Equities

Highlights The SARS episode of 2003 suggests that the panic over the coronavirus will only subside when the number of new cases peaks. Although the latest data is somewhat encouraging, it is far from clear that we have reached that point. Provided the outbreak is contained, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. US companies remain net buyers of shares, implying that households and other holders have been net sellers. But against a backdrop of rising incomes, high savings, and improving confidence, households have also wanted to own more equities. How can households be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure? There is only one answer: Share prices need to rise. The process will only stop once households decide they own enough stocks. In the US, while household equity holdings are on the high side as a share of household wealth, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the earnings yield on stocks is well above the yields on competing assets. Outside the US, household ownership of equities is quite low while the equity risk premium is still high. Going Viral We upgraded global equities after markets plunged in late 2018 and have remained overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon to this day. However, we indicated three weeks ago that equities had become technically overbought and would likely need to consolidate their gains. Thus, while we kept our 12-month views unchanged, we downgraded our tactical 3-month view on global stocks from overweight to neutral, while also advising clients with short horizons to boost exposure to cash and government bonds at the expense of riskier credit (our entire set of views can be found in the Global Investment Strategy View Matrix at the back of this report). Since then, the outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. Many commentators have drawn comparisons between today’s outbreak and the SARS epidemic in 2003. The SARS episode imposed a significant but short-lived economic toll on the affected countries. While Chinese GDP growth fell to 3.4% in Q2 of 2003, it surged back to 15.7% in Q3, leaving the overall level of GDP down about 1% for the year as a whole relative to what would have transpired if the virus had never emerged.1 The broader Asia-Pacific region experienced a hit to growth of around 0.5%. In contrast, growth in developed economies was barely affected. Even in Canada, where 44 people died from SARS, the outbreak shaved only around 0.1% from the level of GDP in 2003, according to the Bank of Canada.2   The outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. The obvious problem with the SARS analogy is that it is based on a sample of one. We do not know how this new strain of the virus compares to SARS or, for that matter, the Spanish flu, which killed 50-to-100 million people (3%-to-5% of the world’s population at the time). We do not even know if the full scope of the SARS outbreak was as fleeting as what we remember, since in a cosmic multiverse there will be a tendency to recall life-or-death outcomes more favorably than they actually were (I will have more to say about the financial implications of this in a future special report). Chart 1The Coronavirus Is Spreading Faster Than SARS Did What we do know is that, to date, the coronavirus has spread more quickly than SARS (Chart 1). It is not clear if that is because of faster, more accurate reporting methods or because the virus is more communicable. The Chinese Minister of Health has said that this new virus, unlike SARS, can be transmitted while people are still asymptomatic. While others have cast doubt on this claim, if it turns out to be correct, the coronavirus may be much more difficult to control. Viruses often become less lethal as they mutate because a virus that kills its host is also a virus that kills itself. Unfortunately, in a world of mass travel, a virus can spread across the globe before it has time to lose potency. The typical seasonal flu kills less than 0.1% of those who contract it. Most estimates suggest that SARS killed 10%-15% of infected patients. The Spanish flu killed a similar percentage. The death rate from the coronavirus is currently tracking at 2%-to-3%. However, it is possible that this estimate will rise. The vast majority of the people who have contracted the coronavirus are still sick. In fact, more people have died from it than have fully recovered (Chart 2). Thus, an honest assessment would simply admit that we do not know how bad this potential pandemic will get. Chart 2How Will This End: Outbreak, Epidemic, Or Pandemic? Chart 3Markets Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking What should investors do? The SARS experience suggests that risk assets will only bottom when the number of new cases peaks (Chart 3). It is not clear that we have reached this point yet. While the number of new cases reported by China’s National Health Commission has stabilized over the past two days, this could just be a temporary respite (Chart 4). Until the rate at which new cases are diagnosed begins a clear downward trend, a somewhat cautious stance towards risk assets is warranted. Global Growth Should Recover Provided the outbreak is contained during the coming weeks, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. This is partly because global growth should pick up thanks to the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, and diminished Brexit and trade war risks. Continued fiscal/credit stimulus out of China should also help. China spends less on health care than almost all other countries (Chart 5). It is likely that the past few weeks will prompt the government to increase social spending.   Chart 4The Number Of New Cases Has Stagnated Over The Past Two Days Chart 5China: Public Spending On Health Care Has Room To Catch Up Higher Equity Prices: Just A Matter Of Arithmetic? Chart 6There Is A Structural Decline In Listed Companies In The US Chart 7The Supply Of US Stocks Has Been Drying Up In addition to stronger global growth, there is another factor supporting stocks which receives insufficient attention and is worth highlighting in this week’s report: corporate buybacks. US companies have repurchased about 3% of their shares every year for the past decade. On the flipside, only 110 companies went public last year, less than a third of the number of new listings in 1996-99. In fact, the number of publicly traded domestic companies has fallen by over 40% since 1996 (Chart 6). The combination of copious buybacks and dearth of IPOs has caused the S&P divisor – a broad measure of the total number of split-adjusted shares outstanding – to decline by a cumulative 9% since 2011. Between 1990 and 2004, the divisor increased by 40% (Chart 7). If companies are net buyers of stocks, then households and other holders must be net sellers of stock. But this raises an obvious question: What if households also want to be net buyers of stocks? Chart 8Households Are Bullish Chart 9High Equity Ownership By Households Translates Into Poor Long-Term Returns This question is highly relevant in today’s environment, where unemployment is low, wage growth is accelerating, the household savings rate is high, consumer confidence is strong, and a higher-than-average percentage of people expect stocks to increase in the coming months (Chart 8). Arithmetically, there is only one way that households can be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure: Share prices need to rise. At what point will share prices stop rising? That depends on two things: 1) How much stock market wealth households hold relative to other assets; and 2) The risk-adjusted rate of return that households expect from stocks compared to other assets. Stock returns are highest when equity holdings are low, but sentiment towards stocks is improving. Conversely, returns are lowest when equity holdings are high, but stock market sentiment is deteriorating (Chart 9 and Table 1).   Table 1Equity Returns Tend To Suffer When Bulls Are Losing Conviction The latter typically occurs during economic downturns when earnings are falling and risk aversion is rising. Thus, it is no surprise that recessions and equity bear markets tend to overlap (Chart 10). Chart 10Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Where Things Stand Today In the US, household equity holdings are on the high side. According to Fed data and our own estimates, households currently hold 33% of their financial assets in stocks (Chart 11). This is higher than in 2007, but still below the dotcom peak of 39%. Similarly, the monthly asset allocation survey conducted by the American Association of Individual Investors shows a somewhat elevated allocation to equities, although one that is still broadly on par with the 2003-2007 and post-2014 averages (Chart 12). Chart 11US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (I) Chart 12US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (II) Chart 13Relative Valuations Favor Stocks   One major difference with prior occasions when US equity allocations were elevated is that the earnings yield on stocks at present is still quite a bit higher than the yield on competing assets such as cash and bonds (Chart 13). While this is mainly because interest rates are so low, it does suggest that households may seek to further increase their equity allocations provided that the economy continues to perform well. Foreign companies have been less aggressive re-purchasers of their own shares than their US peers. That said, household equity ownership is significantly lower outside the US (Chart 14). The spread between equity earnings yields and bond yields is also higher abroad, reflecting the fact that both PE multiples and interest rates are generally lower outside the US. Given that investors tend to favor companies listed in their home country, efforts by non-US investors to increase their equity allocations will primarily benefit stock markets outside the US. In addition, stronger global growth tends to favor EM and European equities, largely because stock markets in those regions have more of a cyclical bent (Chart 15). Thus, on balance, we recommend that investors overweight non-US stocks this year. Chart 14Equity Ownership By Households Is Lower Outside The US Chart 15Stronger Global Growth Tends To Favor A Cyclical Bias In Equity Allocation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1   Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Brookings Institution, dated February 2004. 2   Please see Monetary Policy Report, Bank of Canada, October 2003. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights China’s economic rebound in Q1 will be delayed due to the coronavirus, which will have a larger negative hit than SARS. New stimulus measures will assist a rebound in demand later this year. Europe remains a geopolitical opportunity rather than a risk. As long as global growth rebounds this year, European equities can outperform their richly valued American counterparts. Emerging markets face a new headwind from the coronavirus. Emerging market performance relative to developed markets will be a key test of whether endogenous growth trends are taking shape. Tactically – over a 12-month horizon – we remain long industrial commodities; long Korean equities versus Taiwanese; and long Malaysian equities relative to emerging markets. Feature Global equities will ultimately push through the coronavirus and the Democratic Party primary election, but risks are elevated and Q1 looks to bring significant volatility. Last week we shifted to a tactically neutral stance on risk assets but we remain cyclically bullish. In this report we update our market-based GeoRisk indicators, which are almost all set to rise from low levels in the coming months as developed market equities and emerging market currencies face higher risk premiums. China: The Year Of The Rat Chart 1Markets Will Rebound Once Toll Of Virus Peaks The ink had hardly dried on our “Black Swan” report for 2020 when Chinese scientists confirmed human-to-human transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV), sending a wave of fear over China and the world. The number of new cases and new deaths is rising and economic activity will suffer as the Chinese New Year is extended, shoppers stay home, and international travel is canceled. The virus is likely to prove more troublesome than stock investors want to admit, at least in the short term. Too little is known to make confident assertions about promptly containing the virus or its impact on global economy and markets. The analogy with the SARS outbreak of 2003 is limited: it is not certain that this virus has a lower death rate, but it is certain that the Chinese economy is more vulnerable to disruption today than at that time – and much more influential on the global economy. The SARS episode is useful, however, in suggesting that the market will not rebound until the number of new cases and deaths turn down (Chart 1). Assuming the virus is ultimately contained – both in China and in neighboring Asian countries whose governments may not be as effective at quarantining the problem – regional consumption and production will bounce back. New stimulus measures will also take effect with a lag. Domestic political risk is structurally understated in China. Stimulus will indeed be the answer. First, the negative shock to consumer demand comes at a time when global trade is still relatively weak, thus presenting a two-pronged threat to China’s economy, which was only just stabilizing after the truce in the trade war. Second, China’s hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party, in 2021, will require the government to stabilize the economy now. The important political leadership reshuffle at the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is another imperative to avoid a deepening slump today (Chart 2). Chart 2China Will Stimulate To Avoid A Deepening Slump Beyond 2020, the Wuhan virus highlights our theme that domestic political risk is structurally understated in China. At the centennial celebration, China’s leaders aim to show that the country is a “moderately prosperous society in all respects,” emphasis added. For decades China’s leaders have emphasized industrial production to the detriment of other social and economic goals, such as food safety and a clean and safe environment for households to live in. The emergence of the middle class, writ broadly, as a majority of the population is a persistent source of pressure on leaders, as the limited opinion polling available from China demonstrates (Chart 3). In other emerging markets, a large middle class has led to social and political change when the government failed to meet growing middle class demands (Chart 4). Chart 3Chinese Social And Economic Conditions Are Source Of Pressure Chart 4Consumerism Encourages Democracy Chart 5China’s Government Is Behind The Curve Under General Secretary Xi Jinping, the government has cracked down on corruption and pollution as well as poverty, and has attempted to improve consumer safety and the health care system. The party officially aims to shift its policy focus from meeting the basic material needs of the population to improving quality of life. The problem is that China’s government is behind the curve (Chart 5). While it is making rapid progress – for instance, the communicable disease burden has dropped dramatically – and has unique authoritarian tools, acute problems of health, food safety, pollution, and public services will nevertheless persist. The government’s responses will inevitably fall short from time to time and heads will roll. Crisis events create the potential for the market to be surprised by the level of domestic political change or pushback, which will prove disruptive at times. Bottom Line: China’s economic rebound in Q1 will be delayed due to the coronavirus, which will have a larger negative hit than SARS. The SARS episode suggests that Chinese equities will be a tactical buy when the number of new cases and deaths begin falling. New stimulus measures will assist a rebound in demand later this year – underscoring our constructive cyclical view on Chinese and global growth. The episode highlights the challenges China faces in modernizing and improving regulations, health, and safety for the emerging middle class. Domestic political risk is understated. Europe: Political Risks Still Contained China’s near-term hit, and rebound later this year, will echo in Europe, where the economy and equity market are highly reliant on China’s credit cycle and import demand. Politically, however, Europe remains a geopolitical opportunity rather than a risk (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Hit Will Echo In Europe, But Political Risks Are Contained There The final months of last year saw the biggest and most immediate political risk – a disorderly UK exit from the EU – removed. The Trump administration is not likely to slap large-scale tariffs – such as auto tariffs on a national security pretext – because Trump is constrained by the weak manufacturing sector in advance of his election. Meanwhile immigration and terrorism have declined since 2016, draining the fuel of Europe’s anti-establishment parties. Pound weakness during the Brexit transition period is an opportunity for investors to buy. Chart 7Immigration Is Ticking Up, But From Low Levels Chart 8Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Chart 9Government Gridlock, Catalonia, And Poor Reform Momentum Will Pull Up Spanish Risk There are some signs of immigration numbers ticking up, but from very low levels (Chart 7). This uptick must be monitored for Spain (and France), as the renewed civil war in Libya is forcing refugees to shift to the western route across the Mediterranean (Chart 8). (Note that even peace in Libya opens the possibility of greater migrant flows as the country then becomes a viable transit route again). Our Spanish risk indicator is already ticking up due to government gridlock, the Catalonian conflict, and a declining commitment to structural economic reform (Chart 9). But this is not a major concern for global investors. The United Kingdom The UK will formally exit the European Union on January 31. The transition period – in which the UK remains fully integrated into the EU single market – expires on December 31, 2020. This is the official deadline for the two sides to negotiate a trade agreement – though it can, and likely will, be delayed. Chart 10British Political Risk Will Revive, But Not Dramatically The trade agreement is intended to minimize the negative economic impact of Brexit while ensuring that the UK reclaims its sovereignty and the EU retains the integrity of the single market. As negotiations get under way, the pound will face a new round of volatility and British political risk will revive somewhat, but we do not expect a dramatic increase (Chart 10). Ultimately we see pound weakness as an opportunity for investors to buy. The twin risks of no-deal Brexit or a socialist Jeremy Corbyn government have been decisively cast off. The end-of-year deadline can be extended and the two sides can find technical ways to compromise over regulations, tariffs, and border checks. Challenges to global growth only make an amicable solution more obtainable. Italy Our Italian GeoRisk indicator is collapsing as political risks proved yet again to be overstated (Chart 11). Chart 11Italian GeoRisk Indicator Is Collapsing The local election in Emilia-Romagna was hyped as a major populist risk, in which the chief anti-establishment players, Matteo Salvini and the League, would take power in a region viewed as the symbolic home of the Italian left wing. Instead, the League lost, the ruling Democratic Party won, and the current government coalition will survive. While the populists prevailed at another election in Calabria, this outcome was fully expected. The trend of recent provincial elections does not suggest a swell of Italian populism (Chart 12). Chart 12Recent Local Elections Do Not Suggest A Swell Of Italian Populism Chart 13The Italian Coalition Will Not Rush To Elections This local election is not the end of the coalition’s troubles. The left-wing, anti-establishment Five Star Movement is suffering in the polls as a result of its uninspiring, politically expedient pairing with the establishment Democrats. The Democrats may receive a boost from Emilia-Romagna but the Five Star’s leadership change – the resignation of party leader Luigi di Maio – will not be enough to revive its fortunes alone. A new Five Star leader will have to decide whether to collaborate more deeply with the Democrats or try to reclaim the party’s anti-establishment credentials. The latter would push the coalition toward an election before too long. But the Five Star’s weak polling – and the League’s persistent 10 percentage point lead over the Democratic Party in nationwide polling – suggests that the coalition will not rush to elections but will try to prepare by passing a new electoral law (Chart 13). What is clear is that the Five Star Movement will not court elections until they improve their polling. France In France, Emmanuel Macron and his ruling En Marche party have seen their popularity drop to new lows amid the historic labor strikes in opposition to Macron’s pension reforms (Chart 14). Macron’s current trajectory is dangerously close to that of his predecessor, Francois Hollande, and threatens to turn him into a lame duck. We doubt this is the case. Chart 14Macron’s Popularity Is On A Dangerous Trajectory Diagram 1The ‘J-Curve’ Of Structural Reform We view Macron’s decline as another example of the “J-Curve of Structural Reform,” in which a leader’s political capital drops amid controversial reforms (Diagram 1). If the leader avoids an election during the trough of the curve, the danger zone, then his or her political capital may well revive after the benefits of the structural reform are recognized. In this case, the reform is neutral for France’s budget deficit – a cyclical positive – but it encourages an improvement in pension sustainability by incentivizing workers to work longer and postpone retirement – a structural positive. Chart 15France's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 16A Relatively Strong Economy Will Buffer Against Political Risk In France Municipal elections in March will not go Macron’s way, but the presidential and legislative elections are not until 2022. France’s GDP growth is holding up better than that of its neighbors, wages are rising, and confidence did not collapse amid the Christmas labor strike (Chart 15). Hence we expect the increase in political risk to be manageable (Chart 16), a boon for French equities. Germany German political risk is set to rise from today’s depths (Chart 17). The country faces a major shift: globalization is structurally declining and Chancellor Angela Merkel is stepping down. Merkel’s heir-apparent, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK), is floundering in the opinion polls (Chart 18). Chart 17German Political Risk Will Rise Chart 18Merkel's Heir-Apparent Is Floundering In The Opinion Polls Thus intra-party struggle, and conceivably even a rare early election, could emerge. But the US-China trade ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve. Next year will be different, with elections looming in the fall and the potential for a Trump reelection to trigger a second round of the US-China trade war or to shift to trade war with the EU and tariffs on German cars. The overall political trend in Germany is centrist and pro-Europe, and most of the parties are becoming more willing to upgrade fiscal policy over time. South Korea’s economic problems are priced in, while the market is dismissing Taiwan’s immense political risk. Bottom Line: The US election cycle is the chief source of policy risk and geopolitical risk in 2020, a stark contrast with the EU. European political risk will spike with a full-fledged recession, but for now it is contained. In fact the risks are largely to the upside in the short term as the countries turn slightly more fiscally accommodative. As long as global growth rebounds this year, European equities can outperform their richly valued American counterparts. Emerging Markets: Can They Outperform? With volatility likely in the near-term, Arthur Budaghyan of BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy argues that the key test for emerging markets equities is whether they outperform their developed market counterparts. If they do not, then it suggests that investors still do not see endogenous growth, capital spending and profitability in emerging markets and therefore that they will lag their DM counterparts in the eventual equity upswing. Our long Korea / short Taiwan trade exploded out of the gate but has since fallen back in the face of the new headwind from the coronavirus. We have a high conviction in this trade because the difference in equity valuations faces a looming catalyst in the market’s mispricing of relative geopolitical risk: South Korea’s risk indicator is in a broad upswing while Taiwan’s has collapsed, despite the persistence of the diplomatic track with North Korea and Taiwan’s resounding reelection of both a pro-independence president and legislature (Chart 19). Mainland China will send both risk indicators upward in the near term, but South Korea’s economic problems are priced in and Trump’s diplomacy with North Korea is grounded in well-established constraints on Washington, Beijing, Pyongyang, and Seoul. By contrast the market is entirely dismissing Taiwan’s immense political risk, which does not depend on the outcome of the US election. In the coming 1-3 years, Beijing, Taipei, and Washington are all more likely to take self-interested actions that test the constraints in the Taiwan Strait, upsetting the market, before those constraints are reconfirmed (assuming they are). Beijing is likely to impose economic sanctions as Taipei’s demand for greater freedom and alliance with the US will agitate Chinese leaders who will seek to get the Kuomintang back into power. Brazilian political risk has failed to reach new highs, as anticipated, suggesting that President Jair Bolsonaro’s many problems are not driving investors to sell the real amid underlying indications of rebounding global growth and at least attempts at pro-market reform (Chart 20). Chart 19Markets Are Mispricing Geopolitical Risks In South Korea And Taiwan Chart 20Political Risks Remain Contained In Brazil Turkey’s military intervention into Libya’s civil war is another example of the foreign adventurism that we see as an outgrowth of populism and the need to distract the public’s attention from domestic mismanagement. We expect the risk indicator to rise or be flat and would remain short Turkish currency and risk assets. Bottom Line: Emerging markets face a new headwind from the coronavirus. Not only will China’s growth rebound sputter but Asian EMs will be exposed to the virus and may be less capable than China of dealing with it rapidly and effectively. With volatility looming, emerging market performance relative to developed markets will be a key test of whether endogenous growth trends are taking shape. Investment Conclusions Tactically we are closing our long GBP/JPY trade and UK curve steepener for negligible gains. We are also closing our long Egyptian sovereign bond trade for a gain of 5.59%. We remain long industrial commodities; long Korean equities versus Taiwanese; and long Malaysian equities relative to emerging markets. We expect these trades to perform well over a 12-month horizon. Strategically several of our recommendations will benefit from heightened volatility in the near term but face challenges later in the year as growth rebounds and risk sentiment revives. Nevertheless our time horizon is three-to-five years. In that span we remain long gold, long euro, long defense, short US tech, and short CNY-USD.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The liquidity-driven rally will soon be followed by an acceleration in global growth. The economic recovery will bump up expectations of long-term profit growth. The dollar has downside, but the euro will not benefit much. Overweight stocks relative to bonds and bet on traditional cyclical sectors and commodities. The potential for outperformance of value relative to growth favors European equities. The probability of a tech mania is escalating: how should investors factor an expanding bubble into their portfolios? Feature Chart I-1A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? Despite all odds, the nCoV-2019 outbreak is barely denting the S&P 500’s frenetic rally. Plentiful liquidity, thawing Sino-US trade relations and improving economic activity in Asia, all have created ideal conditions for risk assets to appreciate on a cyclical basis. Stocks may look increasingly expensive and are primed to correct, but the bubble will expand further. After lifting asset valuations, monetary policy easing will soon boost worldwide economic activity. Consequently, earnings in the US and Europe will improve. As long as central bankers remain unconcerned about inflation, investors will bid up stocks. Investors should remember we are in the final innings of a bull market. Stocks can deliver outsized returns during this period, but often at the cost of elevated volatility, and the options market is not pricing in this uncertainty (Chart I-1). Moreover, timing the ultimate end of the bubble is extremely difficult. Hence, we prefer to look for assets that can still benefit from easy monetary conditions and rebounding growth, but are not as expensive as equities. Industrial commodities fit that description, especially after their recent selloff. The dollar remains a crucial asset to gauge the path of least resistance for assets. If it refuses to swoon, then it will indicate that global growth is in a weaker state than we foresaw. The good news is that the broad trade-weighted dollar seems to have peaked. Accommodative Monetary Conditions Are Here To Stay Easy liquidity has been the lifeblood of the S&P 500’s rally. The surge in the index coincided with the lagged impact of the rise in our US Financial Liquidity Index (Chart I-2). Low rates have allowed stocks to climb higher, yet earnings expectations remain muted. For example, since November 26, 2018, the forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has increased from 15.2 to 18.7, while 10-year Treasury yields have collapsed from 3.1% to 1.6%. Meanwhile, expectations for long-term earnings annual growth extracted from equity multiples using a discounted cash flow model have dropped from 2.4% to 1.2%. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Yet, stocks and risk assets normally continue to climb when the economy recovers. Even without any additional monetary easing, as long as policy remains accommodative, risk assets will generate positive returns. Expectations for stronger cash flow growth become the force driving asset prices higher. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. Within this framework, peak monetary easing is probably behind us, even though liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative. Nominal interest rates remain very low, and real bond yields are still falling. Unlike in 2018 and 2019, dropping TIPs yields reflect rising inflation expectations (Chart I-3). Those factors together indicate that policy is reflationary, which is confirmed by the gold rally. Chart I-2A Liquidity Driven Rally Chart I-3Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary   Chart I-4Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Based on the historical lags between monetary easing and manufacturing activity, the global industrial sector is set to mend (Chart I-4). Moreover, the liquidity-driven surge in stock prices, combined with low yields and compressed credit spreads, has eased financial conditions, which creates the catalyst for an industrial recovery. Where will the growth come from? First, worldwide inventory levels have collapsed after making negative contributions to growth since mid-2018 (Chart I-5). Thus, there is room for an inventory restocking. Secondly, auto sales in Europe and China have rebounded to 18.5% from -23% and to -0.1% from -16.4%, respectively. Thirdly, China’s credit and fiscal impulse has improved. The uptick in Chinese iron ore imports indicates that the pass-through from domestic reflation to global economic activity will materialize soon (Chart I-6). Finally, following the Phase One Sino-US trade deal, global business confidence is bottoming, as exemplified by Belgium’s business confidence, Switzerland KOF LEI, Korea's manufacturing business survey, or US CFO and CEO confidence measures. The increase in EM earnings revisions shows that US capex intentions should soon re-accelerate, which bodes well for investment both in the US and globally (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Room For Inventory Restocking Chart I-6China Points To Stronger Global Growth   Construction activity, a gauge of the monetary stance, is looking up across the advanced economies. In the US, housing starts – a leading indicator of domestic demand – have hit a 13-year high. A pullback in this volatile data series is likely, but it should be limited. Vacancies remain at a paltry 1.4%, household formation is solid and affordability is not demanding (Chart I-8). In Europe, construction activity has been relatively stable through the economic slowdown. Even in Canada and Australia, housing transactions have gathered steam quickly following declines in mortgage rates (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Capex Is Set To Recover Chart I-8US Housing Is Robust Chart I-9Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Consumers will remain a source of strength for the global economy. The dichotomy between weak manufacturing PMIs and the stable service sector reflects a healthy consumer spending. December retail sales in Europe and the US corroborate this assessment. The stabilization in US business confidence suggests that household incomes are not in as much jeopardy as three months ago. As household net worth and credit growth improve further, a stable outlook for household income will underwrite greater gains in consumption. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. For the time being, US inflationary pressures are muted. The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over, hourly earnings growth has moved back below 3%, our pipeline inflation indicator derived from the ISM is weak, and core producer prices are flagging (Chart I-10). This trend is not US-specific. In the OECD, core consumer price inflation is set to decelerate due to the lagged impact of the manufacturing slowdown. Central banks are also constrained to remain dovish by their own rhetoric. The Fed's statement this week was a testament to this reality. Central banks are increasingly looking to set symmetrical inflation targets. After a decade of missing their targets, a symmetric target would imply keeping policy easier for longer, even if realized inflation moves back above 2%. A rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar. Finally, fiscal policy will make a small positive contribution to growth in most major advanced economies in 2020, particularly in Germany and the UK (Table I-1). Chart I-10Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Table I-1Modest Fiscal Easing In 2020   The Dollar And The Sino-US Phase One Deal At first glance, a rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar (Chart I-11). As we have often argued, the dollar’s defining characteristic is its pronounced counter-cyclicality. Chart I-11A Painful Backdrop For The Greenback Deteriorating dollar fundamentals make this risk particularly relevant. US interest rates are well above those in the rest of the G10, but the gap in short rates has significantly narrowed. Historically, the direction of rates differentials and not their levels has determined the trend in the USD (Chart I-12). Moreover, real differentials at the long end of the curve support the notion that the maximum tailwinds for the dollar are behind us (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Furthermore, now that the US Treasury has replenished its accounts at the Federal Reserve, the Fed’s addition of excess reserves in the system will likely become increasingly negative for the dollar, especially against EM currencies. Likewise, relative money supply trends between the US, Europe, Japan and China already predict a decline in the dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Chart I-13...Neither Do Money Supply Trends   Chart I-14The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious The recent Sino-US trade agreement obscures what appears to be a straightforward picture. According to the Phase One deal signed mid-January, China will increase its US imports by $200 billion in the next two years vis-à-vis the high-water mark of $186 billion reached in 2017. This is an extremely ambitious goal (Chart I-14). Politically, it is positive that China has committed to buy manufactured goods and services in addition to commodities. However, the scale of the increase in imports of US manufactured goods is large, at $77 billion. China cannot fulfill this obligation if domestic growth merely stabilizes or picks up just a little, especially now that the domestic economy is in the midst of a spreading illness. It will have to substitute some of its European and Japanese imports with US goods. A consequence of this trade deal is that the euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. Historically, European growth outperforms the US when China’s monetary conditions are easing and its marginal propensity to consume is rising (Chart I-15). However, given the potential for China to substitute European goods in favor of US ones, China’s economic reacceleration probably will not benefit Europe as much as it normally does. China may not ultimately follow through with as big of US purchases as it has promised, but it is likely, at least initially, to show good faith in the agreement. The euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. While the trade agreement is a headwind for the euro, it is a positive for the Chinese yuan. The US output gap stands at 0.1% of potential GDP and the US labor market is near full employment. The US industrial sector does not possess the required spare capacity to fulfill additional Chinese demand. To equilibrate the market for US goods, prices will have to adjust to become more favorable for Chinese purchasers. The simplest mechanism to achieve this outcome is for the RMB to appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is trading 16% below its equilibrium, which will allow European producers to fulfill US domestic demand. A widening US trade deficit with Europe would undo improvements in the trade balance with China. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated. The implication for the dollar is that the broad trade-weighted USD will likely outperform the Dollar Index (DXY). The euro represents 18.9% of the broad trade-weighted dollar versus 57.6% of the DXY. Asian currencies, EM currencies at large, the AUD and the NZD, all should benefit from their close correlation with the RMB (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Chart I-16EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB   Obviously, before the RMB and the assets linked to it can appreciate further, the panic surrounding the coronavirus will have to dissipate. However, the economic damage created by SARS was short lived. This respiratory syndrome resulted in a 2.4% contraction Hong-Kong’s GDP in the second quarter of 2003. The economy of Hong Kong recovered that loss quickly afterward. Investment Forecasts BCA continues to forecast upside in safe-haven yields. Global interest rates remain well below equilibrium and a global economic recovery bodes poorly for bond prices (Chart I-17). However, inflation expectations and not real yields will drive nominal yield changes. The dovish slant of global central banks and the growing likelihood that symmetric inflation targets will become the norm is creating long-term upside risks for inflation. Moreover, if symmetric inflation targets imply lower real short rates in the future, then they also imply lower real long rates today. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Easy monetary conditions, decreased real rates and an improvement in economic activity are also consistent with an outperformance of assets with higher yields. High-yield bonds, which offer attractive breakeven spreads, will benefit from this backdrop (Chart I-18). Furthermore, carry trades will likely continue to perform well. In addition to low interest rates across most of the G10, the low currency volatility caused by an extended period of easy policy will continue to encourage carry-seeking strategies. Chart I-17Bonds Are Still Expensive Chart I-18Where Is The Value In Credit?   An environment in which growth is accelerating and monetary policy is accommodative argues in favor of stocks. Our profit growth model for the S&P 500 has finally moved back into positive territory. As earnings improve, investors will likely re-rate depressed long-term growth expectations for cash flows (Chart I-19). The flip side is that equity risk premia are elevated, especially outside the US (Chart I-19). Hence, as long as accelerating growth (but not tighter policy) drives up yields, equities should withstand rising borrowing costs. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. The 400 point surge in the S&P 500 since early October complicates the picture. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated, based on their short-term momentum and sentiment measures, such as the put/call ratio (Chart I-20). Foreign equities will continue to correct along US ones, even if they are cheaper. Chart I-19Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Chart I-20Tactical Risks For Stocks   Chart I-21Buy Commodities/Sell Stocks? The coronavirus panic seems to be the catalyst for such a correction. When a market is overextended, any shock can cause a pullback in prices. Moreover, as of writing, medical professionals still have to ascertain the virus’s severity and potential mutations. Therefore, risk assets must embed a significant risk premium for such uncertainty, even if ultimately the infection turns out to be mild. However, that risk premium will likely prove to be short lived. During the SARS crisis in 2003, stocks bottomed when the number of reported new cases peaked. The tech sector has plentiful downside if the correction gathers strength. As indicated in BCA’s US Equity Sector Strategy, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook account for 18% of the US market capitalization, which is the highest market concentration since the late 1990s tech bubble. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Commodity prices are trading at a large discount to US equities. Moreover, the momentum of natural resource prices relative to stocks has begun to form a positive divergence with the price ratio of these two assets (Chart I-21). Technical divergences such as the one visible in the ratio of commodities to equities are often positive signals. Low real rates, an ample liquidity backdrop, a global economic recovery, a weak broad trade-weighted dollar and a strong RMB, all benefit commodities over equities. Tech stocks underperform commodities when the dollar weakens and growth strengthens. Moreover, our positive stance on the RMB justifies stronger prices for copper, oil and EM equities (Chart I-22). Chart I-22The Winners From A CNY Rebound Our US Equity Strategy Service has also reiterated its preference for industrials and energy stocks, and it recently upgraded materials stocks to neutral.1 All three sectors trade at significant valuation discounts to the broad market and to tech stocks in particular. They are also oversold in relative terms. Finally, their operating metrics are improving, a trend which will be magnified if global growth re-accelerates. Do not make these bets aggressively. A weakening broad trade-weighted dollar would allow for a rotation into foreign equities and an outperformance of value relative to growth stocks. The share of US equities in the MSCI All-Country World Index is a direct function of the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-23). Moreover, since 1971, the dollar and the relative performance of growth stocks versus value stocks have exhibited a positive correlation (Chart I-24). Thus, the dollar’s recent strength has been a key component behind the run enjoyed by tech stocks. Chart I-23Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Chart I-24Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Despite the risks to the euro discussed in the previous section, European equities could still outperform US equities. Such a move would be consistent with value stocks beating growth equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). This correlation exists because the euro area has a combined 17.7% weighting to tech and healthcare stocks compared with a 37.1% allocation in US benchmarks. Moreover, a cheap euro should allow European industrials and materials to outperform their US counterparts. Finally, the recent uptick in the European credit impulse indicates that an acceleration in European profit growth is imminent, a view that is in line with our preference for European financials (Chart I-25).2 Chart I-25Euro Area Profits Should Improve Bottom Line: The current environment remains favorable for risk assets on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we expect stocks and bond yields to continue to rise in 2020. Moreover, a pick-up in global growth, along with a fall in the broad trade-weighted dollar, should weigh on tech and growth stocks, and boost the attractiveness of commodity plays, industrial, energy and materials stocks, as well as European and EM equities. Forecast Meets Strategy Liquidity-driven rallies, such as the current one, can carry on regardless of the fundamentals. As Keynes noted 90 years ago: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The gap between forecast and strategy can be great. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. We assign a substantial 30% probability to the risk of another tech mania. Outflows from equity ETFs and mutual funds have been large. Investors will be tempted to move back into those vehicles if stocks continue to rally on the back of plentiful liquidity and improving global growth (Chart I-26). In the process, the new inflows will prop up the over-represented, over-valued, and over-extended tech behemoths. Chart I-26Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up The current tech bubble can easily run a lot further. Based on current valuations, the NASDAQ trades at a P/E ratio of 31 compared with 68 in March 2000 (Chart I-27). Moreover, momentum is becoming increasingly favorable for the NASDAQ and other high-flying tech stocks. The NASDAQ is outperforming high-dividend stocks and after a period of consolidation, its relative performance is breaking out. Momentum often performs very well in liquidity-driven rallies. Chart I-27Where Is The Bubble? Chart I-28Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere A full-fledged tech mania would make our overweight equities / underweight bonds a profitable call, but it would invalidate our sector and regional recommendations. Moreover, with a few exceptions in China and Taiwan, the major tech bellwethers are listed in the US. A tech bubble would most likely push our bearish dollar stance to the offside. Bubbles are dangerous: participating on the upside is easy, but cashing out is not. Moreover, financial bubbles tend to exacerbate the economic pain that follows the bust. During manic phases, capital is poorly invested and the economy becomes geared to the sectors that benefit from the financial excesses. These assets lose their value when the bubble deflates. Moreover, bubbles often result in growing private-sector indebtedness. Writing off or paying back this debt saps the economy’s vitality. Making matters worse, today overall indebtedness is unprecedented and central banks have little room to reflate the global economy once the bubble bursts (Chart I-28). Finally, US/Iran tensions will create additional risk in the years ahead. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, warns that the ratcheting down of tensions following Iran’s retaliation to General Soleimani’s assassination is temporary.3 As a result, the oil market remains a source of left-handed tail-risk. Section II discusses other potential black swans lurking in the geopolitical sphere. We continue to recommend that investors overweight industrials and energy, upgrade materials to neutral, Europe to overweight, and curtail their USD exposure as long as US inflation remains well behaved and the US inflation breakeven rate stays below the 2.3% to 2.5% range. However, do not make these bets aggressively. Moreover, some downside protection is merited. Due to our very negative view on bonds, we prefer garnering these hedges via a 15% allocation to gold and the yen. The yen is especially attractive because it is one of the few cheap, safe-haven plays (Chart I-29). Chart I-29The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 30, 2020 Next Report: February 27, 2020   II. Five Black Swans In 2020 Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan   Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.3 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… Chart II-13…Popular Support… Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically   Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 rally looks increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective. The US benchmark is overbought, and the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages is rolling over at elevated levels. Additionally, the number of NYSE new highs minus new lows has moved in a parabolic fashion and has hit levels that in previous years have warned of an imminent correction. The spread of nCoV-2019 is likely to be the catalyst to a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. An improving outlook for global growth, limited inflationary pressures and global central banks who maintain an accommodative monetary stance bode well for stocks. Therefore, the anticipated equity correction will not morph into a bear market. For now, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator has strengthened. Additionally, our BCA Composite Valuation index suggests that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. Finally, our Speculation Indicator is elevated, but is not so high as to warn of an imminent market top. This somewhat muted level of speculation is congruent with the expectation of low long-term growth rates for profits embedded in equity prices. In contrast to our Revealed Preference Indicator, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is moving in accordance with our constructive cyclical stance for stocks. Indeed, the WTP for the US, Japan and Europe continues to improve. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Meanwhile, net earnings revisions appear to be forming a trough. 10-year Treasury yields remain extremely expensive. Moreover, according to our Composite Technical Indicator, T-Note prices are losing momentum. The fear surrounding the spread of the new coronavirus has cause bonds to rally again, but this is likely to be the last hurrah for the Treasury markets before a major reversal takes hold. The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and Belgium’s Business Confidence surveys, or the improvement in Asia’s export growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24.5% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, the negative divergence between the dollar and our Composite Momentum Indicator suggests that the dollar is technically vulnerable. In fact, the very modest pick-up in the dollar in response to the severe fears created by the spreading illness in China argues that dollar buying might have become exhausted. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of the coronavirus. However, they have not pulled back below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advance/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Three EPS Scenarios," dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Insight Report "Bombed Out Energy," dated January 8, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Special Report "Industrials: Start Your Engines," dated January 21, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "January 2020," dated December 20, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions," dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Highlights The coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction, not the cause. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. Bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds, provided bond yields stay near or below current levels. The pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy a major leg up later this year if both the UK and EU blink. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later In 2020 Corrections, Catalysts, And Coronavirus Markets have suffered a correction, begging the question: what caused it? The question is a good one, because identifying the cause can help to inform our response. Yet the danger is that the knee-jerk narrative pinpoints the catalyst rather than the true cause. In which case our response will be wrong too. For example, consider the following two narratives: Tree foliage collapses because of 40 mph winds. Tree foliage collapses because it is autumn. The first narrative is exciting, satisfying, and headline grabbing, but it only pinpoints the catalyst for the foliage collapse: the puff of wind. The second explanation is dull and less newsworthy, but it pinpoints the true cause: in autumn, tree foliage is unstable. Likewise, the coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. The catalyst could have come from anywhere at any time. If it hadn’t been the coronavirus scare, it would have been the next worry… or the one after that. On January 9 in Markets Are Fractally Fragile we warned that usually cautious value investors had become momentum traders – undermining market liquidity and stability. When this happens, there is a two in three chance of a tactical reversal (Chart I-2). Chart I-2When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal We also warned that the bond yield 6-month impulse – the change in the change – had recently become a severe 100 bps headwind to growth. At this severity of headwind, there is a nine in ten chance that bond yields have reached a near-term peak (Chart I-3). Chart I-3When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields In combination, we warned that equities would underperform bonds by about 4 percent on a tactical horizon. Now that this anticipated correction has happened, what next? Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds.  First, irrespective of coronavirus – or any other catalyst – the recent severe headwind to growth from the bond yield impulse suggests that bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Second, the good news is that the ultra-low bond yields justify and underpin the valuation of equities. Hence, at the current level of bond yields, long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds. Brexit Is “Done”. Or Is It? Rumour has it that Boris Johnson will banish the word Brexit from the UK government lexicon after January 31, because Brexit is now “done”. Good luck with that. When Britain wakes up bleary-eyed on Saturday February 1, what will have changed? Not a lot. The UK will have lost its voice and votes in the EU decision making institutions. Yet in practical terms nothing will have changed, because the UK and EU will enter an 11-month ‘standstill’ transition period in which existing arrangements will continue: the free movement of people, financial contributions, and full access to the single market without tariffs or customs checks. The Conservative government made a manifesto pledge not to extend the 11-month transition, so the more important question is: what will change when the standstill period ends on December 31? The answer depends on what sort of trade deal the UK and EU can negotiate in the limited space of 11 months. Or indeed whether they can negotiate a trade deal at all. Therein lies the problem. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’. If the UK wants to diverge on food standards, environmental protection, labour rights, and state aid – as the Brexit purists yearn – then there is zero chance that the EU will agree to a free trade deal.  This leaves two options, neither of which is appealing. The first is for the UK to end the 11-month standstill period without a trade deal. Technically, this would not be ‘no deal’ because the withdrawal agreement would still bind both sides on citizens’ rights, financial contributions, and arrangements for Northern Ireland. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’.  However, for UK companies, the option of ending the standstill period without a trade deal would constitute a painful dislocation from the single market involving tariffs and customs checks. It would also hurt the EU economies most exposed to the UK, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. Moreover, a full customs and tariff border in the Irish Sea would endanger the very existence of a ‘United’ Kingdom which included Northern Ireland.   The second option is for the UK to accept a trade deal on EU terms, recognising that the EU is the larger and more economically powerful party in the negotiation. The EU will offer the UK a tariff-free and quota-free trade deal conditional on strict level playing field conditions where the UK chooses to diverge from EU standards, combined with a mechanism to adjudicate on any level playing field disputes. Though economically better than no trade deal at all, the Brexit purists would claim it isn’t Brexit. Meanwhile, even without tariffs and quotas, UK companies whose just-in-time supply chains depended on the EU would still suffer disruption, as the level playing field was policed at every border crossing. So this option would satisfy nobody in the UK. The bigger practical problem is a lack of time to leave the EU regulatory orbit smoothly. Nobody believes that eleven months is enough time to implement a system in Northern Ireland that prevent a hard border in the Irish Sea; or indeed to implement a new UK immigration system if free movement were to end at the end of 2020. So what’s the resolution? The answer is the same as it has always been for Brexit – a gradual ratcheting up of tension ahead of a hard deadline to focus minds and force progress. Followed by a ‘fudged resolution’ at the eleventh hour in which both sides blink – because neither side is prepared to go over the cliff-edge. Recall that to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, the UK blinked by allowing Northern Ireland to be treated differently; but the EU also blinked by allowing the withdrawal agreement to be reopened. And once this happened, the pound and UK-exposed investments enjoyed a major leg up (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4-Chart I-7). Chart I-4The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed ##br##Investment Chart I-5The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-6UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-7UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A ##br##UK-Exposed Investment In the next fudged resolution, the UK could blink by retaining full regulatory alignment with the EU in most areas for a little while longer, and where it doesn’t the EU could blink by becoming flexible in its interpretation of ‘level playing field’. Obviously, nobody would call this an extension to the transition, but the UK would, in most practical terms, still be in the single market on January 1 2021. UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year In this playbook, the pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure, as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year if both the UK and the EU blink (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount Fractal Trading System* There are no new trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-9EUR/GBP When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Historically, the stocks with the lowest volatility have outperformed the stocks with the highest volatility, a trend that defies some of the most fundamental theories in finance. The low-volatility factor has outperformed the market in absolute return terms, with a substantial reduction in downside risk, in every major equity market. Compensation structure, benchmarking, analyst bias, and the preference for lottery-like stocks are all plausible explanations for why the low-volatility anomaly persists. Shifting some exposure from bonds to minimum-volatility equities might be an attractive way to keep returns high while remaining hedged against downside risk in a world of low interest rates. Feature Chart 1The Low-Volatility Anomaly Conventional wisdom suggests that achieving the right mix between risk and return requires a tradeoff: Take on too little risk, and returns will be subpar, but take on too much, and a large loss becomes likely. However, the empirical evidence shows that no such tradeoff exists in the equity market: Historically, the return of stocks with the lowest volatility has been better than the return of stocks with the highest volatility (Chart 1, top panel). Even when using a measure of systematic risk such as beta, there appears to be very little relationship between risk and return – a result that emphatically contradicts what is predicted by the CAPM (Chart 1, bottom panel). The success of low risk stocks – a well-documented phenomenon known as the low-volatility anomaly1  – challenges some of the most fundamental premises of finance and economics. After all, how could taking on less risk result in better returns? In this report, we dive into this anomaly, with the intent of answering the following questions: What kind of portfolios can exploit this anomaly? What are the risk/return characteristics to this factor and what sectors is it exposed to? Why does this factor work? How can investors use the low-volatility factor in their asset allocation process? To answer these questions we explore the historical performance of the MSCI minimum-volatility index. Additionally, we explore the academic research surrounding the low-volatility anomaly. Finally, we look into how low-volatility equities have performed as a hedge for a global equity portfolio when compared to government bonds. Low Volatility Vs. Minimum Volatility There are two types of portfolios that are generally used to exploit the low-volatility anomaly: Low-volatility portfolios are built first by sorting the stock universe according to the stocks' trailing standard deviation, and then by buying the stocks with the lowest standard deviation. Usually the index buys the bottom quintile of stocks ranked by volatility. Minimum-volatility portfolios are built through an optimization procedure, by which funds are allocated to the stock mix that would have minimized the historical volatility of a portfolio (subject to certain constraints). Chart 2No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol The main advantage of minimum-volatility portfolios over low-volatility portfolios is that they do not consider only low-volatility stocks but also stocks with low covariance between each other. However, the construction of these portfolios also requires estimating large covariance matrices, which are prone to a significant degree of noise, and thus often have to be adjusted by statistical methods.2 That being said, there is little performance difference between these two methodologies in practice, though minimum-volatility portfolios do tend to be much more constrained than low-volatility portfolios (Chart 2). In this report we will focus on the more popular MSCI minimum-volatility portfolios, given that their historical data is more readily available.   Risk-Return Characteristics Of Minimum Volatility At the global level, minimum volatility has outperformed not only the market since 1990, but also the most popular equity factors, with the exception of momentum (Chart 3, top panel). The outperformance relative to the benchmark has proved to be robust, as minimum volatility has beaten the returns for the benchmark in the biggest developed markets as well as emerging markets for almost two decades (Chart 3, bottom panel). The most attractive feature of minimum volatility is the significant reduction in risk it provides. Since 1988, the annualized volatility of minimum volatility has been 10%, a considerable improvement vis-à-vis the market and relative to other popular equity factors (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, even though return skew of minimum volatility has been more negative than the benchmark, minimum volatility achieved a substantial reduction in tail risk with a 10% conditional VaR of only 5% (Chart 4, middle and bottom panel). Chart 3Min Vol Outperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 4Min Vol Provides A Substantial Reduction In Risk In addition to its risk reduction, minimum volatility also has a countercyclical relative return profile, outperforming during bear markets, and underperforming slightly during bull markets (Chart 5, top panel). This return profile occurs partly due to the sector skew of this factor, which overweights defensive sectors such as Utilities and Consumer Staples relative to the global benchmark3 (Chart 5, middle panel). At the global level, this defensive tilt exposes minimum volatility to significant duration risk, given that the stocks in this index tend to have bond-like properties (Chart 5, bottom panel). The negative relationship between interest rates and the low-volatility factor has been well documented by the academic literature: Some studies estimate that up to 80% of the outperformance of low-volatility equities can be explained by exposure to duration risk.4 Chart 5Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Chart 6Min Vol Is Expensive     On average, minimum volatility also tends to overweight stocks with a higher dividend yield than the market (Chart 6, panel 1). This yield difference accounts for roughly a quarter of the return difference between minimum volatility and the benchmark since 1990. However, high dividend yield and minimum volatility are not synonymous: Over the past decade, minimum volatility has selected stocks that are more expensive than the benchmark, a stark difference from high dividend yield portfolios, which exclusively select very cheap stocks (Chart 6, panel 2). The current high overvaluation of minimum volatility relative to the market could spell bad news for this factor in the near future: While valuation and returns do not have a straightforward relationship, extreme levels of valuation relative to the benchmark have historically resulted in subsequent underperformance of this factor relative to the market (Chart 6, panels 3 and 4). Why Does The Low-Volatility Factor Work? Analyst Forecasts It has been shown empirically that equity analysts tend to have an optimistic bias, due to the need of the analyst to maintain good relationships with the companies they cover. Moreover, investors do not adjust for this bias, meaning that the stocks of companies that receive an overly optimistic forecast tend to rise initially when the forecast is released, but then mean-revert once the forecast does not materialize. Chart 7Analyst Bias Is Larger In High-Vol Stocks It seems that this dynamic might be more pervasive in high-volatility stocks. In their paper “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,” Hsu et al. show that analysts’ positive bias is larger for more volatile stocks, even when adjusting for confounding variables like size, sector and country5 (Chart 7).  It is easy to see why this might be the case: An extremely optimistic bias on a low variance stock would look unrealistic to most investors. Thus, analysts are more prone to express a large positive bias on high variance stocks, where bias is harder to detect. Ultimately, this bias causes these stocks to become chronically overvalued. Salary Structure of Managers Chart 8Institutions Favor High Vol The payoff structure of fund managers has also been suggested as a possible cause of the low-volatility anomaly.6 The structure of compensation for fund managers often resembles an option: A bonus is granted if the portfolio returns are higher than a certain threshold. In such a structure, the compensation of portfolio managers resembles a call option: The probability of a payoff increases with volatility, creating an incentive to invest in high-volatility stocks.  However, this preference for high-volatility stocks will overbid them, causing them to underperform. There is some evidence that this is in fact the case. Once the effect of size is neutralized, stocks with high institutional ownership tend to be more volatile than stocks with low institutional ownership (Chart 8). Moreover, a study on the exposure of hedge funds to popular risk factors from 2000 to 2016, showed that hedge funds have a large short exposure to the anomaly, indicating that they favor high-volatility over low-volatility stocks.7   Lottery Stocks Chart 9The Low-Volatility Anomaly Is Most Prevalent In Lottery-Like Stocks Not all high-volatility stocks are chronic underperformers. In the paper “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Hsu et al. identify that the low-volatility anomaly is largest in stocks with strong lottery-like characteristics (the authors define lottery-like as the stocks that had the highest maximum daily return the previous month)8 (Chart 9). Meanwhile, other high-volatility stocks are much more likely to have higher or equal returns than their low-volatility counterparts. Why is this the case? Investors tend to have a preference for “home-run” stocks, which have a large probability of a small loss, but a small probability of a large gain – a well-documented behavioral bias known as the long-shot bias.9 This bias might cause investors to overbid for lottery-like stocks, causing them to underperform as a cohort. This phenomenon might be related to the incentives in the money management industry. Flows to equity funds tend to be very skewed to the very best performing funds. This means that fund managers have a high incentive to invest in stocks that have the potential of an extremely high payoff. Benchmarking Chart 10Benchmarking Could Be To Blame For The Low-Vol Anomaly While the low-volatility anomaly has been found in other asset classes,10 it is interesting to note that the anomaly occurs only within asset classes and not across asset classes. Indeed, the traditional risk-return relationship is conserved when looking at a multi-asset universe (Chart 10, top panel). One possible solution to this puzzle might be the effect of benchmarking. Within an asset class, benchmarked managers are not only measured according to their return relative to their benchmark but also to their tracking risk (volatility of return difference). Under this structure, investors do not have a large incentive to exploit the alpha from low-volatility or low-beta stocks, since such a strategy would result in a relatively high tracking error.11 This high tracking error will make the excess return of low-volatility stocks relatively less attractive for benchmarked managers, even if these stocks are clearly superior in terms of raw risk-adjusted returns (Chart 10, bottom panel). How Can Minimum Volatility Be Used In Asset Allocation? Chart 11Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade The interest rate sensitivity of low-volatility stocks has been a topic of significant interest for academic researchers. A study that attempted to measure this sensitivity found that equities in the lowest volatility decile have an interest-rate exposure equivalent to a 66% equity/34% bond portfolio.12 Moreover, this sensitivity has increased in recent years: Factor analysis shows that while the beta of the excess returns of minimum volatility to the equity market has remained constant, the beta to the bond market has increased significantly over the last decade13 (Chart 11, top panel). Interestingly this process seems to have accelerated as bond yields fell below dividend yields – a result which might arise because the market starts perceiving bonds, and low-volatility equities as close substitutes when they provide a similar cash flow (Chart 11, bottom panel). At first glance, this relatively high duration risk appears to be a red flag, particularly if you share our view that interest rates have reached a multi-year bottom. After all, an environment where interest rates rise would imply that minimum volatility would underperform global equities on a structural basis.  However, the sensitivity of minimum volatility to interest rates can be used to the advantage of an asset allocator. Specifically, in a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. Why would an investor do this? As we discussed in our October 2019 report, low bond yields will cause bonds to generate returns that are much lower than their historical averages. This means that using government bonds as a hedge for an equity portfolio is likely to result in a severe drag on performance.14 On the other hand, while minimum-volatility equities do not have the same hedging potency as bonds, their returns are much higher, which suggests that at the right allocation they could prove to be a better hedge. In a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. How has such a strategy worked historically? Chart 12 shows how allocating incremental amounts of global minimum-volatility equities to an equity portfolio compares to adding incremental amounts of global government bonds. Overall, allocating an additional 3% of minimum-volatility equities to a portfolio had the same effect as adding 1% of government bonds in terms of downside protection and volatility reduction, but with a much higher return. This effect was robust throughout the sample period. Consider a portfolio with 30% government bonds, 30% minimum volatility and 40% global equities. With the exception of the 1990-1994 period, this portfolio had roughly the same 10% conditional VaR in all sub periods as a portfolio with 40% government bonds and 60% equities, but a significantly higher return (Chart 13). Moreover, the volatility of the portfolio that includes minimum volatility has also been lower than the 60/40 portfolio since 2000. Chart 12Min Vol Provides Protection With A Relatively High Return Chart 13Min-Vol Protection Has Been Robust Bottom Line The low-volatility anomaly contradicts what is perhaps the most fundamental pillar in finance: The tradeoff between risk and return. As such, this anomaly might be the most puzzling inefficiency in markets. But will it persist? The evidence suggests that the anomaly is caused by strong institutional incentives, which are likely to continue. Thus, investors should strongly consider investing in low-volatility stocks in the future. However, the following points should be taken into account: Investors who are evaluated according to their information ratio should avoid low/minimum-volatility stocks, given that their large volatility difference with the benchmark will result in a relatively high tracking error. Relatively high valuations and an uptrend in interest rates may hurt the performance of low/minimum-volatility stocks relative to the broad equity market in the near future. However, the interest-rate exposure of low/minimum-volatility stocks might prove attractive to multi-asset investors. Specifically, investing in minimum-volatility equities and reducing bond exposure might be a way to boost returns while remaining hedged.   Juan Correa Ossa, CFA Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The discovery of the low-volatility anomaly predates the discovery of both the size and value anomalies. For more details, please see Michael C. Jensen, Fischer Black, and Myron S. Scholes, “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests,” Studies in the Theory Of Capital Markets, Praeger Publishers Inc., 1972. 2 For more details on the construction of minimum-volatility portfolios, please see Tzee-man Chow, Jason C. Hsu,Li-Lan Kuo, and Feifei Li, “A Study of Low Volatility Portfolio Construction Methods,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2014. 3 However, research has shown that the low-volatility anomaly still holds within sectors, suggesting that its outperformance is not only a result of sector bias. For more details, please see Raul Leote de Carvalho, Majdouline Zakaria, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low Risk Anomaly Everywhere - Evidence from Equity Sectors,” (November 19, 2014). 4 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 5 Please see Jason C. Hsu, Hideaki Kudoh and Toru Yamada, “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,”  Journal Of Investment Management (JOIM), Second Quarter 2013. 6 Please see Nardin L. Baker and Robert A. Haugen, “Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World,” (April 27, 2012). 7 Please see David Blitz, “Are Hedge Funds on the Other Side of the Low-Volatility Trade?”  The Journal of Alternatives Investments, Vol. 21, No. 1, Summer 2018. 8 Please see Jason C. Hsu and Vivek Viswanathan, “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Risk-Based and Factor Investing, pages 291-303; (2015). 9 There is some debate as to whether the long-shot bias is truly irrational in financial markets, where payoffs and probabilities are not known with precision. 10 Researchers have found that the low-volatility anomaly exists in the government and corporate bond market. For more details please see, Raul Leote de Carvalho, Patrick Dugnolle, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low-Risk Anomalies in Global Fixed Income: Evidence from Major Broad Markets,” The Journal of Fixed Income, vol. 23, No. 4, Spring 2014. 11 Please see Malcolm Baker, and Brendan Bradley, and Jeffrey Wurgler, “Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2011. 12 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, and Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 13 We calculate sensitivity for US stocks instead of global stocks due to the effects of currency returns. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Report “Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s,” dated October 29 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.