Equities

Highlights Recommended Allocation The coronavirus pandemic is not over. Enormous fiscal and monetary stimulus will soften the blow to the global economy, but there remain significant risks to growth over the next 12 months. The P/E ratio for global equities is near a record high. This suggests that the market is pricing in a V-shaped recovery, and ignoring the risks. We can, therefore, recommend no more than a neutral position on global equities. But government bonds are even more expensive, with yields having largely hit their lower bound. Stay underweight government bonds, and hedge downside risk via cash. The US dollar is likely to depreciate further: It is expensive, US liquidity has risen faster than elsewhere, interest-rate differentials no longer favor it, and momentum has swung against it. A weakening dollar – plus accelerating Chinese credit growth – should help commodities. We raise the Materials equity sector to neutral, and put Emerging Market equities on watch to upgrade from neutral. Corporate credit selectively remains attractive where central banks are providing a backstop. We prefer A-, Baa-, and Ba-rated credits, especially in the Financials and Energy sectors. Defensive illiquid alternative assets, such as macro hedge funds, have done well this year. But investors should start to think about rotating into private equity and distressed debt, where allocations are best made mid-recession. Overview Cash Injections Vs. COVID Infections The key to where markets will move over the next six-to-nine months is (1) whether there will be a second wave of COVID-19 cases and how serious it will be, and (2) how much appetite there is among central banks and fiscal authorities to ramp up stimulus to offset the damage the global economy will suffer even without a new spike in cases. A new wave of COVID-19 in the northern hemisphere this fall and winter is probable. It is not surprising, after such a sudden stop in global activity between February and May, that economic data is beginning to return to some sort of normality. PMIs have generally recovered to around 50, and in some cases moved above it (Chart 1). Economic data has surprised enormously to the upside in the US, although it is lagging in the euro zone and Japan (Chart 2). Chart 1Data Is Rebounding Sharply Chart 2US Data Well Above Expectations     New COVID-19 cases continue to rise alarmingly in some emerging economies and in parts of the US, but in Europe and Asia the pandemic is largely over (for now) and lockdown regulations are being eased, allowing economic activity to resume (Chart 3). Nonetheless, consumers remain cautious. Even where economies have reopened, people remain reluctant to eat in restaurants, to go on vacation, or to visit shopping malls (Chart 4). While shopping and entertainment activities are now no longer 70-80% below their pre-pandemic levels, as they were in April and May, they remain down 20% or more (Chart 5). Chart 3Few COVID-19 Cases Now In Europe And Asia Chart 4Consumers Still Reluctant To Go Out Chart 5Spending Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels So how big is the risk of further spikes in COVID-19 cases? Speaking on a recent BCA Research webcast, the conclusion of Professor Peter Doherty, a Nobel prize-winning immunologist connected to the University of Melbourne, was that, “It’s not unlikely we’ll see a second wave.”1 But experts can’t be sure. It seems that the virus spreads most easily when people group together indoors. That is why US states where it is hot at this time of the year, such as Arizona, have seen rising infections. This suggests that a new wave in the northern hemisphere this fall and winter is probable. Offsetting the economic damage caused by the coronavirus has been the staggering amount of liquidity injected by central banks, and huge extra fiscal spending. Major central bank balance-sheets have grown by around 5% of global GDP since March, causing a spike in broad money growth everywhere (Chart 6). Fiscal spending programs also add up to around 5% of global GDP (Chart 7), with a further 5% or so in the form of loans and guarantees. Chart 6Remarkable Growth In Money Supply... Chart 7...And Unprecedented Fiscal Spending   But is it enough? Considerable damage has been done by the collapse in activity. Bankruptcies are rising (Chart 8) and, with activity still down 20% in consuming-facing sectors, pressure on companies’ business models will not ease soon – particularly given evidence that banks are tightening lending conditions. Household income has been buoyed by government wage-replacement schemes, handout checks, and more generous unemployment benefits (Chart 9). But, when these run out, households will struggle if the programs are not topped up. Central banks are clearly willing to inject more liquidity if need be. But the US Congress is prevaricating on a second fiscal program, and the Merkel/Macron proposed EUR750 billion spending package in the EU is making little progress. It will probably take a wake-up call from a sinking stock market to push both to take action. Chart 8Companies Feeling The Pressure Considerable damage has been done by the collapse in activity. We lowered our recommendation for global equities to neutral from overweight in May. We are still comfortable with that position. Given the high degree of uncertainty, this is not a market in which to take bold positioning in a portfolio. When you have a high conviction, position your portfolio accordingly; but when you are unsure, stay close to benchmark. With stocks up by 36% since their bottom on March 23rd, the market is pricing in a V-shaped recovery and not, in our view, sufficiently taking into account the potential downside risks. P/E ratios for global stocks are at very stretched levels (Chart 10). Chart 9Households Dependent On Handouts Chart 10Global Equities Are Expensive...   Nonetheless, we would not bet against equities. Simply, there is no alternative. Most government bond yields are close to their effective lower bound. Gold looks overbought (in the absence of a significant spike in inflation which, while possible, is unlikely for at least 12 months). No sensible investor in, say, Germany would want to hold 10-year government bonds yielding -50 basis points. Assuming 1.5% average annual inflation over the next decade, that guarantees an 18% real loss over 10 years. The only investors who hold such positions have them because their regulators force them to. Chart 11...But They Are Cheap Against Bonds The Sharpe ratio on 10-year US Treasurys, which currently yield 70 BPs, will be 0.16 (assuming volatility of 4.5%) over the next 10 years. A simple calculation of the likely Sharpe ratio for US equities (earnings yield of 4.5% and volatility of 16%) comes to 0.28. One would need to assume a disastrous outlook for the global economy to believe that stocks will underperform bonds in the long run. Though equities are expensive, bonds are even more so. The equity risk premium in most markets is close to a record high (Chart 11). With such mathematics, it is hard for a long-term oriented investor to be underweight equities. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 12Premature Opening Of The Economy Is Risky COVID-19: How Risky Is Reopening? Countries around the world are rushing to reopen their economies, claiming victory over the pandemic. It is hard to be sure whether a second wave of COVID-19 will hit. What is certain, however, is that a premature relaxation of measures is as risky as a tardy initial response. That was the lesson from our Special Report analyzing the Spanish Flu of 1918. The risk is certainly still there: Herd immunity will require around 70% of the population to get sick, and a drug or vaccine will (even in an optimistic scenario) not be available until early next year. China and South Korea, for example, after reporting only a handful of daily new cases in early May, were forced to impose new restrictions over the past few weeks as COVID-19 cases spiked again (Chart 12, panel 1). We await to see if other European countries, such as Italy, Spain, and France will be forced to follow. Some argue that even if a second wave hits, policy makers – to avoid a further hit to economic output – will favor the “Swedish model”: Relying on people’s awareness to limit the spread of the virus, without imposing additional lockdowns and restrictions. This logic, however, is risky since Sweden suffered a much higher number of infections and deaths than its neighboring countries (panel 2). The US faces a similar fate. States such as Florida, Arizona, and Texas are recording a sharp rise in new infections as lockdowns are eased. In panel 3, we show the daily number of new infections during the stay-at-home orders (the solid lines) and after they were lifted (dashed lines). To an extent, increases in infections are a function of mass testing. However, what is obvious is that the percentage of positive cases per tests conducted has started trending upwards as lockdown measures were eased (panel 4). Our base case remains that new clusters of infections will emerge. Eager citizens and rushed policy decisions will fuel further contagion. If the Swedish model is implemented, lives lost are likely to be larger than during the first wave. Chart 13W Or U, Says The OECD What Shape Will The Recovery Be: U, V, W, Or Swoosh? The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee has already declared that the US recession began in March. The economists’ consensus is that Q2 US GDP shrank by 35% QoQ annualized. But, after such a momentous collapse and with a moderate move back towards normalcy, it is almost mathematically certain that Q3 GDP will show positive quarter-on-quarter growth. So does this mean that the recession lasted only one quarter, i.e. a sharp V-shape? And does this matter for risk assets? The latest OECD Economic Outlook has sensible forecasts, using two “equally probable” scenarios: One in which a second wave of coronavirus infections hits before year-end, requiring new lockdowns, and one in which another major outbreak is avoided.2 The second-wave scenario would trigger a renewed decline in activity around the turn of 2020-21: a W-shape. The second scenario looks more like a U-shape or swoosh, with an initial rebound but then only a slow drawn-out recovery, with OECD GDP not returning to its Q4 2019 level before the end of 2021 (Chart 13). Chart 14Unemployment Will Take A Long Time To Come Down Why is it likely that, in even the absence of a renewed outbreak of the pandemic, recovery would be faltering? After an initial period in which many furloughed workers return to their jobs, and pent-up demand is fulfilled, the damage from the sudden stop to the global economy would kick in. Typically, unemployment rises rapidly in a recession, but recovers only over many years back to its previous low (Chart 14). This time, many firms, especially in hospitality and travel, will have gone bust. Capex plans are also likely to be delayed. Chart 15Sub-Potential Output Can Be Good For Risk Assets However, a slow recovery is not necessarily bad for risk assets. Periods when the economy is recovering but remains well below potential (such as 2009-2015) are typically non-inflationary, which allows central banks to continue accommodation (Chart 15). Is This Sharp Equity Rebound A Retail Investor Frenzy? The answer to this question is both Yes and No. From a macro fundamental perspective, the answer is No, because coordinated global reflationary policies and medical developments to fight the coronavirus have been the key drivers underpinning this equity rebound. “COVID-on” and “COVID-off” have been the main determinants for equity rotations. Chart 16Active Retail Participation Lately But at the individual stock level, the answer is Yes. Some of the unusual action in beaten-down stocks over the past few weeks may have its origin in an upsurge of active retail participation (Chart 16). Retail investors on their own are not large enough to influence the market direction. Many online brokerages do not charge any commission for trades, but make money by selling order flows to hedge funds. As such, the momentum set in motion by retail investors may have been amplified by fast-money pools of capital. Retail participation in some beaten-down stocks has also provided an opportunity for institutions to exit. BCA’s US Investment Strategy examined the change in institutional ownership of 12 stocks in three stressed groups between February 23 and June 14, as shown in Table 1. In the case of these stocks, retail investors have served as liquidity providers to institutional sellers seeking to exit their holdings. The redeployment of capital by institutions into large-cap and quality names may have pushed up the overall equity index level. Table 1Individuals Have Replaced Institutions How Will Inflation Behave After COVID? Some clients have asked us about the behavior of inflation following the COVID epidemic. Over the very short term, inflation could have more downside. However, this trend is likely to reverse rapidly. Headline inflation is mainly driven by changes in the oil price and not by its level. Thus, even if oil prices were to stay at current low levels, the violent recovery of crude from its April lows could bring headline inflation near pre-COVID levels by the beginning of 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This effect could become even larger if our Commodity strategist price target of 65$/barrel on average in 2021 comes to fruition. Chart 17Rising Oil Prices And Fiscal Stimulus Will Boost Inflation But will this change in inflation be transitory or will it prove to be sustainable? We believe it will be the latter. The COVID crisis may have dramatically accelerated the shift to the left in US fiscal policy. Specifically, programs such as universal basic income may now be within the Overton window3 of acceptable fiscal policy, thanks to the success of the CARES Act in propping up incomes amid Depression-like levels of unemployment (middle panel). Meanwhile there is evidence that this stimulus is helping demand to recover rapidly: Data on credit and debit card trends show that consumer spending in the US has staged a furious rally, particularly among low-income groups, where spending has almost completely recovered (bottom panel). With entire industries like travel, restaurants and lodging destroyed for the foreseeable future, the political will to unwind these programs completely is likely to be very low, given that most policymakers will be queasy about an economic relapse, even after the worst of the crisis has passed. Such aggressive fiscal stimulus, coupled with extremely easy monetary policy will likely keep inflation robust on a cyclical basis. Global Economy Overview: March-May 2020 will probably prove to be the worst period for the global economy since the 1930s, as a result of the sudden stop caused by the coronavirus pandemic and government-imposed restrictions on movement. As the world slowly emerges from the pandemic, data has started to improve. But there remain many risks, and global activity is unlikely to return to its end-2019 level for at least another two years. That means that further fiscal and monetary stimulus will be required. The speed of the recovery will be partly determined by how much more aggressively central banks can act, and by how much appetite there is among fiscal authorities to continue to bail out households and companies which have suffered a catastrophic loss of income. US: The economy has shown signs of a strong rebound from the coronavirus slump in March and April. Q2 GDP probably fell around 35% quarter-on-quarter annualized, but Q3 will almost certainly show positive growth. The Economic Surprise Index (Chart 18, panel 1) has bounced to a record high, after stronger-than expected May data, for example the 16% month-on-month growth in durable goods orders, and 18% in retail sales. But the next stage of the recovery will be harder: continuing unemployment claims in late June were still 19.5 million. Bankruptcies are rising, and banks are tightening lending conditions. One key will be whether Congress can pass a further fiscal program before the emergency spending runs out in July. Euro Area: Although pandemic lockdowns ended in Europe earlier than in the US, recovery has been somewhat slower. The euro zone PMI rebounded to close to 50 in June but, given that activity had collapsed in February-May, it is surprising (since the PMI measures month-on-month change) that it is not well above 50 (Chart 19, panel 1). Fiscal and monetary stimulus, while large, has not been as aggressive as in the US. The ECB remains circumscribed (as least psychologically) by the German constitutional court’s questioning the justification for previous QE. Germany and France have agreed a EUR750 billion additional package to help the periphery, but this has still to be finalized, due to the opposition of some smaller northern EU members. Chart 18Economic Data Has Started To Surprise To The Upside... Chart 19...But From Dramatically Low Levels   Japan: Although Japan escaped relatively easily from pandemic deaths and lockdowns, its economy remains notably weak. New machinery orders in April were still falling 18% YoY, and exports in May were down 28% YoY. The poor economic performance is due to its dependence on overseas demand, distrust in the government, the lingering effects of the ill-timed consumption tax rise last October, and limited room for manoeuvre by the Bank of Japan. The government has announced fiscal stimulus equal to a barely credible 40% of GDP, but much of this is double-counting, and less than half of the household and small-company income-replacement handouts announced in March have so far been paid out. Emerging Markets: India, Brazil, and other Latin American countries are now bearing the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic. Economies throughout Emerging Markets have weakened dramatically as a result. Two factors may come to their aid, though. China is again ramping up monetary stimulus, with a notable acceleration of credit growth over the past three months. Its economy has stabilized as a result, as PMIs show (panel 3). And the US dollar has begun to depreciate, which will take pressure off EM borrowers in foreign currencies, and boost commodities prices. The biggest risk is that many EM central banks have now resorted to printing money, which could result in currency weakness and inflation at a later stage. Interest Rates: Central banks in advanced economies have lowered policy rates to their effective lower bound. It is unlikely the Fed will cut into negative territory, having seen the nefarious effects of this on the banking systems in Japan and the euro zone, and particularly due to the large money-market fund industry in the US, which is unviable with negative rates. Reported inflation everywhere, both headline and core, has fallen sharply, but this is somewhat misleading since the price of items that households in lockdown have actually been buying has risen sharply. Markets have started to sniff out the possibility of inflation once the pandemic is over, and inflation expectations have begun to rise (panel 4). For now, deflation is likely to be the bigger worry and so we do not expect long-term rates to rise much this year. But a sharp pickup in inflation is a definite risk on the 18-24 month time horizon. Global Equities Chart 20Stretched Valuation Valuation Concern: Global equities staged an impressive rebound of 18% in Q2 after the violent selloff in Q1, thanks to the “whatever-it-takes” support from central banks, and massive fiscal stimulus packages around the globe. Within equities, our country allocation worked well, as the US outperformed both the euro Area and Japan. Our sector performance was mixed: The overweight in Info Tech and underweight in Utilities and Real Estate generated good profits, but the overweights in Industrials and Healthcare and the underweight in Materials suffered losses. As shown in Chart 20, even before the pandemic-induced profit contraction, forward earnings were already only flattish in 2019. The sharp selloff in Q1 brought the valuation multiple back down only to the same level as at the end of 2018. Currently, this valuation measure stands at the highest level since the Great Financial Crisis after a 37% increase in Q2 2020 alone. Such a rapid multiple expansion was one of the key reasons why we downgraded equities to Neutral in May at the asset-class level. Going forward, BCA’s house view is that easy monetary policies and stimulative fiscal policies globally will help to revive economic activity, and that a weakening US dollar will give an additional boost to the global economy, especially Emerging Markets. Consequently, we upgrade global Materials to neutral from underweight and put Emerging Market equities (currently neutral) on an upgrade watch (see next page). Warming To Reflation Plays Chart 21EM On Upgrade Watch Taking risk where risks will most likely be rewarded has been GAA’s philosophy in portfolio construction. As equity valuation reaches an extreme level, the natural thing to do is to rotate into less expensive areas within the equity portfolio. As shown in panel 2 of Chart 21, EM equities are trading at a 31% discount to DM equities based on forward P/E, which is 2 standard deviations below the average discount of past three years. Valuation is not a good timing tool in general, but when it reaches an extreme, it’s time to pay attention and check the fundamental and technical indicators. We are putting EM on upgrade watch (from our current neutral stance, and also closing the underweight in Materials given the close correlation of the two (Chart 21, panel 1). Three factors are on our radar screen: First, reflation efforts in China. The change in China’s total social financing as a % of GDP has been on the rise and BCA’s China Investment Strategy Team expects it to increase further. This bodes well for the momentum of the EM/DM performance, which is improving, albeit still in negative territory (panel 3). Second, a weakening USD is another key driver for EM/DM and the Materials sector relative performance as shown in panel 4. According to BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy, the US dollar is likely to churn on recent weakness before a cyclical bear market fully unfolds.4 Last but not least, the recent surge in the number of the coronavirus infections in EM economies, especially Brazil and India, has increased the likelihood of a second wave of lockdowns. Government Bonds Chart 22Bottoming Bond Yields Maintain Neutral Duration. Global bond yields barely moved in Q2 as the global economy rebounded from the COVID-induced recession low (Chart 22, panel 1). The upside surprise in economic data releases implies that global bond yields will likely go up in the near term (panel 2). For the next 9-12 months, however, the upside in global bond yields might be limited given the increasing likelihood of a new set of COVID-19 lockdowns due to the recent surge in new infections globally, especially in the US, Brazil, and India. As such, a neutral duration stance is still appropriate (Chart 22). Chart 23Inflation Expectations On The Rise Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. To fight off the risk of an extended recession, policymakers around the world are determined to continue to use aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus to boost the global economy. The combined effect of extremely accommodative policy settings and the rebound in global commodity prices, especially oil prices, will push up inflation expectations (Chart 23). Higher inflation expectations will no doubt push up nominal bond yields somewhat, but according to BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS), positioning for wider inflation breakevens remains the “cleaner” way to profit for the initial impact of policy reflation.5 According to GFIS valuation models, inflation-linked bonds in Canada, Italy, Germany, Australia, France, and Japan should be favored over their respective nominal bonds. Corporate Bonds Chart 24Better Value In A-rated and Baa-rated Credit Investment-grade: Since we moved to overweight on investment-grade credit within the fixed-income category, it has produced 8.8% in excess returns over duration-matched government bonds. We remain overweight, given that the Federal Reserve has guaranteed to rollover debt for investment-grade issuers, essentially eliminating the left tail of returns. Moreover, the Fed has begun buying both ETFs and individual bond issues, in an effort to keep financial stress contained during the pandemic. However, there are some sectors within the investment-grade space that are more attractive than others. Specifically, our Global Fixed Income Strategy team has shown that A-rated and Baa-rated bonds are more attractive than higher-rated credits (Chart 24). Meanwhile, our fixed-income strategist are overweight Energy and Financials at the sector level.6 High-yield: High-yield bonds – where we have a neutral position - have delivered 11.5% of excess return since April. We are maintaining our neutral position. At current levels, spreads no longer offer enough value to justify an overweight position, specially if one considers that defaults in junk credits could be severe, since the Fed doesn’t offer the same level of support that it provides for investment-grade issuers. Within the high-yield space, we prefer Ba-rated credit. Fallen angels (i.e. bonds which fell to junk status) are particularly attractive given that most qualify for the Fed’s corporate buying program, since issuers which held at least a Baa3 rating as of March 22 are eligible for the Fed’s lending facilities.7  Commodities Chart 25Commodity Prices Will Rise As Growth Revives Energy (Overweight): A near-complete lack of storage led WTI prices to go into freefall and trade at -$40 in mid-April: The largest drawdown in oil prices over the past 30 years (Chart 25, panel 1). Since then, oil prices have picked up, reaching their pre-“sudden stop” levels, as the OPEC 2.0 coalition slashed production. Nevertheless, excess supply remains a key issue. Crude inventories have been on the rise as global crude demand weakens. Year-to-date inventories have increased by over 100 million barrels, and current inventories cover over 40 days of supply (panel 2). As long as the OPEC supply cuts hold and demand picks up over the coming quarters, the excess inventories are likely to be worked off. BCA’s oil strategists expect Brent crude to rise back above $60 by year-end. Industrial Metals (Neutral): Last quarter, we flagged that industrial metals face tailwinds as fiscal packages get rolled out globally – particularly in China where infrastructure spending is expected to increase by 10% in the latter half of the year. Major industrial metals have yet to recover to their pre-pandemic levels but, as lockdown measures are lifted and activity is restored, prices are likely to start to rise strongly (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): The merits of holding gold were not obvious during the first phase of the equity sell-off in February and March. Gold prices tumbled as much as 13%, along with the decline in risk assets. Since the beginning of March, however, there have been as many positive return days as there has been negative (panel 4). However, given the uncertainty regarding a second wave of the pandemic, and the rise in geopolitical tensions between the US and China, as well as between India and China, we continue to recommend holding gold as a hedge against tail risks. Currencies Chart 26Momentum For The Dollar Has Turned Negative US Dollar: The DXY has depreciated by almost 3% since the beginning of April. Currently, there are multiple forces pushing the dollar lower: first, interest-rate differentials no longer favor the dollar Second, liquidity conditions have improved substantially thanks to the unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus, as well as coordinated swap lines between the Fed and other central banks to keep USD funding costs contained. Third, momentum in the DXY – one of the most reliable indicators for the dollar – has turned negative (Chart 26– top & middle panel). Taking all these factors into account, we are downgrading the USD from neutral to underweight. Euro: The euro should benefit in an environment where the dollar weakens, and global growth starts to rebound. Moreover, outperformance by cyclical sectors as well as concerns about over-valuation in US markets should bring portfolio flows to the Euro area. Therefore, we are upgrading the euro from neutral to overweight. Australian dollar: Last quarter we upgraded the Australian dollar to overweight due to its attractive valuations, as well as the effect of the monetary stimulus coming out of China. This proved to be the correct approach: AUD/USD has appreciated by a staggering 13% since our upgrade – the best performance of any G10 currency versus the dollar this quarter (bottom panel). Overall, while we believe that Chinese stimulus should continue to prop up the Aussie dollar, valuations are no longer attractive with AUD/USD hovering around PPP fair value. This means that the risk-reward profile of this currency no longer warrants an overweight position. Thus, we are downgrading the AUD to neutral. Alternatives Chart 27Opportunities Will Emerge In Private Equity Return Enhancers: Over the past year, we have flagged that hedge funds, particularly macro funds, will outperform other risk assets during recessions and periods of high market stress. This played out as we expected: macro hedge funds’ drawdown from January to March 2020 was a mere 1.4%, whereas other hedge funds’ drawdown ranged between 9% and 19% and global equities fell as much as 35% from their February 2020 peak. (Chart 27, panel 1). However, unlike other recessions, the unprecedented sum of stimulus should place a floor under global growth. Given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space, investors should prepare for new opportunities within private equity as global growth bottoms in the latter half of this year. In an earlier Special Report, we stressed that funds raised in late-cycle bull markets tend to underperform given their high entry valuations. If previous recessions are to provide any guidance, funds raised during recession years had a higher median net IRR than those raised in the latter year of the preceding bull market (panel 2). Inflation Hedges: Over the past few quarters, we have been highlighting commodity futures as a better inflation hedge relative to other assets (e.g. real estate). Within the asset class, assuming a moderate rise in inflation over the next 12-18 months as we expect, energy-related commodities should fare best (panel 3). This corroborates with our overweight stance on oil over the next 12 months (see commodities section). Volatility Dampeners: We have been favoring farmland and timberland since Q1 2016. While both have an excel track record of reducing volatility, farmland’s inelastic demand during slowdowns will be more beneficial. Investors should therefore allocate more to farmland over timberland (panel 4). Risks To Our View The risks are skewed to the downside. After such a big economic shock, damage could appear in unexpected places. Banking systems in Europe, Japan, and the Emerging Markets (but probably not the US) remain fragile. Defaults are growing in sub-investment grade debt; mortgage-backed securities are experiencing rising delinquencies; student debt and auto loans are at risk. Emerging Market borrowers, with $4 trn of foreign-currency debt, are particularly vulnerable. The length and depth of recessions and bear markets are determined by how serious are the second-round effects of a cyclical slowdown. If the current recession really lasted only from March to July, and the bear market from February to March, this will be very unusual by historical standards (Chart 28). Chart 28Can The Recession And Bear Market Really Be All Over Already? Upside surprises are not impossible. A vaccine could be developed earlier than the mid-2021 that most specialists predict. But this is unlikely since the US Food and Drug Administration will not fast-track approval given the need for proper safety testing. If economies continue to improve and newsflow generally remains positive over the coming months, more conservative investors could be sucked into the rally. Evidence suggests that the rebound in stocks since March was propelled largely by hedge funds and individual day-traders. More conservative institutions and most retail investors remain pessimistic and have so far missed the run-up (Chart 29). One key, as so often, is the direction of US dollar. Further weakness in the currency would be a positive indicator for risk assets, particularly Emerging Market equities and commodities. In this Quarterly, we have moved to bearish from neutral on the dollar (see Currency section for details). Momentum has turned negative, and both valuation and relative interest rates suggest further downside. But it should be remembered that the dollar is a safe-haven, counter-cyclical currency (Chart 30). Any rebound in the currency would not only signal that markets are entering a risk-off period, but would cause problems for Emerging Market borrowers that need to service debt in an appreciating currency. Chart 29Many Investors Are Still Pessimistic Chart 30Dollar Direction Is Key     Footnotes 1  Please see BCA Webcast, "The Way Ahead For COVID-19: An Expert's Views," available at bcaresearch.com. 2  OECD Economic Outlook, June 2020, available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-outlook/volume-2020/issue-1_0d1d1e2e-en 3  The Overton window, named after Joseph P. Overton, is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It frames the range of policies that a politician can espouse without appearing extreme. 4  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market?” dated June 5, 2020 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations” dated June 23, 2020 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy, "Hunting For Alpha In The Global Corporate Bond Jungle," dated May 27, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7  Fallen angels also outperform during economic recoveries. Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Even Fallen Angels Have A Place In Heaven," dated November 15, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.   GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights We are moving our tactical call on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight, bringing it inline with our cyclical stance on Chinese equities. Our cyclical overweight stance is supported by several factors: the rate of recovery in China’s economy and corporate profits should outpace the rest of the world in the next 9-12 months and valuations in Chinese stocks are relatively cheap. In the near term, compared with the tug-of-war in the US between resuming business activities and containing a second COVID-19 wave, China has a lower risk of a major second wave and re-lockdown of its economy. The recent request by China’s central government for banks to forgo a large portion of this year’s profits should have very limited effect on China’s overall stock performance.  Feature Chinese stocks have fewer downside risks compared to their global counterparts, which were buffeted this past week by escalating COVID-19 case counts in the US and a slower global economy recovery according to IMF estimates. Chart 1Overweight Chinese Stocks We have been tactically neutral on Chinese stocks since early April, due to heightened uncertainties about the path of the global pandemic and geopolitical tensions between the US and China.1 These uncertainties remain in place.  Nevertheless, against the backdrop of a bleak outlook in normalizing global economic activity, the pandemic containment in China has been relatively successful and the nation’s economic outlook is slightly more positive. This argues for overweighting Chinese stocks in a global equity portfolio, on both tactical (0-3 months) and cyclical (6-12 months) time horizons (Chart 1).  We are initiating two new trades: long Chinese stocks versus global benchmarks, in both onshore and offshore equity markets. At its June 17th State Council meeting, China’s central government asked that commercial banks give up 1.5 trillion yuan in profits and cap profit growth below 10% this year to support the real economy. While this rare government request may further depress the banking sector’s stock performance, we think its negative impact on China’s overall stock market will be minimal.  Furthermore, the request should help to lower corporate financing costs - including the private sector and small businesses – and, therefore, help bolster corporate marginal propensity to invest. The net result will be positive on both China’s economic recovery and overall stock performance in the medium term.  Better Than The Rest Compared to the rest of the world, Chinese stocks should be supported by a more positive economic outlook and relatively cheaper valuations in the next 9 to 12 months.  Chart 2China May Return To Its Trend Growth In 2021 The IMF has downgraded its 2020 global economic growth projection to -4.9% from April’s -3%. According to the IMF’s baseline scenario, China is the only major economy that will still register positive growth this year, albeit very modest. This contrasts with an 8% growth contraction in developed nations and a 4.6% retrenchment in emerging economies excluding China. The IMF estimate also suggests that China’s level of economic output in 2021 will rise above its 2019 level, whereas the US and European GDP levels will remain below their pre-COVID 19 levels (Chart 2). If the global economy recovers at a slower-than-expected rate in the second half of this year, then there will be spillover effects on China through reduced demand for its goods. The IMF projected that global trade will shrink by nearly 12% this year (Chart 3). However, compared with Europe and a majority of EM economies, China’s economy is dominated by domestic rather than external demands (Chart 4). Moreover, a weaker external environment means that Chinese authorities will have to press on the stimulus pedal to avoid an outright growth contraction this year. Chart 3Global Trade Will Remain Depressed This Year... Chart 4...But The Chinese Economy Has Become Less Reliant On External Demand   Industrial profit growth turned positive in May, the first year-over-year increase in 2020. On a year-to-date basis, industrial profits remain in deep contraction (Chart 5). As aggressive credit and fiscal stimulus works its way into the economy, however, we expect China’s industrial profits and GDP to turn modestly positive for the entire year of 2020. Positive annual expansion in China’s industrial profits, even if small, supports a recovery in corporate earnings and stock prices. Chart 5Industrial Profit Growth Should Pick Up Along With The Economy Valuations in Chinese stocks have also become less expensive. Similar to the US and elsewhere, Chinese stock prices have trended upwards ahead of a corporate earnings recovery. Nevertheless, compared with other major economies, Chinese stocks have not diverged from its economic fundamentals as drastically as other major economies (Chart 6). Moreover, Chinese stocks are not traded at extreme multiples as experienced in previous cycles (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Stock Market Rally Less Decoupled From Economic Fundamentals Chart 7Valuations in Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extended As In Previous Cycles Bottom Line: China’s economic outlook for this year and next is better than the rest of the world, while its stocks are currently less overbought. This supports our positive view on Chinese stocks on a cyclical time frame. Lower Near-Term Risks China has been relatively successful in controlling its domestic infection rate compared with the uncertain path of virus containment in the US and most EM economies (Chart 8). China’s steady return to normalcy in business activities warrants a change in our tactical investment call on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight. Chart 8Mind The Gap China has seen a flare up in domestically transmitted cases since June 11, after successfully containing the virus and reporting only single-digit new cases for nearly two months. However, the new cases have not had any meaningful impact on China’s returning to normalcy in domestic business or consumer activities. This is in sharp contrast with the US where a resurgence in infection rates last week threatened a potential rollback in economic re-openings and the need to increase social distance measures (Chart 9). Indeed, several states in the US have responded to the second wave of virus spread by slowing or stalling reopening efforts. The ongoing tug-of-war between normalizing economic activities and containing the pandemic challenges the sustainability of the US stock rally that started in late March. China’s new COVID cases are concentrated in Beijing and the number of daily new infections has been limited to double digits (Chart 10). Instead of imposing a blanket lockdown as was done in late January and February, the Beijing government has only locked down a few high-risk districts. In the past two weeks the municipal government has also drastically expanded its testing to more than one-third of its 21 million residents, and promptly traced and isolated close contacts of infected people. Chart 9Running Ahead Of Itself? Chart 10Beijing Quickly Brought New Case Numbers Down To Low Double-Digits China’s authoritative style of containing the pandemic leaves little room for error.  The chance is slim that the Chinese government will allow the number of infections, if any were to pop up, to manifest into a major second wave and derail its economic recovery. However, the US will undoubtedly experience some hiccups in the near term as it struggles to contain the virus and reopen its economy. Bottom Line: The near-term risk to China’s economic recovery due to a second wave of infections is lower relative to the rest of the world. A Few Words On Chinese Banks The central government’s request that commercial banks “sacrifice” 1.5 trillion yuan in profits this year will likely further depress the banking sector’s stock performance. However, it should have a limited negative impact on the performance of aggregate Chinese equities for the following reasons: The banking sector currently accounts for around 10% of market caps in both China's onshore and offshore equity markets, limiting the downside risks to the broad market from the sector’s price declines. The tech sector2 has been driving the overall stock performance in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets (Chart 11). Chinese banks’ market capitalization as a share of the total broad market caps has declined in recent years, while the share of the tech sector has risen substantially (Chart 12). Chart 11The Tech Sector Has Been Driving Chinese Stock Performance Since 2016 Chart 12Banking Sector's Share Of Broad Market Has Been Declining Unlikely its global peers, banking sector's relative performance in both China’s domestic and offshore equity markets are countercyclical; periods of outperformance in banking stocks have been negatively related to rising economic activity and broad market stock prices.3 In other words, China’s banking sector underperforms during an economic recovery. It has been underperforming the broad indexes in both the domestic and investable markets since mid-2018, regardless the sector’s profit growth (Chart 13A and 13B). Chart 13ARegardless Of Profit Growth... Chart 13B...The Banking Sector Underperformed During Economic Recoveries Banks will give up a large portion of this year's profits by offering lower lending rates, cutting fees, deferring loan repayments and granting more unsecured loans to small businesses. Based on our calculations, banks will achieve the 1.5 trillion yuan goal by either lowering their average lending rate by 20bps and/or by expanding loan growth by 15% in the 2nd half of 2020 from last year (Table 1). Both measures will benefit China’s real economy and corporate profits, as well as help to bolster corporate marginal propensity to invest. The net result will be positive on overall stock performance in the medium term.  Table 1Scenarios On How Banks Will Make Up For The 1.5 Trillion Profit “Sacrifice” Bottom Line:  China’s banking sector will continue to underperform, but the impact from a profit reduction this year should have a limited negative impact on Chinese equities. The benefit of a “wealth transfer” from banks to the real economy, however, should more than offset the banking sector’s drag on Chinese stocks. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing During A Global Pandemic," dated April 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see the footnote in Chart 12 for the tech-related sectors included in China's offshore market and the TMT Index in the A-share market. 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance," dated November 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, July 9 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Markets will trade nervously over the coming weeks in response to the second wave of the pandemic and the looming US fiscal cliff. Nevertheless, we would “buy the dip” if global equities were to fall 5%-to-10% from current levels. While the pace of reopening will slow, there is little appetite for the sort of extreme lockdown measures that were implemented in March. The US Congress will ultimately extend fiscal support for households and firms. Around the world, both fiscal and monetary policy will remain highly accommodative, which should provide a supportive backdrop for stocks. Many institutional investors missed the rebound in stocks and are eager to get back in. High levels of “cash on the sidelines” will further buttress equities. Remain overweight stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Favor cyclical sectors over defensives and non-US stocks over their US peers. The US dollar has entered a bear market. A weaker greenback will boost commodity prices and EM assets. Global bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years. However, they will remain extremely low by historic standards. Bond yields will only surge once inflation reaches uncomfortably high levels. At that point, the equity bull market will end. Fortunately, this is unlikely to happen for at least three years. I. Macro And Markets Financial markets’ response to the pandemic has followed three distinct phases: Phase One: Hope and Denial. While equities did buckle on the news that a previously unknown coronavirus had emerged in China, they quickly recovered in the hope that the epidemic would be contained. Equities remained resilient even as the virus resurfaced in South Korea and Iran, prompting us to pen a report in February entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.”1 Phase Two: The Wile E. Coyote Moment.2 The second phase began with the outbreak in Italy. Scenes of overflowing emergency rooms prompted governments to order all non-essential workers to stay home. The resulting decline in commerce caused equities to plummet. Credit spreads widened, while funding markets began to seize up (Chart 1). Phase Three: Recovery. With memories of the 2008 global financial crisis still fresh in their minds, policymakers sprung into action. The combination of massive monetary and fiscal easing helped stabilize financial markets. Risk assets received a further boost as the number of new cases in Italy, Spain, New York City and other hotspots began to decline rapidly in April (Chart 2). The hope that lockdown measures would be relaxed continued to power stocks in May and early June. Chart 1Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Chart 2Sharp Decline Of New COVID-19 Cases In April Allowed Equities To Recover Fast forward to the present and things do not seem as straightforward. Despite today’s rally, global equities are still down 4.7% from their June 8th high. The key immediate question for investors is whether the recent bout of volatility marks the end of Phase Three or just a temporary pause in a new cyclical bull market for stocks. On balance, we lean towards the latter scenario. As we discuss in greater detail below, while we do think that the next few months will be more treacherous for investors due to a resurgence in the number of Covid cases in some countries, as well as uncertainty over how the looming US fiscal cliff will be resolved, we expect global equities to be higher 12 months from now. Stocks And The Economy Pundits such as Paul Krugman often like to recite the mantra that “the stock market is not the economy.” While there is some truth to that, equities still tend to track the ups and downs of the business cycle. This can be observed simply by looking at the strong correlation between the US ISM manufacturing index and the S&P 500 (Chart 3).  Chart 3Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks As happened in 2009 and during prior downturns, stocks bottomed this year at roughly the same time as leading economic indicators such as initial unemployment insurance claims peaked (Chart 4). Chart 4Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Will the economic data continue to improve, allowing equities to move higher? In the past, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than those following recessions that arose from endogenous problems. The pandemic would seem to qualify as an exogenous shock. Temporarily furloughed workers have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in US unemployment this year (Chart 5). As lockdown measures are relaxed, the hope is that most of these workers will return to their jobs. Chart 5Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Bumps In The Road Nevertheless, the recovery will be a bumpy one. In the near term, the main barrier will be the virus itself. Globally, the number of new cases has been trending higher since early May. The number of deaths has also reaccelerated (Chart 6). In the US, the epicenter of the pandemic has shifted from the Northeastern tri-state corridor to the southern states. Florida, Texas, and Arizona have been particularly hard hit. Contrary to President Trump’s claims, more testing does not explain the rise in case counts. As Chart 7 shows, the fraction of tests coming back positive has actually been trending higher in all three states. Chart 6Globally, The Number Of New Cases Has Been Trending Higher Since Early May, While The Number Of Deaths Has Moved Off Its Recent Lows Chart 7Fraction Of Tests Coming Back Positive Has Been Moving Higher In Certain States It did not have to be this way. The evidence suggests that the widespread use of masks could have kept the virus at bay while still allowing most economic activities to resume (Chart 8). Unfortunately, the question of whether to wear a mask, like almost everything else in the US, has become another front in the culture war. Chart 8Masks On! Mask wearing is much more common in China and the rest of east Asia, which is one key reason why the region has suffered far fewer casualties than elsewhere. Hence, a second wave is likely to be much more muted there. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand should also remain largely unscathed going forward. Luckily, treatment options have improved over the past few months, as medical professionals have learned more about the virus. Hospitals have also built up capacity to deal with an influx of patients. Another less well recognized development is that protocols have been put in place to protect residents in long-term care facilities. In Canada, more than 80% of COVID deaths have occurred in nursing homes. All this suggests that while a second wave will weigh on global growth over the coming months, we are unlikely to see the sort of broad-based economic dislocations experienced in March. A Structural Break Even if a second wave does not turn out to be as disruptive as the first, it probably will be several years before spending in the sectors most affected by the virus returns to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, there is a chance that some sectors may not ever fully recover. The technology to work from home was in place before the pandemic began. Many workers chose not to do so because they did not want to be the odd ones out. The pandemic may have nudged society to a new equilibrium where catching a red-eye flight to attend a business meeting becomes more the exception than the rule, while working from home is seen as perfectly acceptable (and safer) than going to the office. If that happens, there will be, among other things, less business travel going forward, as well as less demand for office space. Such a transformation could end up boosting productivity down the road by allowing companies to slash overhead costs and unnecessary expenses. However, it will impose considerable near-term dislocations, particularly for airlines, hotels, commercial real estate operators and developers, and associated lenders to these sectors. The Role Of Policy It would be unwise for policymakers to try to prevent the shift of capital and labor towards sectors of the economy where they can be more efficiently deployed. However, policy can and should smooth the transition. Chart 9Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession Most of the suffering during recessions comes in the form of collateral damage. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 9). One does not have to fill a half-empty swimming pool through the same pipe from which the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs will likely find new jobs in other sectors. This is where the role of monetary and fiscal policy takes center stage. Central banks moved quickly to ease monetary policy as soon as the pandemic began. Unfortunately, with rates already quite low in most countries, there was only so much that conventional monetary policy could achieve. The Federal Reserve, which had more scope to cut rates than most, brought the fed funds rate down 150 bps to a range of 0%-to-0.25%. As helpful as this action was, it fell well short of the more than five percentage points in easing that the Fed has delivered, on average, during past recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around With conventional monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, central banks turned to unconventional tools, the most important of which were asset purchases, lending backstops, and forward guidance. These tools blurred the line between fiscal and monetary policy. To some extent, this was by design. By offering to buy government debt in unlimited quantities and at extremely low rates, central banks incentivized governments to run larger budget deficits. Even if one excludes loan guarantees, governments have eased fiscal policy by an extraordinary degree this year (Chart 11). The G7 as a whole has delivered 11.7% of GDP in fiscal stimulus, compared to 4% of GDP in 2008-10. In China, we expect the credit impulse to reach the highest level since the Global Financial Crisis, and the budget deficit to hit the highest level on record (Chart 12).  Chart 11Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Chart 12China Has Opened The Spigots   Fiscal Austerity? Don’t Bet On It The recovery following the Great Recession was hampered by the decision of many governments, including the US, Germany, and Japan, to tighten fiscal policy prematurely, despite a lack of pressure from bond markets to do so. While a repeat of such an outcome cannot be excluded, we think it is quite unlikely. Politically, stimulus remains very popular (Table 1). Unlike during the housing bust, there has been little moral handwringing about bailing out households and firms that “don’t deserve it.” Thus, while the US faces a daunting fiscal cliff over the next two months – including 3% of GDP in expiring Paycheck Protection Program funding and over 1% of GDP in expanded unemployment benefits and direct payments to individuals – we expect Congress to ultimately take action to avert most of the cliff. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus This will probably involve rolling over some existing programs and supplanting others with new measures such as increased aid to state and local governments. The same pattern is likely to be repeated globally. II. Long-Term Focus: Inflation And The Fiscal Hangover The combination of large budget deficits and falling output has caused the ratio of government debt-to-GDP to explode. The IMF now expects net government debt to reach 132% of GDP in advanced economies in 2021, up from an earlier estimate of 104% made last October (Chart 13). What will happen to all that debt? The answer partly hinges on what happens to the neutral rate of interest, or more precisely, the difference between the neutral rate and the trend growth rate of the economy. The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. When policy rates are above the neutral rate, unemployment will tend to rise, and vice versa. Most estimates of the neutral rate, such as those produced by the widely used Laubach-Williams model, suggest that it is currently quite low — certainly lower than the potential growth rate of most economies (Chart 14). Theoretically, when GDP growth exceeds the interest rate the government pays on its borrowings, the debt-to-GDP ratios will eventually converge to a stable level, even if the government keeps running a huge budget deficit.3 Chart 13Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Chart 14The Neutral Rate Is Lower Than The Potential Growth Rate In Most Economies   The catch is that this “stable” level of the debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be very high. This would leave the government extremely vulnerable to any future change in interest rates. Specifically, if at some point the neutral rate were to rise above the trend growth rate of the economy – and the central bank were to align policy rates with the new higher neutral rate – the government’s borrowing costs would soar. The government would then need to cut spending and/or increase in taxes to make room for additional interest payments.4  The Inflation Solution What if highly indebted governments refuse to tighten fiscal policy? At that point, they would either have to: 1) allow debt levels to spiral out of control; 2) default on the debt; or 3) lean on their central banks to keep rates low. The first two options are unlikely to be politically feasible, implying that the third one would be chosen. By definition, the third option would entail keeping policy rates below their neutral level, or in other words, keeping monetary policy more stimulative than is necessary to maintain full employment and stable inflation. Eventually, this would result in rising inflation. In theory, the increase in inflation can be temporary and limited. Rising consumer prices will lift nominal GDP, causing the ratio of debt-to-GDP to decline. Once the ratio shrinks by enough, central banks could raise interest rates to a suitably high level in order to bring inflation back down. Unfortunately, in practice, the whole process of driving inflation up in order to erode the real value of a government’s bond obligations could be quite destabilizing. This would be especially the case if, as is likely, a period of high inflation leads to a significant repricing of inflation expectations. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced Chart 15Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Investors are not too worried that inflation will accelerate anytime soon. The CPI swap market expects inflation to remain subdued for decades to come (Chart 15). This could turn out to be an erroneous assumption. While central banks do not want inflation to get out of hand, they would be happy for it to increase from current levels. After all, they have been obsessing about the zero-lower bound constraint for the better part of two decades. If inflation is, say, 4% going into a downturn, central banks could cut nominal rates to zero, taking real rates to -4%. That would be quite stimulative. Such a deeply negative real rate would not be achievable if inflation were running at 1% going into a downturn.  As noted above, heavily indebted governments would also prefer higher inflation to higher interest rates. The former would erode the real value of debt, while the latter would require that tax dollars be diverted from social program to bondholders. The Neutral Rate May Rise The catch is that for inflation to rise, the neutral rate has to increase well above current policy rates. Will that happen? Our guess is that such an outcome is more likely than most investors believe. For one thing the neutral rate itself depends on the stance of fiscal policy. Looser fiscal policy will generate more demand in the economy. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply, this implies that larger budget deficits will increase the neutral rate. If, as seems likely, we are entering an era where political populism promotes big budget deficits, this makes it more likely that economies will, at some point, overheat. Savings Glut May Dissipate The structural forces that have depressed the neutral rate over the past few decades could also abate, and perhaps even reverse course. Take the example of demographics. Starting in the mid-1970s, the ratio of workers-to- consumers – the so-called “support ratio” – began to steadily increase as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined (Chart 16). An increase in the number of workers relative to consumers is equivalent to an increase in the amount of production relative to consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the global support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers leave the labor force in droves. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 17). As populations continue to age, the global savings glut could dissipate, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. Chart 16The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 17As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate Meanwhile, globalization, a historically deflationary force, remains on the backfoot. The ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 18). Globalization took a beating from last year‘s trade war, and is taking another bruising from the pandemic, as more companies relocate production back home in order to gain greater control over their supply chains. It is possible that newfangled technologies will allow companies to cut costs, thereby helping them to bring down prices. But, so far, this remains more a hope than reality. As Chart 19 shows, productivity growth in the major economies remains abysmal. Weak supply growth would slow income gains, potentially leading to a depletion of excess savings. Chart 18The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade Chart 19Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal   Social Unrest Continued social unrest could further disrupt the supply side of the economy. Violent crime has already spiked in a number of major US cities,5 just as it did five years ago in the aftermath of demonstrations in cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis (the US homicide rate rose 23% between 2014 and 2016, partly because police pulled out of many troubled neighbourhoods6). Markets generally ignored the social unrest back then, and they may do so again over the coming months. However, if recent developments herald the beginning of an extended crime wave, this could have momentous implications for asset markets. The number of people institutionalized in prisons and mental hospitals dropped dramatically during the 1960s. This corresponded with a sharp increase in the homicide rate (Chart 20). As violent crime soared, equity valuations dropped. Inflation also accelerated, hurting bondholders in the process (Chart 21). If a country cannot credibly commit to protecting its citizens, it is reasonable to wonder if it can credibly commit to maintaining price stability. Chart 20Dramatic Drop In Institutionalizations During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Chart 21Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s As we discuss in greater detail below, the implication is that the long-term outlook for stocks and bonds is unlikely to be as rosy as the cyclical (3-to-12 month) outlook. III. Investment Implications For Now, Buy The Dip As anyone who has watched a horror movie knows, that scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always fathom something much more frightening than Hollywood can create. COVID-19 is a deadly disease, much deadlier than the common flu. But, at this point, it is a “known known.” The next few weeks will bring news reports of overflowing emergency rooms in some US states, delayed reopenings, and increased talk of renewed lockdowns. The knee-jerk reaction among investors will be to sell stocks. While that was the right trade in March, it may not be the right trade today, at least not for very long. Chart 22Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President At this point, we know how the movie will end. As was the case during the first wave, the latest outbreak will be brought under control through a combination of increased voluntary social distancing and the cessation of activities that are known to significantly contribute to the spread of the disease (allowing bars and nightclubs to reopen was, as many predicted, a huge mistake). Likewise, while the next few weeks could see plenty of posturing among politicians in Washington, the end result will be a deal to avert most of the fiscal cliff. Investors who run for the hills now will end up making the same mistake as those who jettisoned stocks every time the debt-ceiling issue came to the fore in the past. Panicking about the outcome of November’s US presidential election would also be unwise. Yes, if Joe Biden wins and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 12%. However, the betting markets are already expecting the Democrats to win the White House and Senate (Chart 22). Thus, some of this risk is presumably already priced in. Moreover, it is possible that the Democrats only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, focusing more on closing some of the more egregious loopholes in the tax code. And even if corporate tax rates do rise, spending would likely rise even more, resulting in a net increase in fiscal stimulus. Lastly, a Biden presidency would result in less trade tension with China, which would be a welcome relief for equity investors. Are Stocks Already Pricing In A Benign Scenario? Chart 23Earnings Optimism Driven By Tech And Health Care Bottom-up estimates foresee S&P 500 earnings returning to 2019 levels next year. Does this mean that Wall Street analysts are banking on a V-shaped recovery? Not quite. Outside of the health care and technology sectors, EPS is still expected to be down 9% next year relative to 2019 (Chart 23). Globally, earnings estimates are still fairly downbeat. This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped recovery. Of course, what matters to investors is not so much what analysts expect but what the market is pricing in. Given that the S&P 500 is down only 4% year-to-date, have investors gotten ahead of themselves? Again, it is not clear that they have. The value of the stock market does not simply depend on expected earnings growth. It also depends on the discount rate one uses to calculate the present value of future earnings. In a world of exceptionally low interest rates, the contribution from earnings far out into the future to this present value calculation is almost as important as the path of earnings over the next year or two. Provided that the pandemic does not permanently impair the supply-side of the economy, the impact on earnings should be transitory. In contrast, if long-term bond yields are any guide, the impact on the discount rate may be longer lasting. The 30-year US TIPS yield, a proxy for long-term real rate expectations, has fallen by 76 basis points since the start of the year, representing a significant decline in the risk-free component of the discount rate (Chart 24). If we put together analysts’ expectations of a temporary decline in earnings with the observed decline in real bond yields, what we get is an increase in the fair value of the S&P 500 of about 15% since the start of the year (Chart 25). Chart 24The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate Admittedly, the notion that there could be a temporary decline in corporate earnings but a permanent decline in bond yields sounds contradictory. However, it need not be. Imagine a situation where the pandemic does permanently reduce private demand, but that this is fully counteracted by looser monetary policy and increased fiscal stimulus. The result would be the same level of GDP but a lower interest rate.7 As odd as it sounds, this suggests that the pandemic might have increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 25The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Lots Of Cash On The Sidelines Chart 26Lots Of Savings Slushing Around The combination of surging government transfers and subdued household spending has resulted in a jump in personal saving. Accumulated US personal savings totalled $1.25 trillion in the first five months of the year, up 123% from the same period last year. Much of that money has made its way into savings deposits and money market funds (Chart 26). As a share of stock market capitalization, US cash holdings currently stand at 51%, up nearly 12 percentage points from the start of the year. Looking at it differently, if the ratio of cash holdings-to-stock market capitalization were to return to January 1st levels, stocks would have to rise by about 30%. Retail Bros Versus The Suits Thanks to a steady flow of income from Uncle Sam, plenty of spare time, zero brokerage commissions, and a lack of opportunities for sports betting, the popularity of day trading has surged (Chart 27). It would be easy to dismiss the rise of the “retail bros” as another comical, and ultimately forgettable, chapter in financial history. That is what most have done. Not us. The late 1990s stock market bubble was as much a consequence of the boom in day trading as the cause of it. That boom lasted for more than four years, taking the S&P 500 to one record high after another. The current boom has lasted less than four months. It may have much further to run. Chart 27Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Keep in mind that every time an institutional investor sells what they regard as overpriced shares to a retail trader, the institutional investor is left with excess cash that must be deployed elsewhere in the stock market. Buying begets buying. Then there are the hedge funds. Brokerages like Robinhood make much of their money by selling order flow data to hedge funds, who then trade on this information. This activity probably lifts prices by enhancing liquidity and reinforcing the price momentum generated by retail trades.  One would also be remiss not to point out that the mockery levelled at retail traders has an aura of hypocrisy to it. The average mutual fund underperforms its benchmark, even before fees are included. As we discussed before, this is not because active managers cannot outperform the market.8 It is because most don’t even bother to try. In contrast to retail traders, a large fraction of institutional investors did not participate in the stock market recovery that began in late March. According to the latest BoA Merrill Lynch Survey, fund managers were still more than one sigma underweight stocks and nearly one sigma overweight cash in June. Along the same vein, speculators increased short positions in S&P 500 futures contracts soon after stocks rallied, paring them back only recently (Chart 28). As of last week, bears exceeded bulls by 25 percentage points in the AAII survey (Chart 29). When positioning is underweight equities and sentiment is bearish, as it is today, stocks are more likely to go up than down.   Chart 28Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Chart 29Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks The bottom line is that stocks could fall another 5%-to-10% from current levels to about 2850 on the S&P 500 and 68 on the ACWI ETF but are unlikely to go much lower, as investors start to anticipate a peak in the number of new cases and a deal to maintain adequate levels of fiscal support. Start Of The Dollar Bear Market A weaker dollar should also help global equities (Chart 30). After peaking in March, the broad trade-weighted US dollar has fallen by 4.4%. Unlike last year, the dollar no longer benefits from higher US interest rates. Indeed, US real rates are below those of many partner countries due to the fact that US inflation expectations are generally higher than elsewhere (Chart 31). Chart 30A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities Chart 31The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 32). If global growth recovers over the coming quarters, the dollar should weaken. The negative pressure on the dollar may be amplified by the fact that the second wave of the pandemic seems likely to affect the US more than most other large economies. Chart 32The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Commodities And Commodity Currencies To Benefit Once fears of a second wave abate, the combination of stronger global growth, infrastructure-intense Chinese stimulus, and a weaker dollar will also boost commodity prices (Chart 33). BCA’s commodity strategists remain particularly fond of oil. They expect demand to pick up gradually this year, with supply continuing to be curtailed by shut-ins among US producers and production discipline from OPEC and Russia. Their latest projections foresee WTI and Brent prices rising more than 50% above current market expectations in 2021 (Chart 34). Chart 33Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 34Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Higher oil prices will be particularly beneficial to currencies such as the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Mexican peso, Colombian peso, and Malaysian ringgit. A Weaker Dollar Will Support Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and higher commodity prices will disproportionately help the more cyclical sectors of the stock market (Chart 35). Since cyclical stocks tends to be overrepresented outside the US, non-US equities should outperform their US peers over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar will also reduce the local-currency value of dollar-denominated debt. This will be especially helpful for emerging markets. Despite the recent rally, the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks remains near historic lows (Chart 36). EM equities should fare well over the next 12 months. Chart 35Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Chart 36EM Stocks Are Cheap Chart 37Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Chart 38Expected Earnings Recovery: US Lags Slightly Behind More broadly, non-US stocks look quite attractive in both absolute terms and in relation to bonds compared to their US peers (Chart 37). They are also unloved. In the BofA Merrill Lynch survey mentioned above, equity managers are heavily overweight the US, despite the fact that consensus earnings estimates point to a slightly faster recovery in EPS outside the United States (Chart 38). Thus, earnings trends, valuations, and sentiment all currently favor non-US stocks. Bond Yields To Stay Subdued… For Now It will probably take a couple of years for the unemployment rate in the G7 to fall to pre-pandemic levels. It will likely be another year or two before labor markets tighten to the point where inflation takes off. And, as discussed above, even if inflation does rise, central banks will be slow to raise rates both because they want higher inflation and because governments will pressure them to keep rates low in order to avoid having to redirect tax revenue from social programs to bondholders. All this suggests that short-term rates could remain depressed across much of the world until the middle of the decade. Chart 39Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Yield curves will steepen marginally over the next few years as global growth recovers and long-term bond yields rise in relation to short-term rates. In absolute terms, however, long-term yields will remain low. An initial bout of higher inflation will not be enough to lift long-term yields to a significant degree given the ability of central banks to cap yields via the threat of unlimited bond purchases – something that Japan and Australia are already doing. Yields will only rise substantially when central banks start feeling uneasy about accelerating inflation. As noted above, that point is probably still 3-to-5 years away. But, when it does come, it will be very painful for bondholders and equity holders alike. Not Much Scope For Further Spread Compression Spreads are unlikely to widen much in a low-rate, higher growth environment. Nevertheless, one should acknowledge that spreads are already low and corporate debt levels were quite elevated going into the recession, especially among companies with publicly-traded bonds (Chart 39). As such, while we generally favor a pro-risk stance over the next 12 months, we would recommend only benchmark exposure to high-yield credit. Within that category, we would favor consumer credit or corporate credit. We would especially shy away from credit linked to urban office and brick-and-mortar retail shopping, given the unfavorable structural shifts in those sectors.  Gold Is Still Worth Owning Chart 40Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Lastly, a few words on gold. We upgraded our view on gold in late March. A weaker dollar will boost gold prices over the next 12 months, while higher inflation down the road makes gold an attractive hedge. Yes, the real price of gold is elevated relative to its long-term history (Chart 40). However, gold prices were distorted during most of the 20th century as one country after another abandoned the gold standard. The move to fiat money eliminated the need for central banks to hold large amounts of gold, which reduced underlying demand for the commodity. Had this move not happened, the real price of gold – just like the price of other real assets such as property and art – would have risen substantially. Thus, far from being above their long-term trend, gold prices could still be well below it. Our full suite of tactical, cyclical, and structural market views are depicted in the matrix below. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020. 2  For those unfamiliar with Saturday morning cartoons, Wile E. Coyote is a devious and scheming Looney Tunes cartoon character usually depicted unsuccessfully attempting to catch his prey, the Road Runner. Wile E. Coyote is outwitted each time by the fast-running bird, but fails to learn his lesson and tries anew. One popular gag involves the coyote running off a cliff, stopping mid-air to look down, only to realize that there is no more road beneath him. 3 This is a tricky point to grasp, so it might be helpful to think through an example. Suppose that government debt is 100 and GDP is also 100. Let us assume that the interest rate is 1%, trend growth is 3%, and the government wishes to run a primary budget deficit of 5% of GDP (the primary deficit is the deficit excluding interest payments). It does not matter if the interest rate and growth are expressed in nominal terms or real terms, as long as we consistently use one or the other. Initially, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. The following year, debt increases to 100+5+100*0.01=106, while GDP rises to 103. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumps to 106/103=102.9%. The debt-to-GDP ratio will keep rising until it reaches 250%. At that point, debt-to-GDP will stabilize. To see why, go back to the original example but now assume that debt is 250 while GDP is still 100. The following year, debt increases to 250+5+250*0.01=257.5, while GDP, as in the first example, rises to 103. 257.5 divided by 103 is exactly 250%. 4 The standard equation of debt sustainability, which we derived in Box 1 of the Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?”, says that the ratio of government debt-to-GDP will be stable if the primary budget balance (expressed as a share of GDP), p, is equal to the debt-to-GDP ratio (D/Y) multiplied by the difference between the interest rate and the growth rate of the economy, that is, p=D/Y (r-g). When p>D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will fall. When, p<D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will rise. Note that the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio is at the outset, the more the primary budget surplus would need to increase in response to a rise in interest rates.  5 Please see Ashley Southall and Neil MacFarquhar, “Gun Violence Spikes in N.Y.C., Intensifying Debate Over Policing,” The Wall Street Journal, dated June 23, 2020; “Gun Violence Soars in Minneapolis,” WCCO/CBS Minnesota, dated June 22, 2020;  and Tommy Beer, “18 People Were Murdered In Chicago On May 31, Making It The City’s Single Deadliest Day In 60 Years,” Forbes, dated June 8, 2020. 6 Please see “Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence,” npr.org, dated December 31, 2017. 7 For economics aficionados, one can model this as a permanent inward shift of the IS curve and permanent outward shift of the LM curve which leaves the level of GDP unchanged but results in lower equilibrium interest rate. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” dated November 9, 2018. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Bottom Line: Odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.

Dear Client, There will be no US Equity Insights from July 1-3 inclusive, as the US Equity team will be on vacation for the week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on Monday July 13, 2020 with our Weekly Report. Happy Independence Day.  Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Odds are high that stocks will move laterally in Q3, digesting the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. On all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress. Tack on the potential dividend cuts/suspensions and we were compelled to downgrade exposure to neutral. A dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions enticed us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Recent Changes Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral. These two moves also pushed the S&P financials sector weighting to neutral.1 Feature The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel, Chart 1). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, second panel, Chart 1). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Similarly, two Fridays ago we highlighted that the VIX and the S&P 500 were becoming positively correlated.2 The 20-day moving correlation between these two assets is shooting higher, approaching positive territory. Since late-2017 every time this correlation has hit the inflection point near the zero line, stocks has subsequently suffered a sizable setback (Chart 2). Chart 1Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Chart 2Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Tack on the public’s renewed interest in COVID-19 according to Google trends search results, and the odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer (top panel, Chart 1). Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Turning over to profits on the eve of earnings season, our four-factor macro EPS growth model for the SPX has tentatively troughed at an extremely depressed level (Chart 3). Our SPX EPS estimate for next calendar year remains near $162/share which we consider trend EPS and was last hit both in 2018 and 2019.3 Chart 3Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Moreover, drilling beneath the surface, this week Table 1 updates the sector and subgroup EPS growth expectations. First we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 1). The third columns in Table 1 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. Table 1Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The final columns highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Tech, health care and communication services occupy the top ranks with positive EPS growth expectations, while financials, real estate and energy are forecast to contract in the coming 12 months and have fallen at the bottom of the table. Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights Given that the tech sector has the highest profit weight in the SPX roughly 23% projected for next year (Table 2) it has really helped the broad market’s profit growth recovery (Chart 4). As a reminder, we continue to employ a barbell portfolio approach and prefer defensive (software and services) to aggressive tech (hardware and equipment). On the flip side, financials have the third largest profit weight roughly 16% in the S&P 500, trailing tech and health care, and pose a big threat to overall SPX profits next year, especially if there are any hiccups with the reopening of the economy (Table 2). Worrisomely, investors are not voting with their feet and are doubting that financials profits will deliver as the market cap weight relative to the profit weight stands at negative 540bps.  Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation via trimming the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral and this week we delve into more details on these two early cyclical subgroups. Chart 4Earnings Finding Their Footing Downgrade Banks To Neutral… We were compelled to downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral last Tuesday in advance of the Fed’s stress test results. There are high odds that a number of banks will cut/suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance in the latest round of stress test, especially if profits take a big hit as we expect. As a reminder, dividends are paid out below-the-line. Beyond the Fed’s stress tests and rising political risks,4 yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. First, it is disconcerting that bank relative performance has really not taken the yield curve’s steepening cue and has negatively diverged as we showed last week.5 The year-to-date plummeting 10-year yield is weighing heavily on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 5). The transmission mechanism to bank profits of this lower price of credit is via the net interest margin (NIM) avenue (third panel, Chart 5). NIMs will remain under downward pressure as long at the 10-year Treasury yield stays suppressed owing to the Fed’s immense b/s expansion. The rising likelihood of yield curve control could keep interest rates on the long end of the curve depressed for a number of years similar to what happened between 1942 and 1951. Second, on the credit growth front news is equally worrisome. The widening in the junk spread signals loan growth blues in the quarters ahead (second panel, Chart 6). Despite the initial knee jerk reaction, primarily by corporations, of tapping existing C&I credit lines and causing a surge in bank credit growth, bankers are not willing to extend credit according to the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey (third panel, Chart 6). The same survey revealed that banks are reporting lower demand for credit across the board, warning that future loan growth will be anemic at best, especially given the collapse in our economic impulse indicator (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Bank Yellow Flags Waving Chart 6Loan Growth Will Suffer Finally, with regard to credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel of Chart 7 highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 20mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel, Chart 7). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. In addition, there are “extend and pretend” clauses in the existing relief package especially on the residential mortgage front that aim to help homeowners make ends meet. But, the longer workers stay out of the labor force the higher the chances that their skills atrophy making it difficult for them to return to work. As a result, foreclosure risk is on the rise. While residential real estate loans are no longer the largest category in bank loan books they still comprise a respectable 21% of total loans or $2.3tn, a souring housing market could spell trouble for banks (Chart 8). Chart 7Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Chart 8Housing Arrears Are A Risk Already, residential mortgage delinquencies are rising and in May surged to the highest level since November 2011 according to Bloomberg. 4.3mn residential real estate borrowers are in arrears (this delinquency count includes borrowers with forbearance agreements who missed payments) and “more than 8% of all US mortgages were past due or in foreclosure” according to Black Night Inc., a property information service. Tack on the shattering consumer confidence and the consumer loan category (credit card, auto and student debt) is also under risk of severe credit quality deterioration (fourth panel, Chart 7). The commercial real estate (CRE) side of loan books is also likely to bleed. Anecdotes where landlords are demanding past due rent payment from tenants are mushrooming, at a time when the same landlords refuse to service their loan obligations. According to TREPP, CMBS delinquencies are skyrocketing across different REIT lines of business. Importantly, CRE loans add up to $2.4tn on commercial bank balance sheets or roughly 22% of total loans. Encouragingly, in Q1 banks started to aggressively provision for steep credit losses with commercial bank loan loss reserves now climbing just shy of $180bn according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile (second panel, Chart 7). This figure is almost twice as high as noncurrent loans and represents a healthy reserve coverage ratio. However, our fear is that if history at least rhymes NPLs will sling shot higher (bottom panel, Chart 7) rendering loan loss reserves insufficient. Putting this provisioning number in context, according to the Fed’s most adverse stress test scenarios banks’ losses could spring to $700bn: “In aggregate, loan losses for the 34 banks ranged from $560bn to $700bn”.6 As a result, banks will have to further provision for futures losses and thus take an additional hit to profitability. Our bank earnings growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and warns of a contraction in profit in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 9). Nevertheless, before getting too bearish on banks, there two key offsetting factors. Relative valuations are bombed out, signaling that most of the bad news is likely reflected in prices (bottom panel, Chart 5). Finally, technicals are also extremely oversold. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that relative momentum is as bad as it gets. Netting it all out, on all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress and compel us to downgrade exposure to neutral. Chart 9Dividend Cuts Are Looming …And Move To The Sidelines On Investment Banks & Brokers The S&P investment banks & brokers (IBB) group has a similar investment profile to the S&P banks index. But, given its more cyclical nature it typically oscillates violently around banks’ relative performance. Thus last Tuesday, we were also compelled to move to the sidelines on this higher beta financials subgroup.7 The COVID-19 accelerated recession has not only mothballed potential M&A deals that were in the works, but also a number of previously announced deals have been canceled. In addition, the outlook for M&A is grim, at least until the dust really settles from the coronavirus pandemic (second panel, Chart 10), weighing heavily on the sector’s profit prospects. While “Robinhood” (retail investor) trading stories abound, margin debt remains moribund and continues to contract, despite the V-shaped recovery in all major US stock markets since the March 23 lows (third panel, Chart 10). This coincident indicator speaks volumes in the near term direction of the broad market and any sustained contraction in trading related debt uptake will likely dent IBB profitability. According to the American Association of Individual Investors bullish retail investors have been absent from this quarter’s massive stock market rally and equity mutual fund and exchange traded fund flows corroborate this message (fourth panel, Chart 10). With regard to cyclicality, IBB are extremely quick to prune labor in times of duress and aggressively add to headcount during expansions. Recent trimming of IBB input costs signal that this industry is retrenching as it is trying to adjust cost structures to lower revenue run rates (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Related to the cyclical nature of the IBB industry, an accelerating stock-to-bond ratio has been synonymous with relative share outperformance and vice versa. In early June we turned cautious on the broad market’s near-term return prospects primarily on the back of rising (geo)political risks. The implication is that a lateral move in the broad market would push down the S/B ratio and weigh on relative share prices (Chart 11). However, there are some offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on this niche early-cyclical group. First relative valuations are extremely alluring. On a price-to-book basis IBB traded recently at 0.8x in absolute terms and at a steep 68% discount to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Chart 12Some Positive Offsets Second, volatility has gone haywire since late-February and it remains elevated with a VIX reading still north of 30. This is a fertile environment for IBB trading desks and should translate into higher profits (second panel, Chart 12). Third, equity trading volumes have exploded. True, volumes spike on downdrafts, but they have remained at an historically high level recently underscoring that IBB trading desk should be minting money (third panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, a dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions compelled us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral for a loss of 32.4% since inception. Trim the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral for a loss of 24% since inception. These moves also push the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT, and BLBG S5INBK – GS, MS, SCHW, ETFC, RJF, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Tales Of The Tape” dated June 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value ” dated April 27, 2020, and BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Debunking Earnings” dated May 19, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5    Ibid. 6    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200625c.htm 7    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth 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).

Highlights The highly uncertain backdrop calls for taking less near-term risk: It may be boring, but it’s only prudent for asset allocators to limit risk exposures when the distribution of economic and public health outcomes is so unusually wide. The US reported record daily COVID-19 infections last Wednesday and Thursday: Several southern and western states that led the way in easing social distancing measures are now experiencing record-high infection rates. Some states are pausing their reopening plans, and the recovery may be more drawn out than expected. Bank stocks sold off after the stress tests, but we’re still a fan of the SIFIs: The year-over-year increases in projected losses weren’t that large, and we still think the SIFIs will suffer smaller credit losses than the market expects. Feature Neutral is dull, neither hot nor cold, neither here nor there, and recommending a benchmark equity weighting in a balanced portfolio makes us restless. We see an equity equal weight as no more than a temporary pause while we wait for the balance between risk and reward to shift enough to merit an underweight or an overweight. When conditions are unusually uncertain, however, we recognize that staying within sight of the shore is prudent. Investors should only take risks when they judge that they will be adequately compensated for doing so. The IMF titled last week’s update to its World Economic Outlook, in which it lowered its 2020 global GDP growth forecast to -4.9% from April’s -3%, “A Crisis Like No Other, An Uncertain Recovery.” As the 1918-19 influenza outbreak is the only global public health threat approaching COVID-19 in terms of its seriousness and its reach, investors have to proceed without a ready basis of comparison. Six months after its emergence, there is still a great deal that we don’t know about the virus. It remains uncertain if developed economies have the hospital capacity and resource stockpiles to combat it, though many emerging economies clearly do not. Modeling the economic impact is further complicated by human vagaries. Public officials can make careful plans for the phased relaxation of activity restrictions, but there is no guarantee that the populace will abide by them. Clusters of unmasked patrons enjoying takeout service on the sidewalk outside the lower Manhattan bars that are open suggest that even likely Democratic voters are as tired of social distancing as the attendees packing the seats at the president’s recent rallies. It turns out that there is something that both sides can agree on, after all. The unpredictability of how well citizens will take direction can go the other way, as well. Just as steadily declining infection rates emboldened people to emerge from their cocoons sooner than officials wished, they may be reluctant to quit them even after officials sound the all-clear signal. As our European Investment Strategy colleagues have noted, economic activity in Sweden, which imposed barely any virus restrictions, was just as weak as it was in neighboring countries that sharply limited movement. The takeaway is that government officials may not have all that much say over how citizens change their behavior amidst a pandemic. There is a possibility, then, that even if officials become comfortable with fully reopening the economy, participants may balk at returning to some corners of it. Officials might throw a party, only to find that very few people will come. The bottom line is that economic conditions are still extremely uncertain, and we will remain in our tactically neutral limbo until we get some clarity about the virus’ path or until equity prices move significantly. Ready Or Not, Here We Come US equities stumbled last week as new COVID-19 infections staged a comeback, with the 7-day moving average rising for 13 straight days and counting (Chart 1). Increases in infections are an inevitable consequence of the expiration of temporary stay-at-home orders that stymied transmission by keeping people apart. The locus has begun to shift from a still largely limited New York City to the southern and western states that were among the first to reopen their economies. As infection rates surged beyond Gotham, the US set consecutive daily infection records last Wednesday and Thursday. Chart 1US Daily New Infections We reiterate that rising cases are no surprise. It is a certainty that more people will contract a communicable disease once large swaths of the population are released from quarantine. But the sharp increases in cases may inspire investors to ask some uncomfortable questions. The lockdowns were meant to buy time for officials to design a testing, tracing and isolation framework that other countries have successfully wielded to short-circuit the spread of the virus. Did the United States use that time to build a workable framework? If not, are conditions materially different than they were in March, when stay-at-home orders began to be issued? The testing process continues to be beset by snags. The US is now capable of administering half a million tests a day, according to health officials’ testimony before Congress last week, and they expect capacity to triple by the fall. That capacity is fragmented across several small labs and testing facilities, however, and it can take as much as a week to obtain results, hampering attempts to isolate those who test positive. The absence of a central authority to direct resources where they’re most needed as new nodes emerge undermines the aggregate national capabilities.1 Turnabout Is Fair Play New York City quickly became the global epicenter once the pandemic entered the United States on account of its density, its residents’ reliance on public transportation and its position as an international crossroads. Counties across the entire metropolitan area, stretching into New Jersey and Connecticut, suffered high per-capita infection rates. Nowhere else in the US needed lockdown measures more than New York City, and it only entered the second stage of a four-stage phased re-opening last week. Other states, observing how the virus besieged New York in March and April, imposed restrictions on New York residents traveling to their states, fearing that they could potentially spread the virus far and wide. The rise in infection rates isn't surprising, but its steepness might cause investors to revisit their virus assumptions. The shoe is now on the other foot. New York has steadily reduced its new infection rate for two months and its 7-day moving average of new infections is just one-fifteenth of its early April peak (Chart 2, top panel). It is now nervously eyeing states suffering new outbreaks, and it announced 14-day quarantine measures for visitors from nine states – Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington – last week. The visitor quarantines are a voluntary measure, and thus likely to have little practical effect, but they highlight the way that several states that have reopened are seeing sharply rising per-capita infection rates relative to the entire country. Alabama’s stay-at-home order ended on April 30th. Its relative per-capita infection rate began to rise immediately (Chart 3, bottom panel). Its 7-day moving average of new infections has since experienced three surges, with the last and most potent causing it to more than double across nine days from June 8th to June 16th (Chart 3, top panel). That span included four consecutive days of record infections. Chart 2New York Daily New Infections Chart 3Alabama Daily New Infections Arizona’s outbreak has been remarkably swift. Its stay-at-home order expired on May 15th, and both its 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 4, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 4, bottom panel) inflected sharply higher fourteen days later. The former series has risen sixfold since residents regained their ability to circulate freely outside of their homes. Arkansas did not have a statewide stay-at-home order, but several measures to slow the virus’ spread were imposed. Restaurants re-opened with capacity limits on May 11th, and by month’s end Arkansas’ 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 5, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 5, bottom panel) had begun to inflect sharply higher. Chart 4Arizona Daily New Infections Chart 5Arkansas Daily New Infections The story is similar across the rest of the states subject to New York’s quarantine. Stay-at-home orders end, stores, bars and restaurants reopen, and infection rates surge with a lag of about two weeks. Florida and Texas, the two most populous states on New York’s list, fit the general pattern, though the rate at which their infections has grown has been striking. Last Wednesday, Florida topped its previous single-day new infection record by 36%2 (Chart 6, top panel), while Texas surpassed its daily high by 30% (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6Florida Daily New Infections Chart 7Texas Daily New Infections What’s That Have To Do With The Price Of Stocks In New York? Some of the increase in infection rates is surely a function of more widely available testing. An assessment of what increased state infection rates mean for the course of the virus in any individual state or the entire country is beyond the scope of this report, not to mention our qualifications. Our intention is simply to assess whether US equities are vulnerable to the rising state case counts. We think they could be. Combined daily new infections in Florida and Texas now exceed New York's worst levels in the first half of April. We have previously written that the political will for social distancing measures has dissipated. For many state and local leaders, a return to lockdowns is not an option, and both Missouri’s and Texas’ governors have said as much, in no uncertain terms. There must be an infection level, however, that would force their hands, no matter the depth of their personal opposition. On Thursday, Texas’ governor halted any further easing of restrictions and signed an order suspending elective procedures at hospitals in the counties encompassing Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, all the while reiterating that rolling back reopening measures was a last resort.3 A resurgence in infection rates isn’t an investment concern per se, but it could become one if it encourages state and/or municipal authorities to reinstitute strict social distancing measures or freeze steps toward reopening local economies. There is also a potential threat to consumer confidence, which could be much harder to combat. Reopening an economy too soon could produce a more persistent drag than locking it down for too long. Premature easing that leads to a widely observed surge in infections may make individuals wary of leaving their homes lest they encounter the virus. Hasty measures meant to unshackle economic activity could backfire by sapping confidence that takes a long time to restore. The bottom line is that the combination of virus risks and an elevated forward earnings multiple keeps us from changing our neutral tactical stance to overweight. We are not inclined to underweight stocks, however, unless the S&P 500 approaches its all-time high around 3,400, given the potential for a positive virus surprise and individual and institutional investors’ ample cash holdings. Over a one-year horizon, we remain overweight equities as we do not see the pandemic exerting a permanently negative impact on corporate earnings. SIFI Bank Update The Fed released the results of its annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST) after the close last Thursday. The verdict was decidedly mixed. Investors and the financial media were keenly focused on the fate of bank dividends, and while the Fed did not forbid dividend payments, it capped third-quarter distributions at the lesser of a bank’s second-quarter dividend payment or the average of its trailing four-quarter earnings. It also said it would not allow any share repurchases in the third quarter, extending the largest banks' voluntary buyback pause. Among the SIFIs, Wells Fargo (WFC) is most likely to be constrained by the dividend cap, but its stock, lagging the rest of its peers’, already discounted that possibility. Our thesis that the SIFI banks will not incur credit losses as large as the market expects is still intact, provided Congress doesn’t abandon pandemic-stricken businesses, state and local governments or the unemployed in its follow-up to the CARES Act. The Fed's stress tests highlighted the many risks the banking system still faces, but we stand behind our call to overweight the SIFIs. If Congress plays its part, reserve builds roughly equivalent to half of the credit losses projected under the severely adverse scenario should prove to be more than sufficient. Table 1 updates the table we created after first quarter earnings releases to assess the adequacy of each bank’s loan-loss reserves. It shows that the total projected stress-test losses for the SIFIs are just 8.6% larger than they were in 2019, with only JP Morgan (JPM) facing a material increase in its loan-loss rate. A modest increase in maximum projected losses suggests only a modest increase in future provisions, and we still believe that another two quarters of provisions equivalent to the first quarter’s will be enough for each bank ex-WFC, which continues to look under-provisioned alongside its peers. Table 1Loan-Loss Reserves Vs. Updated Stress Test Projections Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kliff, Sarah, “Arizona ‘Overwhelmed’ With Demand for Tests as U.S. System Shows Strain,” New York Times, June 25, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/virus-testing-shortfall-arizona.html 2 As we went to press Friday afternoon, Florida announced over 8,900 new cases, 60% above Wednesday's high. 3 As we went to press Friday afternoon, the governor had just issued an order closing all Texas bars.

Special Report

Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, we are publishing a Special Report on the geopolitical implications of COVID-19 from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt discusses the rise of nationalism with each successive global crisis and the negative implications for globalization. I hope you find his report insightful. Next week, we will publish our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.