we want to be] in the business. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Investment Implications Chart 9US Data Have Also Weighed On Yields The coronavirus outbreak is a serious threat, but its very seriousness is likely to provoke Chinese policy responses that may better ensure a turnaround once it can be brought under control. Our view is subject to the real-time course of events on the ground, but our base case is that the business cycle and the bull markets in risk assets remain intact, even if they may sputter here and there until the epidemic is brought to heel. While we acknowledge that economic data have been spotty, and the decline in Treasury yields has not solely been a function of coronavirus fears (Chart 9), we think that yields are near the bottom of their likely 2020 range and have more scope to rise than fall from current levels. We continue to recommend below-benchmark duration positioning. We also continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios and at least equal weight spread product within bond portfolios. We would relish the chance to buy an S&P 500 dip to 3,000 if it were to occur when the coronavirus threat appeared to be manageable.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Senior Analyst JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the November 11, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Why Bother With Earnings?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The calls were all held before the coronavirus outbreak.

Highlights The coronavirus is likely to cut global growth in half (from 3.3% to 1.7%) during the first quarter of 2020. Investors should brace for a slew of profit warnings over the coming weeks from companies with significant operations in China. The near-term economic data is also likely to disappoint. Provided the virus is contained (admittedly a big if), economic activity should recover quickly in the second quarter, leaving global growth about 0.3 percentage points lower for the year as a whole. We should have a better sense of who the Democratic presidential candidate will be by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of the delegates will have been awarded. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on global equities over a 12-month horizon, but do not have a strong conviction about the near-term direction of global bourses given the risks around the virus and the Democratic nomination. Green Shoots Delayed Coming into 2020, we expected global growth to accelerate thanks to the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. Consistent with this prediction, the manufacturing ISM surged this week, with the forward-looking new orders-to-inventories ratio rising to the highest level in 10 months. The non-manufacturing ISM also surprised on the upside, as did factory orders in December. To top it off, ADP employment rose by 291k in January, well above the consensus estimate of 157k. In the euro area, the manufacturing and services PMIs were both revised higher in January. The future output component of the euro area manufacturing PMI rose to 59.8, the highest level since August 2018. The Swedbank Swedish manufacturing PMI jumped to 51.5, easily topping the consensus estimate of 47.6. We have generally found that the Swedish manufacturing PMI leads the global PMI by one or two months. Meanwhile, the UK composite PMI hit a 16-month high. The Coronavirus: Gauging The Economic Impact Unfortunately, the outbreak of the coronavirus is likely to depress global growth over the next couple of months, and possibly longer if the brewing crisis is not contained. During the SARS epidemic in 2003, Chinese growth fell from 10.8% in Q1 to 5.5% in Q2 on a seasonally-adjusted quarter-over-quarter annualized basis – a decline of 5.3 percentage points – only to snap back to 14.7% in Q3. Given that trend growth in China is currently about 5%-to-6%, growth could grind to a halt in the first quarter of this year, if the SARS experience is any guide. This would bring the year-over-year GDP growth rate down to 4%-to-4.5%. While zero growth on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1 may sound dire, keep in mind that this would simply leave real output at the same level as in Q4 of last year. Considering the disruptions presently facing the Chinese economy, a prediction of zero quarterly growth could actually prove to be too optimistic. The outbreak of the coronavirus is likely to depress global growth over the next couple of months, and possibly longer if the brewing crisis is not contained. China now accounts for 16% of global GDP on a US dollar basis, compared to 4% in 2003. Thus, a 5.5 percentage-point decline in Chinese growth would arithmetically shave about 0.16*5.5=0.9 percentage points off of global growth. In addition, there will be spillovers from weaker Chinese growth to the rest of the world. Global goods exports to China stand at about 2.5% of world GDP compared to 0.9% of GDP in 2003 (Chart 1). Chinese import growth is about twice as volatile as GDP growth (Chart 2). Thus, a 5.5 percentage-point decline in Chinese GDP in Q1 would reduce global exports to China by 2*0.055*2.5=0.27% of GDP. Chart 1Chinese Demand Has Expanded Over The Years Chart 2Imports Are More Volatile Than Domestic Production China’s service imports will also decline, mainly due to a sharp drop in Chinese tourists travelling abroad. Overseas spending by Chinese residents rose from 0.05% of world GDP in 2007 to 0.33% of GDP in 2018. If tourist arrivals end up falling by 70% during the first quarter, this would shave a further 0.7*0.33=0.23 percentage points from global growth.   On top of all this, there will probably be some multiplier effects from weaker Chinese growth on domestic spending. For example, a decline in Chinese tourism will reduce the income of hotel proprietors and their employees, leading to lower outlays by local residents. For an economy such as Thailand, where Chinese tourist spending accounts for over 3% of GDP, this effect is likely to be substantial. We subjectively pencil in an additional 0.2 percentage-point hit to Q1 global growth from this multiplier effect. As Chart 3 shows, this gives a total hit to growth of 1.6% in Q1. Going into this year, the IMF expected global growth to average 3.3% in 2020. This implies that growth could fall by half the IMF’s projected pace in the first quarter before recovering during the rest of the year. Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Uncertainties Abound These estimates are subject to a large margin of error. On the positive side, the impact on global growth might be mitigated by the fact that most of the categories (aside from tourism) in which the Chinese are cutting back spending are in the service sector, and hence have relatively low import content. In addition, China is likely to further bolster policy stimulus in response to the crisis. The People’s Bank of China has injected additional liquidity into money markets, cut the 7-day repo rate, and indicated that it will further lower lending rates. Regulators have delayed the introduction of new rules and regulations in the financial sector. We also expect the authorities to boost fiscal spending, especially on health care, where China lags behind most other countries (Chart 4). Chart 4China: Public Spending On Health Care Has Room To Catch Up On the negative side, the rising share of services in the Chinese economy means that some of the spending lost in Q1 will not be recouped during the rest of the year (unlike in the case of durable goods, there is little pent-up demand for say, restaurant meals). There is also a risk that spending outside China will decline if confidence drops and people begin to hunker down and save more. This is a particular risk in Japan where at least 30 people have contracted the virus (compared to zero during the SARS outbreak) and consumer confidence remains weak following the consumption tax hike. Lastly, global supply chains that rely on Chinese-produced components could be severely disrupted, leading to a downdraft in global manufacturing output. Needless to say, the impact of the outbreak depends critically on how long the epidemic lasts and how broad-based it ends up being. Our baseline assumption is that the outbreak will subside by the end of March. If that happens, growth will rebound in the remainder of the year, as occurred during the SARS episode. This will limit the overall hit to growth in 2020 to about 0.3 percentage points. As of now, the news is mixed. While the total number of new infections has dipped over the past two days in Hubei, where the outbreak originated, the trend in the province still appears to be on the upside. More encouragingly, the number of new infections seems to be stabilizing elsewhere in China and remains at very low levels in the rest of the world (Chart 5). From a markets perspective, tracking the number of new infections is important because it helped mark a bottom in stocks during the SARS outbreak (Chart 6). Chart 5The Number Of New Cases Seems To Be Stabilizing Outside Of The Epicenter Chart 6Stocks Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking If the coronavirus follows a limited transmission path like MERS did, which did not spread much beyond the Middle East and South Korea, then worries about a pandemic will quickly abate. However, it is too early to make such a confident pronouncement, especially since this particular virus appears to be spreading more easily than either MERS or SARS. As such, we regard the risks to our GDP growth projection as tilted to the downside. Meanwhile, another potential risk is rising to the fore… The Democrats' B-List The Democratic presidential nomination is turning out to be a battle among four B’s: Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. The big story from the Iowa caucus is how well Pete Buttigieg did and how poorly Joe Biden performed. Both Biden and Buttigieg are moderates. However, Biden fares much better in head-to-head polls against Trump than other Democratic challengers, including Buttigieg (Chart 7). Hence, anything that hurts Biden helps Trump. Chart 7For Now, Biden Is Trump’s Biggest Threat The impact on the stock market would be small if either Biden or Buttigieg were to end up in the White House next year. While both of these Democrats have expressed an interest in reversing at least part of the Trump tax cuts, neither would be as hawkish on trade as Trump. For investors, this makes it a bit of a wash. What would clearly hurt the stock market is if Bernie Sanders were to become the next US president. Sanders brings a lot of baggage to the race, including having campaigned for the far-left Socialist Workers Party in the 1980s, while also honeymooning in Moscow at a time when Soviets had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at the US. Yet, despite his checkered past, the Vermont senator has still beaten Trump in 48 of the last 53 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. The reality is that the US is moving leftward on a variety of cultural and economic issues (Chart 8). This is unlikely to change anytime soon given the firm grip the left has over academia and most of the media (Charts 9A & B). All this benefits leftist candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Chart 8The US Is Moving To The Left Chart 9AMany More Democrats Than Republicans In US Colleges Chart 9BThe Vast Majority Of Journalists Are Left-Leaning Battle Of The Billionaires This brings us to Mike Bloomberg. According to PredictIt, Bloomberg is now the second most likely candidate to emerge as the Democratic nominee after Bernie Sanders (Chart 10). Bloomberg’s nationwide polling numbers are quite poor, but unlike the other candidates, he has enough wealth to stay in the race for as long as he wants to. Chart 10Bloomberg As The Dark Horse? Bloomberg can also do something the other candidates cannot: stage an independent bid for the White House. Bloomberg’s allegiance to the Democratic Party is fairly tenuous. He governed New York City as a Republican, after all. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the Democratic nominee, Bloomberg could try to run up the middle as the “moderate choice.” Granted, Bloomberg has promised to support whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being. But here is the irony: the best thing that Bloomberg could do for Sanders is run as an independent. According to BCA’s geopolitical team, Bloomberg would take more voters from Trump than he would from Sanders.1 Whether Bloomberg will try to sabotage Trump in order to help Sanders remains to be seen. Ideologically, Bloomberg is probably closer to Trump than he is to Sanders. However, the two billionaires hate each other, and this could ultimately prove to be the deciding factor. Investment Conclusions The short-term outlook for risk assets remains murky. It is too early to relax about the coronavirus. Even if the outbreak is contained, a lot of economic damage has already been done. Investors should brace for a slew of profit warnings over the coming weeks from companies with significant operations in China. The near-term economic data is also likely to disappoint. Then there are the US elections. We bucked the consensus view in 2015/16 by predicting that Donald Trump would become President. At the moment, however, we do not have a strong feeling about the outcome of this year’s contest. This is in contrast to many market participants who see a Trump victory as a foregone conclusion. At a recent Goldman conference, 87% of attendees expected President Trump to be re-elected.2  Our conversations with clients have revealed a similar bias. The S&P 500 has moved in lockstep with Trump’s chances of being re-elected (Chart 11). If Trump’s prospects begin to fade, while Bernie Sanders wins in New Hampshire and Nevada and outperforms in South Carolina, risk assets could suffer. Chart 11An Uncanny Correlation Why, then, not turn bearish on stocks now? One reason, as noted above, is that global growth should pick up later this year provided the coronavirus is contained. Stocks generally outperform bonds when growth is accelerating (Chart 12). Equity risk premia also remain quite high, which gives stocks a cushion of support (Chart 13). Chart 12Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 13Relative Valuations Favor Stocks All this leaves us in the somewhat uncomfortable position of continuing to advocate an overweight stance towards equities over a 12-month horizon, without having a strong view about the short-term direction for global bourses.   Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of the Democratic delegates will have been awarded (Appendix Table 1). There should also be more clarity on the coronavirus outbreak by then too. At that point, we will reassess both our short-term and medium-term views on equities and other assets. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1Next Stops For The Democrat Caravan     Footnotes 1    Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road,” dated February 7, 2020. 2   Theron Mohamed, “A Goldman Sachs client poll finds 87% expect Trump to win the next election,” Business Insider (January 17, 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades