Fixed Income

Special Report

Highlights Italy looks like it will form a national unity coalition under Super Mario Draghi – though it is not yet a done deal. A snap election is still our base case, whether in 2021 or 2022, but the ECB will do “whatever it takes,” as will Draghi if he becomes Italy’s prime minister. Even if the right-wing populist parties win power in a snap election, their goal is to expand fiscal spending, not exit the Euro Area. And they would rule in a world where even Germany and Brussels concede the need for soft budgets. Go long BTPs versus German bunds, and Italian stocks versus Spanish stocks, on a tactical 3-6 month horizon. The structural outlook for Italy is still bearish until Italy can secure its recovery and launch structural reforms. Feature In 2016-17 we wrote two special reports on Italy under the heading of “Europe’s Divine Comedy.” In “Inferno” we focused on Italy’s structural flaws and in “Purgatorio” we explained why Italy would stay in the European Union. We have long awaited the chance to write the third installment, which must be called “Paradiso” in honor of Dante Alighieri. But the tragedy of the pandemic makes this title sadly inappropriate. The new government that is tentatively taking shape is not the solution to the country’s long-term problems either. Former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is an excellent policymaker and would ensure that Italy does not add political chaos to its pandemic woes this year. A unity government under Draghi – which is not yet a done deal as we go to press – would be a tactical and even cyclical positive for Italian equity and bond prices but not a structural positive. The paradise of national revival will have to wait for a later date. In the meantime Italy’s performance will be dictated by its surroundings. The Black Death Italy suffered worse than the rest of Europe from COVID-19, judging both by deaths and the economic slump (Chart 1). It was the first western country to suffer a major outbreak. Outgoing Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was the first western leader to impose a Chinese-style lockdown – which came as a shock for democratic populations unfamiliar with such draconian measures. Few will forget the terrifying moment in March when the military was deployed in Bergamo to help dispose of the bodies.1 Chart 1Italy's National Crisis Chart 2Italy’s Unemployment Problem – Especially In The South The crisis struck at an awkward time in Italian politics as well. Like the US and UK, Italy saw a surge of populism in the 2010s. Hostility toward the political elite arose largely in reaction to hyper-globalization, the adoption of the euro, and deep structural flaws that have engendered a sluggish and unequal economy: Poor demographics: Italy’s population peaked in 2017 and is expected to fall from 61 million to 31 million by the year 2100. Its fertility rate is 1.3, the lowest in the OECD except South Korea. It has the third smallest youth share of population (13%) and stands second only to Japan in elderly share of population (23%).2 North-South division: Southern Italy, the Mezzogiorno, is poorer, less educated, less efficient, and less well governed than northern Italy. Unemployment is 7 percentage points higher in the south than in Italy on average (Chart 2). In our “Inferno” report we concluded that regional divisions discourage exiting the Eurozone and EU, since southern Italy benefits from EU transfers and northern Italy would refuse to subsidize southern Italy without EU support (Chart 3).   Chart 3EU Budget Allocations Favor Italy Low productivity: Italy’s real output per hour has lagged that of its European peers as the country has struggled to adjust to globalization, digitization, aging, and emerging technologies (Chart 4). Chart 4Italy's Lagging Productivity High debt: Italy’s debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise from to 134.8% to 152.6% by the year 2025, putting it on a higher-debt trajectory than even the worst case projections prior to the pandemic (Chart 5). Normally Italy runs a current account surplus and primary budget surplus, although the pandemic has pushed the country down the road of budget deficits (Chart 6). The debt problem is manageable as long as inflation is low and the ECB purchases Italian government bonds – which it will do in the interest of financial stability. But it sucks away growth and investment over time, a problem that will revive whenever the EU Commission tries to return to semi-normal fiscal policy restraints. Chart 5Italy’s Debt Pile Chart 6Italy’s Budget Surplus Destroyed By COVID-19 Italy’s predicament can be illustrated simply by comparing the growth of GDP per capita over the past decade to that of Spain, which is a structurally comparable Mediterranean European economy and yet has generated a lot more wealth for its people after having slashed government spending and reformed the labor market and pension system in the wake of the debt crisis (Chart 7). Chart 7Spain Reformed, Italy Didn't Structural reforms undertaken by the technocratic Mario Monti government in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis proved insufficient. Subsequent reform efforts went up in a puff of smoke when Matteo Renzi’s pro-reform constitutional referendum failed in 2016. Italy’s government is congenitally gridlocked because the lower and upper houses of the legislature have equal powers, like in the US, but its parliamentary governments can be easily toppled by either house. The 2016 constitutional reforms would have given the central government historic new powers to force through painful yet necessary structural changes – but centrist voters of different stripes hesitated to grant these new powers since they looked likely to go to populist parties on the brink of victory in the looming 2017 elections. The populists – the right-wing League in the north and the left-wing Five Star Movement in the south – did indeed come to power in 2017 but Italian’s political establishment subsequently restrained them from pursuing either serious euroskepticism or massive fiscal spending. Pro-establishment President Sergio Mattarella rejected any cabinet members who would attack the monetary union. Subsequent battles with Brussels and Germany prevented Italy from passing a blowout stimulus that challenged EU fiscal orthodoxy and threatened to precipitate a solvency crisis in the banking system. In 2019 the ambitious League broke with the Five Star Movement, which collaborated with the center-left Democratic Party to form a new coalition. But the resulting compromise government, its populism diluted, only managed one structural reform – to reduce the size of parliament – plus a moderate increase in government spending. The populist parties ended up being right about the need for more proactive fiscal policy, as Germany conceded in late 2019 and as COVID-19 lockdowns made absolutely necessary in early 2020. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to launch a €750 billion EU Recovery Fund that enabled jointly issued debt for EU members, solidifying a proactive fiscal turn in the bloc. Italy now has €209 billion coming its way. This is a boon for the recovery, though it is also the origin of the politicking that brought down the ruling coalition last month. With central banks monumentally dovish, European and American fiscal engines firing on all cylinders, and China’s 2020 stimulus still coursing through the world’s veins, the macro backdrop is positive for Italy. But with Italy’s economy still shackled by fundamental flaws, it will not be a lead actor or an endogenous growth story. Bottom Line: Italy missed the chance in the 2010s to undertake structural reforms that could lift productivity and potential growth. Now it is struggling to maintain political order in the wake of a devastating pandemic and recession. The vaccine and global recovery will lift Italian assets but the future remains extremely uncertain, given the eventual need to climb down from extreme stimulus and impose painful structural reforms. Paradiso? Or Paradiso Perduto? The latest political turmoil arose over the EU Recovery Fund and how Italy will spend the €209 billion allotted to it, as well as the €38.6 billion allotted to the country under the EU’s structural budget for 2021-28. Ostensibly Matteo Renzi pulled his Italia Viva party out of the ruling coalition because he feared that former Prime Minister Conte, together with his economy and industry ministers, would spend the funds on short-term vote-winning handouts rather than long-term structural fixes in health, education, and culture. But Renzi was not appeased when Conte offered to spend more on health and education as requested. Renzi’s party fares poorly in opinion polls and the recent electoral reforms were not favorable to it, so he can hardly have wanted a new election. He wanted Italy to tap €36 billion from the European Stability Mechanism in addition to taking EU recovery funds, since this would come with strings attached in the form of structural reform. He apparently wanted to precipitate a new pro-establishment coalition. President Mattarella’s appointment of Mario Draghi to lead a national unity coalition is the solution. But as we go to press it is not certain that Draghi will be able to command a majority in parliament. Chart 8Salvini's League Lost Steam But Populist Right Still Powerful Matteo Salvini and the League are the pivotal players now. Salvini and his party suffered loss of popular support in 2019 as a result of his ambitious attempt to break from the government, force new elections, and rule on its own. The party especially suffered from the pandemic, which hit its base of voters in Lombardy hard and sent voters in support of the central government as well as the political establishment (Chart 8). Salvini must now decide whether to try to rebuild his status by joining Draghi in the national interest, to show he can be a team player, albeit at risk of being seen as an institutional politician. If so, he would cede the right-wing anti-establishment space to his partner Giorgia Meloni, who leads the Brothers of Italy, which has eaten up all the support Salvini has lost since the European parliament election of 2019. What is clear is that his current strategy is not working, and he played ball with the big boys during the 2017-19 period, so we would not rule him out of a Draghi government. If Draghi does not win over Salvini and the League, he would need to win the support of the Five Star Movement to form a coalition. The party’s leaders initially said they would not join Draghi, who epitomizes the establishment of which they are sworn enemies. Yet Five Star has not lost any popular support for working with the conventional Democratic Party, in stark contrast with the League, which stayed ideologically pure but lost supporters. Some Five Star members, including Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, former leader of the party, want to work with Draghi and stay in government. Hence the party could still join Draghi, or it could break apart with some members defecting. It would require 33% of Five Star members in the Chamber of Deputies and 28% of Five Star members in the Senate to join Draghi to give him a majority, assuming the League and Brothers of Italy refuse to cooperate (Table 1). Interestingly, if the League is absent from the vote, and all parties other than the Brothers and Five Star join Draghi, then he could also form a government. This would give cover to the League under the pretense of COVID vigilance, without being seen as actively preventing a government formation. Table 1'Whatever It Takes' To Build A National Unity Coalition Under Super Mario Draghi We have favored an early election and this could still occur. If there is an election it will happen before June because an election cannot happen within the last six months of the current president’s term, as per Article 88 of the Constitution. If Italy avoids a snap election till June, political stability is ensured at least till January. The pandemic was the justification for avoiding a snap election but the pandemic did not prevent the regional elections or constitutional referendum in September. The referendum was a hurdle that needed to be cleared before the next election, so now the way is open. All of the parties are greedily eying the presidency, with President Mattarella’s seven-year term set to expire next January. Mattarella has emerged as a staunch defender of the establishment and a check on anti-establishment parties. If the populists gain a plurality prior to January, then they can try to get a more sympathetic or neutral policymaker in that position. By contrast, the pro-establishment parties are hoping that a Draghi coalition can last long enough to ensure that one of their own holds that post. Since the latter need either the League or Five Star to govern, they would have to compromise on the next president – which is a very big concession. In distributing EU recovery funds, there is little doubt that a unity government under Draghi would be a credible way of proceeding. Draghi has joined other central bankers, like the Fed’s Janet Yellen, in voicing strong support for fiscal policy to get the developed democracies out of their current low-growth morass. He would have the authority and expertise to direct spending to productivity-enhancing projects at home while working with Brussels to allow Italy the greatest possible flexibility. Italy’s portion of EU recovery funds is shown in Chart 9, with the black bar indicating the part consisting of loans. The sector breakdown of total EU recovery fund is shown in Table 2. Chart 9Italy’s Fiscal Stimulus To Receive EU Top-Up Table 2Composition Of EU Recovery Fund By Economic Sector Yet a Draghi government is not a permanent solution to Italy’s political crisis or its economic malaise. Currently the political parties are squabbling over how to distribute a windfall of special funds – Italy is benefiting from a more pragmatic EU policy as it emerges from a crisis. But in future the parties will be fighting over what to do when the funds are spent. Even if the EU continues to be generous the stimulus will decelerate, while structural reforms will have to be attempted yet again. A technocratic Draghi government would be well positioned to institute the reforms that Italy needs but the economic medicine could sow the seeds for another voter backlash – in which case the anti-establishment right would be in prime position. This would set up a giant clash with Germany and Brussels. Italy, The EU, And Global Power Politics Geopolitically, Italy matters because it is a test of whether the European Union will continue consolidating power within its sphere of influence. If Draghi can form a unity government, oversee economic recovery and long-delayed structural reforms, and survive to reap the benefits at the voting booth, it would mark a historic victory for the EU as it lurches from crisis to crisis in pursuit of deeper integration and ever closer union. The Italian question would effectively be resolved and the EU would have the capacity to handle other challenges elsewhere. Europe’s geopolitical coherence is critical for global geopolitics as well. Europe is the prime beneficiary of US-China competition – at least until such time as it is forced to choose sides. Since Europe is a great power, it can remain neutral for a long time, using America as a stick against Chinese technology theft while expanding market share in China as it diversifies away from the United States (Chart 10). Chancellor Merkel has already signaled to Biden that she is not eager to join any “bloc” against China. Biden will have to devote a massive diplomatic effort to convince the Europeans, who are not as concerned about China’s military and strategic threat, that it is necessary to form a grand alliance toward containing China’s rise. Chart 10EU Balances Between US And China The EU’s efforts to carve out a sphere of influence have momentum. The German and EU approach to fiscal policy has become more dovish and proactive, a concession to the southern European economies that will improve their support for the European project. Across the Atlantic the EU states see President Trump’s rise and fall as a story of America’s declining influence, which improves the EU’s authority over its own populace, and yet has not resulted in an American-imposed trade war that would undermine the recovery. To the east, EU states see Russian authoritarianism and its discontents, which reinforce the public’s commitment to democratic values and the single market. To the north, they see the negative example of Brexit, which continues to plague the UK, with Scotland pushing for independence again. To the south, Europeans have become less concerned about illegal immigration, having watched the inflow of migrants from Turkey, the Middle East, and North Africa fall sharply – at least until the next major regime failure in these regions causes a new wave of refugees (Chart 11). These events have encouraged various countries to fall in line behind the consensus of European solidarity and geopolitical independence. A technocratic government in Italy would reinforce these trends but a populist government would not be able to avoid or override them. Chart 11Europe Less Concerned About Refugees (For Now) Chart 12Italian Euroskeptics Constrained By Public Opinion The Italian populist parties are still in the ascent but they do not seek to exit the EU or monetary union (Chart 12). We fully expect Italy to see snap elections in 2022 if not 2023, given the fragility of any new coalition to emerge today. If the right-wing League and Brothers should win control of government, and clash with Germany and Brussels, they would still operate within an environment circumscribed by these geopolitical limitations. Otherwise greater solidarity gives the EU greater room for maneuver among the US, China, and Russia. Investment Takeaways In the short run, the Draghi government is bullish for Italian assets. If Draghi fails and snap elections are called, the downside to European equities and the euro is limited, since any risk of an Italian exit from the EU dissipated back in 2016-18. Past turmoil resulted in higher Italian bond yields and wider spreads between BTPs and German bunds because markets had to price in the risk that the Euro Area would break up. We have long highlighted that this risk was overstated and markets are well aware of that by now. The market’s muted reaction to this latest kerfuffle proves the point (Chart 13). Chart 13Markets Unimpressed By Italian Political Turmoil On overweight stance toward Italian government bonds has been one of the highest conviction calls of our fixed income strategist, Rob Robis, over the past year. He expects that Italian bond yields (and spreads over German debt) will converge to Spanish levels, thus restoring a relationship last seen sustainably in 2016. He also notes that the ECB is willing to use quantitative easing to support Italy when its politics inject a risk premium into government bonds and spreads widen. The central bank is also providing additional support to Italy via cheap bank funding (TLTROs) that helps limit Italian risk premia at a time when underlying credit growth is exceedingly weak. During the height of the COVID lockdowns last year, the ECB increased its buying of Italian bonds higher than levels implied by its Capital Key weighting scheme, which officially governs bond purchases. Once Italian yields fell back to pre-pandemic levels, the ECB slowed the pace of purchases to levels at or below the Capital Key weights. As long as the pandemic lingers, the ECB will have the ability and pretext to ensure that Italian spreads do not rise too high (Chart 14). Chart 14Overweight Italian Government Bonds True, investors may be more reluctant to drive Italian yields and spreads to new lows as long as there is a risk of elections this year or next that could bring anti-establishment leaders to power and trigger an increase in Italian political risk premia. But this trap between politics and QE still justifies an overweight stance within global bond portfolios, as Italian yields will remain too attractive for investors to ignore given the puny levels of alternative sovereign bond yields available elsewhere in the Euro Area. Go tactically long Italian BTPs relative to German bunds. Italian stocks have seen a long and dreary downtrend versus global stocks, whether relative to developed or emerging markets, including or excluding the US and China. However, they are trading at a heavy discount in terms of price-to-book and price-to-sales metrics and a Draghi government to direct stimulus funding is doubly good news. Italian stocks have rebounded against Spanish equities since 2017 – as have Italian banks versus Spanish banks. Italian non-performing loans declined from a peak of €178 billion in 2015 to €63 billion in 2020. The banks raised enough equity capital to cover these NPLs. Since banks form a significant part of the Italian bourse, an improvement in bank balance sheets would be positive for the overall market. A Draghi government would reinvigorate this tendency, especially if it credibly commits to structural reforms that elevate potential growth. Spain’s structural reforms are priced in and it is next in line for a post-COVID political shakeup (Chart 15). Go tactically long Italian stocks relative to Spanish. While a Draghi coalition is marginally positive for the euro there are several factors motivating the dollar’s counter-trend bounce in the near term (Chart 16). US and Eurozone growth are diverging, with the EU struggling to roll out its COVID vaccine while the US prepares to pile a new $1.5-$1.9 trillion fiscal stimulus on top of the unspent $900 billion stimulus passed at the end of last year. Chart 15Italian Stocks Have Upside Versus Spanish Chart 16Wait For Geopolitical Risk To Clear Before Shorting USD-EUR Over the long run, a Draghi government provides limited upside with regard to Italian assets. The new coalition serves to avoid an election, not enable structural reform. An unstable ruling coalition will lose support over time in what will be a difficult post-pandemic environment. An early election and anti-establishment victory are not unlikely, if not in 2021 then in 2022 when Italy faces a falling stimulus impulse and the need for painful reforms. For now the truly bullish development is Germany’s dovish shift on fiscal policy rather than any temporary sign of Italian political functionality. Dysfunction can return to Italy fairly quickly but an accommodative Germany is hard to be gotten. Hence Italy’s biggest political risks will come if populist parties win full control of government in the next election while Germany and Brussels seek to normalize fiscal policy and impose some semblance of restraint in the wake of the crisis. It is also possible that a new economic shock or wave of immigration could bring Italy’s populists not only to take power but to rediscover their original euroskepticism. Thus any preference for Italian assets should be seen as a cyclical play on global growth and European solidarity and reflation – not a structural play on Italy’s endogenous strengths. Last week we shifted to the sidelines of the stock rally due to our concern that political and geopolitical risks have fallen too much off the radar. The Biden administration faces tests over China/Taiwan and Iran/Israel. Biden’s tax hikes will come into view soon. Chinese policy tightening is also a concern, even for those of us who do not expect overtightening. These factors pose downside risk to bubbly global stock markets in the near term.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Angela Giuffrida and Lorenzo Tondo, "‘A generation has died’: Italian province struggles to bury its coronavirus dead," The Guardian, March 19, 2020, theguardian.com. 2 See Stein Emil Vollset et al, "Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study," The Lancet, July 14, 2020, thelancet.com.

In lieu of the next strategy report, I will be presenting the quarterly webcast titled ‘Five Contrarian Predictions For 2021-22’ on Thursday February 11 at 10.00AM EST (3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT). I hope you can join. Highlights Many of the ‘short squeezed’ investments that day traders have bid up are at, or approaching, collapsed short-term fractal structures. As such, patient long-term investors should take the other side. The biggest risk to the stock market remains the vulnerability of valuations to even a modest rise in bond yields. The happy corollary is that the structural bull market in equities will only end when the 10-year T-bond yield reaches zero. Until then, stay structurally overweight equities. Structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus value-heavy emerging markets (EM) equities. Do not structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus growth-heavy US equities. This is a ‘widow maker’ trade. Fractal trade: short AUD/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekShort-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (Gamestop) There is no divine law that decrees the ‘correct’ time-horizon for any investment. Depending on your objectives and skills, a correct investment horizon could be anything spanning a few milliseconds to a hundred years. Once you absorb this fundamental point, it leads to a profound conclusion:  The ‘correct’ price for any investment depends on your investment horizon. The Most Important Investment Question Is, Who Is Setting The Price? A long-term investor and a day trader will go through completely different thought processes to determine a stock’s ‘correct’ price. The long-term investor, intending to buy and hold the stock for ten years, will receive 40 quarterly dividend payments plus the stock price as it stands in 2031. Hence, the correct price is the discounted value of those expected cashflows. But for the day trader, intending to buy today to sell tomorrow, only one cashflow matters – tomorrow’s price. Hence, the correct price is simply the expected price at which he can sell tomorrow. The longer-term cashflows are irrelevant, unless they set the selling price tomorrow. Yet this is unlikely, because as Benjamin Graham put it:   In the long run the market is a weighing machine, but in the short run it is a voting machine. Therefore, a long-term investor and a day trader are completely different animals, whose price-setting behaviour must be seen through different lenses. This matters because the price is always set by the last marginal transaction. The important question then is, who is setting the price? All of which brings us to the battle raging between a cabal of day traders and a group of hedge funds. The day trader is buying today because he expects that the hedge fund, desperate to cover its short positions, must buy at an even higher price tomorrow. The day trader’s behaviour is rational, so long as it is within the law, and so long as the hedge fund short-covering is the marginal price taker. Eventually though, the desperate hedge fund will not take the price, because there are no more short positions left to cover. At this point, if the day trader wants to exit his position, the marginal buyer will be a longer-term investor who will only buy at a much lower fundamentally-determined price. The day trader will have won the battle, but lost the war. The crucial takeaway is that we should always monitor which time-horizon of investors is setting the marginal price of an investment. We can do this by continually measuring the fractal structure of the investment’s price. We should always monitor which time-horizon of investors is setting the marginal price of an investment. When the fractal structure of an investment has collapsed, it means that the time-horizon of investors setting the price has compressed to a near-term limit. Thereby it signals that the price-setting baton will return to long-term investors who will reset the price to valuation anchors, such as discounted long-term cashflows. The implication is that the preceding trend, fuelled by short-term price setters, is likely to reverse. Today, we observe that many of the investments that day traders have recently bid up are at, or approaching, collapsed short-term fractal structures. As such, patient long-term investors should take the other side (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Short-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (AMC Entertainment) Chart I-3Short-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (Blackberry) The Major Misunderstanding About Real Bond Yields A common question we get is, should we compare the prospective returns on equities and bonds in nominal terms or in real terms? In an apples-for-apples comparison it shouldn’t really matter. The problem is that while we know the prospective nominal return from bonds (it is just the bond yield), it is extremely difficult to know the prospective real return from bonds. As the markets are lousy at predicting inflation, the ex-ante real bond yield is a lousy predictor of the ex-post real bond yield. A trustworthy ex-ante real bond yield requires a trustworthy prediction of inflation. But both the inflation forwards market and the breakeven inflation rate implied in inflation protected bonds are lousy at predicting inflation.1 As the markets are lousy at predicting inflation, the ex-ante real bond yield is a lousy predictor of the ex-post real bond yield (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4The Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation In Europe... Chart I-5...And In The ##br##US A second point is that the required excess return on equities versus bonds is a nominal concept. This is because the bond yield’s lower limit is set in nominal terms, at say -1 percent. Proximity to this nominal yield limit makes bonds very risky because there is no longer any upside to price, only downside. As the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, the required nominal return on equities collapses towards the ultra-low nominal bond yield. There are two important takeaways. First, we should always compare the valuation of equities and their prospective nominal return with the nominal bond yield. Second, the valuation of equities is exponentially sensitive to an ultra-low nominal bond yield (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Relationship Between The Bond Yield And Stock Market Valuation Is Exponential We conclude that the biggest risk to the stock market remains the vulnerability of valuations to even a modest rise in bond yields. Yet the happy corollary is that the structural bull market in equities will only end when bond yields can go no lower. In practice, this means when the 10-year T-bond yield reaches zero. Until then, long-term investors should stay in the stock market. The Major Misunderstanding About Valuation Another common question we get is, is it always meaningful to compare an investment’s valuation versus its own history? The answer is no. The comparison with a historical average is meaningful only if the valuation is mathematically stationary, which is to say it has not undergone a ‘phase-shift’. If the valuation has undergone a phase-shift, then the comparison with its own history is meaningless.  As an analogy, nobody would compare their bodyweight with its lifetime average, because we understand that our bodyweight undergoes a phase-shift from childhood to adulthood. If we did compare our bodyweight with its lifetime average, it would give the false signal that we were permanently overweight! Likewise, to avoid getting a false signal from a valuation, we should always ask, has it undergone a phase-shift? If a valuation has undergone a phase-shift, then a comparison with its own history is meaningless. Unfortunately, the structural prospects for financials, oil and gas, and basic resources – sectors that dominate ‘value’ indexes and stock markets – did suffer a major downward phase-shift at the start of the 2000s (Chart I-7). It follows that we cannot compare the valuations of ‘value heavy’ indexes with their long-term history, and draw any meaningful conclusions. Chart I-7Value' Sector Profits Are In A Major Structural Downturn Proving this point, the relationship between value-heavy European valuations and subsequent 10-year return is much worse for periods ending after the global financial crisis compared with periods ending before it. Whereas the relationship between growth-heavy US valuations and subsequent return has barely changed, because the structural prospects for growth sectors have not suffered downward phase-shifts (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Relationship Between Valuation And Future Return Has Changed In Europe... Chart I-9...But Not So Much ##br##In The US Given the ongoing trends in value versus growth profits, it is much safer to overweight value-heavy European equities versus value-heavy emerging markets (EM) equities. Do not structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus growth-heavy US equities. This is a ‘widow maker’ trade. Fractal Trading System* The rally in AUD/JPY is at a potential a near-term top based on its collapsed 65-day fractal structure. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/JPY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.8 percent. Chart I-10AUD/JPY In other trades, short European basic resources versus the market achieved its 4 percent profit target and is now closed. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 57 percent. 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 Footnotes 1 Europe and the US have deep and liquid markets in 5-year 5-year inflation swaps (or forwards), which price the expected 5-year inflation rate 5 years ahead. The current swap measures the annual inflation rate expected through 2026-31. The UK and the US also have deep and liquid markets in inflation-protected government bonds: UK index-linked gilts, and US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The yield offered on such a security is real, which means in excess of inflation. The yield offered on a similar-maturity conventional bond is nominal. This means that the difference between the two yields equates to the market’s expectation for inflation over the maturity, known as the ‘breakeven inflation rate.’ Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades 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  

Highlights We are hesitant to call a top to the volatility spike just yet. The US dollar is experiencing a counter-trend bounce. We also see political and geopolitical risks flashing yellow. House Democrats are drafting a reconciliation bill that will remind financial markets of looming tax hikes. President Biden faces imminent tests on China/Taiwan and Iran. The tech sector has bounced amid the setback to the reflation trade. Over the long run the Biden administration’s reflationary agenda suggests tech will no longer outperform. Biden’s regulatory risk to the tech sector is not immediate but still a downside risk. No major piece of bipartisan legislation is forthcoming but the Department of Justice, FCC, and FTC can bring negative surprises. We are hitting pause on our S&P trades until Biden passes some early hurdles. Feature Volatility has room to run, judging by past post-crisis periods (Chart 1), and this time we are especially concerned with brewing geopolitical risks, namely the US-China tensions over the Taiwan Strait. This geopolitical risk comes on top of the short squeezes and battles that retail investors are having against hedge funds all over the market. China is reminding the world of its red line against Taiwanese independence while testing the newly seated Joe Biden administration over whether it will seek a technological blockade against the mainland. Economic and trade policy uncertainty have collapsed but they would surge in the event of a crisis incident (Chart 2). While war is not likely, it is possible, so we need to see the Biden administration defuse the situation and pass this first test before we are willing to take on more risk on a tactical three-to-six-month time frame. Chart 1Volatility Can Go Higher Still Chart 2Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Chart 3Biden's Approval Starts At 55% President Biden’s average approval rating in his first two weeks in office is 55%, right where former President Trump’s disapproval rating would have suggested (Chart 3). This is a significant but not extravagant improvement in political capital for the White House. Our Political Capital Index shows Biden’s position as moderate-to-strong (Table 1). Table 1Biden’s Political Capital Moderate-To-Strong The implication is that he still has a chance of passing his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan as a bipartisan bill with 10 Republican senators, a feat that would likely lower the topline value to around $1.3 trillion (Republicans proposed $618 billion) and exclude an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. There is also a strong swing of independents in favor of Democrats in the opinion polling, in the wake of the incident on Capitol Hill on January 6, despite the fact that Republican and Democratic party identification are both stuck at around 30% — meaning that the Biden administration does have something to gain by appearing bipartisan (Chart 4).1 Republicans might cooperate to staunch the bleeding of their own support. Even Republicans approve of stimulus amid the pandemic and they would later be able to oppose Biden’s more controversial proposals with better optics having demonstrated bipartisan intent at the outset. However, House Democrats are already proceeding with a budget resolution, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that enables them to bypass Republicans entirely and get almost everything they want (Diagram 1). Chart 4Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Biden’s political capital should strengthen over the next year as the vaccine rollout improves and the economy comes roaring back. Official economic projections suggest that growth will glide solidly above potential until 2026 and that the output gap will close by 2024 (Chart 5). These estimates will be disappointed in various ways, of course, but in the near-term the risk is to the upside as they do not include Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion rescue plan or his remaining, post-COVID agenda afterwards, which could cost anywhere from $3.7-$6.4 trillion over a ten-year period.2 The economy will be at less risk of relapsing than of overheating. This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s new average inflation targeting strategy, which will discourage rate hikes till next year at the very earliest (and, from a political point of view, we would think 2023). Looking at the chart, Biden’s economic backdrop is far more propitious than that of his former boss Barack Obama’s back in 2009. Biden’s political momentum is therefore sustainable when it comes to the two budget reconciliation bills he wants to pass this year and next year. Republican internal divisions will help him. These were highlighted this week by Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel’s criticism of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s claims of voter fraud after the election and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent scathing criticism of controversial pro-Trump freshman House member Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Republicans are only beginning their internal struggle and it is not certain that it will be resolved in time for the 2022 midterm elections. This is another reason to think that Biden’s political capital will be sustained and that moderate Republicans might assist with some Democratic legislation. The risks to Biden’s momentum stem from foreign policy (China, Iran, Russia), rapidly emerging financial instability, his party’s attempts at social control, and any major (not minor) negative developments involving the still-running pandemic and vaccine rollout. Chart 5US Economic Outlook Over Biden’s Term Macro Reflation Says Stay Underweight Tech The tech sector experienced a manic phase last year when COVID-19 struck and lockdowns kept consumers at home with nothing to do but work, shop, and stare at their phones. The big five companies – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook – together witnessed an extraordinary run up relative to the other 495 companies in the S&P index that has since peaked and dropped off (Chart 6). Chart 6Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Tech stock market capitalization accounts for 34% of American economic output – an extreme sign of over-concentration at a time when the market is generally inflated, according to the Buffett Index of stock market cap relative to GDP (Chart 7). Tech outperformance rests on strong earnings growth – supercharged due to the COVID crisis – as well as the secular fall in bond yields as a result of the global backdrop of excessive savings, low inflation, and scarce growth. Tech stocks are especially sensitive to bond yields because markets are projecting their earnings far into the future, as our colleague Mathieu Savary explained back in August. Ultra-dovish monetary policy with zero interest rates for longer and longer time frames is a perennial gift to these companies (Chart 8). Chart 7Buffett Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Chart 8Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? The catch is when and if growth and inflation expectations pick up. Even during the Dotcom bubble in the 1990s, the tech sector could not withstand rising interest rates (Chart 9). Eventually higher inflation will translate into central bank hikes and rising real interest rates – which should be very bad for tech as future cash flows lose value. Rising rates increase the cost of capital, while cyclical industries perform better in high growth environments with rising commodity prices. A recovery of inflation is becoming a more visible risk to investors over the coming few years. Even though unemployment is still elevated, and the output gap negative, the sea change in fiscal policy is likely to close this gap quickly and put upward pressure on expectations and prices. It will still take time to close the gap but each new dose of government spending on top of what is needed to plug the gap in demand due to the pandemic-stricken service sector will accelerate the time frame in which the labor market will tighten and price pressure will return. Investors are increasingly wary of this inflation risk as it is the logical consequence of the new combination of extreme monetary and fiscal accommodation. Earnings in the tech sector relative to the rest of the market have also peaked – and did not exceed their previous high point in 2010 despite the uniquely favorable backdrop (Chart 10). The big five have nearly saturated a lot of markets which raises the possibility that if the policy backdrop darkens, then they will see earnings disappointments. The Biden administration’s plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on company book income would come as a double whammy for tech earnings, as they are relatively more exposed to increases in effective tax rates than other sectors. Chart 9Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Chart 10Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Finally, there is the long building problem of regulatory risk, as Americans have clearly become more concerned about Big Tech’s power and influence over their daily lives and politics. Here we do not think the Biden administration poses an immediate threat of frontal legislative assault, but we do think the end game is greater regulation, including tougher enforcement from antitrust agencies. Combined with geopolitical risk from Europe and other countries also seeking to tax and regulate these companies, the recent global semiconductor shortage, and the potential for a Taiwanese tech blockade, the political risk is clearly to the downside. Bottom Line: The macro backdrop has darkened for the tech sector. With governments turning more reflationary via a sea change in fiscal policy on top of ultra-easy monetary policy, inflation expectations should recover and inflation-sensitive sectors like tech should underperform. This risk is clear despite the fact that inflation requires the labor market to heal first. Any political, geopolitical, or regulatory risks would only further undermine the case for tech sector outperformance. Tech, Polarization, And Disinflation A critical question for investors is the relationship between US political polarization, the tech sector, and the disinflationary macroeconomic context that has proven so beneficial for Big Tech’s stock market performance. If polarization leads to gridlock, austerity, and disinflation, then tech can continue to enjoy the policy environment. But if polarization subsides, or if it coexists with a reflationary backdrop – as is the case today – then tech faces a new risk. It is fair to hypothesize that the rise of Silicon Valley and especially of social media has something to do with the explosion in US polarization over the past three decades. A simple chart of the S&P 500 alongside our polarization proxy – which measures the difference in presidential approval based on party – suggests that polarization could have some connection with tech sector outperformance (Chart 11). This is not a coincidence but the causality may work differently than some assume. The first period of tech sector outperformance, which rested on the “peace dividend” period of hyper-globalization, strong growth, strong dollar, low inflation, and technical innovation, occurred during the explosion of US polarization in the wake of the Cold War, when the US’s common enemy fell and the country’s political parties turned to do battle with each other for global supremacy. The structural changes of Reaganomics and NAFTA coincided with the political battles of the Republican revolution of 1994 and Bill Clinton’s sex scandal and impeachment. This heady period came to a peak in 2000 when the dotcom bubble burst and the US suffered its first contested election since 1876. Essentially globalization led to a deflationary backdrop that favored tech but also triggered the political struggle within the US for the spoils of victory in the Cold War. Chart 11Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock The second period of tech sector outperformance emerged from the Great Recession, still higher wealth inequality, and the slow-burn economic recovery of the 2010s. The disinflationary environment and dollar bull market proved beneficial to the tech companies. In this case globalization’s deflationary effects continued but were compounded with US household deleveraging, which was far more malicious for the American middle class. Crucially, polarization created gridlock in Congress from 2010, preventing the US from pursuing a robust fiscal policy in the wake of the crisis that might have led to a more rapid recovery. Instead an extended disinflationary environment fed into social unrest and populism. While public animus naturally turned against Wall Street and the Big Banks in the wake of the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank financial reform helped to pacify the public’s anger (though not entirely – and financial regulation is gradually reemerging as a relevant political risk). As the financial crisis faded from memory, but the low-growth, disinflationary environment continued to take a toll on households, an angry electorate began to freely express itself in the digital realm. Tech companies were happy to ride this wave and outperformed other sectors. As the backlash continued mounting, tech companies failed to rein in the angry userbase they had cultivated, and now they are staring at massive regulatory and legal risks from policymakers. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump used Twitter and social media as a tool to establish direct engagement with their political base, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had used the radio and the fireside chat. This rising political heft ultimately made the companies conspicuous as conservatives blamed them for supporting the Obama administration (and Clinton campaign) while liberals especially blamed them for getting Trump elected. The Trump saga in particular gave rise to the so-called “tech-lash,” or backlash, as the companies’ core base of young, urbanized, cosmopolitan, and international users called on the tech companies to stop the spread of Russian propaganda, or other propaganda they disagreed with, and undertake socially progressive causes. Meanwhile the older, conservative, and rural population doubted that Russian interference caused the 2016 election result and sensed that the tech companies’ content moderators might not be all that scrupulous regarding the difference between conservative views and Russian information warfare (Chart 12, top panel). In combination with the heated election year campaigning, the pandemic and the backlash against lockdown, tension in the virtual world came to a peak last year and spilled out into the real world. This all came to a head with Twitter and Facebook first censoring and then banning President Trump from their platforms amid his claims of voter fraud and the riot on Capitol Hill. Chart 12Big Tech Not The Chief Driver Of Polarization Two major policy changes have occurred that threaten to reverse this macro backdrop. First, as a result of the 2020 crisis the Democrats won control of the White House and Congress and can now pass their mammoth spending agenda, which goes beyond pandemic relief to expanding the role of government in American economy and society – including by reflating the economy and imposing higher taxes on corporations, both of which threaten to undermine the tech sector’s outperformance. Second, China’s secular slowdown, reduction of trade dependency, and divorce from the US economy have undermined hyper-globalization. The Biden administration is pursuing on-shoring and China restrictions albeit to a lesser extent than its predecessor. If technological advance and social media cause political polarization, then these policy shifts may not last long or have a durable macro effect. But technology and communication tools have advanced throughout history regardless of whether polarization in any given country was rising or falling. Older people are the most partisan in the US yet they are the least enthusiastic users of social media (Chart 12, bottom panel). Tech and social media have proliferated across the world and yet polarization has fallen in Germany, Australia, Sweden, and other economies even as it has risen in the United States and arguably the United Kingdom (Chart 13). If social media enabled populist outcomes like Trump and Brexit, then why did populism fall short in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany? Social media participation thrived on the rise of polarization through the 2000s and 2010s but it exacerbated the problem – and once polarization erupted in the form of an anti-establishment presidency, Russian interference, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and real world riots and social unrest, the tech platforms found themselves in the crosshairs of both of the political factions and the various politicians trying to appease their anger. Silicon Valley and the FAANGs operate in a power struggle – not merely a politicized environment – that is here to stay and will direct their attention away from their primary business and toward paying for lobbyists in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere. This in itself is a danger to their business models even if it were not the case that the macro and policy backdrop is less supportive. Bottom Line: The reflationary fiscal and policy backdrop will continue in the coming years, a macro headwind for tech outperformance, while political risks to the tech sector have grown substantially. Chart 13Polarization Falls In Many Countries Despite Social Media Congress In Check But Regulatory Risk Persists Democrats and Republicans have a different and opposed set of grievances against Big Tech, which is likely to prevent comprehensive legislation from developing anytime soon. But legislation is still possible, and in the meantime risks will come from emboldened regulators. Based on the House judiciary hearing in July 2020, Democrats are concerned with content moderation and market concentration. They want to fortify their recent gains in preventing social media companies from aiding what they regard as the spread of seditious and libelous material or propaganda that favors the anti-establishment Trumpist right wing. Judging by the Senate Republicans’ hearings in October and November 2020, Republicans are primarily concerned with content moderation– i.e. preventing conservatives from being de-platformed, and conservative views from being censored. Republicans are less concerned about market concentration, i.e. accusations of monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.3 Now that the social media companies have more or less thrown in with the Democrats on content moderation, Democratic priorities are likely to shift to antitrust and anti-competitive behavior. But serious changes would require either abolishing the filibuster in the Senate (which is not happening for the time being due to last month’s bipartisan power-sharing arrangement) or winning over 10 Republicans. This will be difficult, especially when it comes to the Democratic belief that a generational shift in antitrust doctrine and practice is necessary. A frontal assault on the sector would require passing a law that resolves a number of jurisprudential issues so that the courts could be instructed to interpret antitrust issues with a greater focus on rooting out anti-competitive or collusive behavior (as opposed to lowering prices and preventing consumer harm). This is possible but Republican agreement would require major compromises that the Democrats are not inclined to make. A bipartisan bill is still possible because last year’s hearings revealed that there is common ground between the two parties. Both have agreed that anti-trust agencies should be strengthened and empowered to examine Big Tech; that data should be portable and platforms should be interoperable (rather than favoring their own services or imposing penalties for users who would switch services); that mergers and acquisitions should be examined with the presumption that consumers will be harmed, so that the merging parties must show that they cannot otherwise achieve the desired consumer benefits and that their actions will serve some public good; and that regulators need not trouble themselves excessively about the problem of accurately defining the market, which is always a sticking point for such fast evolving services.4 Moreover there is overlap between the populist sides of both parties, comparable to the bipartisan populist demands to give larger household rebates amid the COVID crisis. For example, Democrats want to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the tech companies from being held liable for the actions and comments of third parties on their platforms. The Democratic proposal is to break down the distinction between neutral tools and content creation, arguing that tech platforms can be “negligent” and that in order to benefit from the liability protections they should have to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent unlawful misuse of their platforms that cause harm to others. This idea of “reasonable moderation” would leave a very vague standard for judges that would lead to a complex operating environment across different jurisdictions, but it is attractive to Trumpists and right-wing populists who support greater ability to sue the platforms for alleged bias.5 Thus revising Section 230 could create a bridge between the two parties, albeit isolating the free-market contingent in either party. It would foist huge new liabilities not only on the tech giants but also on startups and market entrants with far fewer lawyers. The mechanism will be a decisive feature of any future legislative proposal, however. Republicans are staunchly opposed to creating an Internet oversight committee, similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or anything that smacks of Big Brother and would risk too cozy of a relationship between the regulatory state and the immense capabilities of the tech companies. But they could be amenable to law that strengthens the antitrust agencies and alters the parameters of judicial scrutiny if they believed it would make consumer choice and innovation more likely. If popular opinion suggested great urgency on this issue then perhaps the parties’ differences could be resolved more quickly in the form of a major bill. But polls suggest the populace is also divided on tech regulation – in part because the pandemic left consumers largely thankful for the Internet services that they relied on so heavily while under lockdown. A bare majority of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats now favor tech regulation, the average voter is lukewarm, and moderates of both parties show little enthusiasm (Chart 14). By contrast, at the height of Democratic anxiety over Trump’s election and Russian interference, a clear majority of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents favored tougher regulation. Chart 14Public Split On Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies In short, the public is split, the parties are split, and the various 2020 crises have temporarily subsided, so tech regulatory risk will emanate from regulatory authorities but not from major new legislation anytime soon. Regulatory agencies thus threaten to give tech stocks negative surprises – even if the process takes time. Biden will replace one commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) immediately but may only be able to replace two Republican commissioners toward the end of his term, in September 2023 and 2024, meaning that the commission will be divided (Table 2). Any major crackdown on market concentration will have to proceed upon bipartisan grounds unless Democrats gain control of this commission sooner. Meanwhile Biden will be able to replace outgoing Republican Ajit Pai on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) right away, giving a Democratic tilt to this body, which is capable of pursuing the administration’s goals on content regulation (Table 3). Here the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in to defend free speech and press rights, which Section 230 ultimately reinforces, but the tech companies will be in the firing line until then. Table 2Federal Trade Commission Balance Of Power Table 3Federal Communications Commission Balance Of Power Finally, Biden’s nominee for the US Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division will be a critical post to watch for the Department of Justice’s involvement in tech regulation and antitrust, though this position requires Senate confirmation, which will rule out any populist candidate. If Biden picks a former Facebook lawyer as rumored then he clearly will not be prioritizing a tough antitrust stance.6 Bottom Line: With the Senate filibuster intact for the time being, Democrats need 10 Republican senators to join them to pass any significant legislation that would amount to a frontal assault on the tech sector. This is possible but not probable in the short run, as Congress prioritizes the fight against the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain divided and the public is lukewarm about regulation. Much more likely is a regulatory slow boil at the hands of the DOJ, FCC, FTC, and the states. Biden Maintains Obama Alliance With Silicon Valley Public opinion is wishy washy about Big Tech, as mentioned above. Compare attitudes toward Wall Street and the major pharmaceutical corporations. Opinion shifted against the banks drastically during the financial crisis and has since recovered to about 24% net approval, although there are also polls showing that consumers of all stripes believe the banking sector got off easy and could use more regulation (Chart 15). The health care industry also took a hit during the Great Recession, when laid off workers also lost their health insurance, and has also largely recovered due to its conduct during the pandemic. The exception is Big Pharma, which is widely blamed for excessive drug prices, got bashed under President Trump, and is about to get bashed by President Biden in the form of price caps and Medicare negotiations. By contrast with these sectors, the computer and Internet industry has seen a hit to its popular support since Trump’s election but never dipped into net negative territory and may be recovering due to its helpful role during the COVID lockdowns. When net popular approval turns negative then it will be a flashing red light for the tech sector that sweeping regulation is imminent. While some of the opinion polling is lagging, the crisis over the election is unlikely to produce this effect because the public views break down along partisan lines. Chart 15Big Tech More Popular Than Big Banks, Big Pharma Thus unlike the Trumpists, or the populists in the Democratic Party, the Biden administration is only inclined gradually to dial up the pressure on Big Tech. Biden would bite off more than any president could chew if he tackled tech aggressively along with other big corporations. His campaign platform and early executive orders show that he is already tackling Big Health Insurance and Big Oil, sectors that make up 7.5% and 1.4% of GDP respectively. There is at least some focus on re-regulating the financial industry as well (7.7% of value add), albeit with lower priority. To attempt a major overhaul of Big Tech (at least 5.3% of GDP) on top of all this would be impracticable even if Biden were inclined to listen to the anti-monopoly crusaders in his party. Information services are obviously important to the economies of solid blue states like California, New York, and Washington but they are increasingly important to critical swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania – places where voters will be skeptical of Biden’s policies on energy and immigration. The information sector is growing fastest in blue states and in battlegrounds like Arizona. It employs more people in blue states and in battlegrounds like Georgia. And it is rapidly employing more people in the grand prize of Democratic designs, Texas, where an exodus of Californians fleeing poor governance and high costs holds out the possibility of creating a decisive Democratic ascendancy in the Electoral College. Silicon Valley and other tech clusters will maintain their unique strengths and network effects for a long time but the dispersion of the tech sector to cheaper heartland regions has electoral consequences that mainline Democrats will not want to suppress. Not only did the tech firms help Biden get elected through votes and media controls but also through campaign contributions. The financial and health care industries punished the Democrats for passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank reforms in 2009-12 (Chart 16). By contrast the tech heavily favors Democrats over Republicans (with donations at $170 million versus $20 million in the 2020 election). Biden’s priorities are two budget reconciliation bills that will partially reverse the Trump tax cuts in order to pay for the entrenchment and expansion of Obamacare and other aspects of his health care and child care agenda. He is also focused on infrastructure, particularly green infrastructure and renewables, to create jobs and galvanize the climate change coalition. Broad re-regulation is coming down the pike, but health, immigration, energy, and labor are higher priorities than tech. The tech sector faces greater scrutiny than before, first from the FCC and later from the DOJ and FTC, but the administration will have more room for maneuver later in its term. Bottom Line: The Obama administration forged an alliance with Silicon Valley that Biden will largely maintain. The purpose of regulatory pressure is to build leverage over the tech giants. Chart 16Big Tech A Big Donor To Democratic Party Investment Takeaways Not all of the dominoes are lined up to topple Big Tech in a massive display of federal monopoly busting. The public is lukewarm and the political elite are divided. Nevertheless the long-term trajectory points to greater government scrutiny – and the tech sector has no margin of safety for political risk as the macro backdrop has started to shift in a more inflationary direction. Our colleague Juan Correa Ossa has shown that antitrust action to curb corporate power has tended to occur at times in US history where stock market earnings are elevated or rising rapidly relative to average wages, when inflation is running hot, and yet the economy has entered a bust phase where politicians are looking for a scapegoat to deflect public anger (Table 4). Table 4Stock Performance In Selected Judicial Events While inflation is not an immediate problem (at least not yet), it was not a problem when the FTC and DOJ went after Microsoft starting in 1998. The distressed economy and tech bubble are good enough reason for investors to expect the government to increase antitrust pressure (Chart 17). If inflation recovers in the coming years around the time the Biden administration gains room to maneuver on this issue then it is doubly bad for the tech sector. Chart 17Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust In Microsoft’s case, the stock fell when the government first brought charges but rallied throughout the twists and turns of the courtroom – especially after 2002 when the case was settled, and ever since (Chart 18). Fortunately for the company the DOJ backed away from breakup and instead ordered it to open up its application programming to others. But even firms that are broken up usually create buying opportunities. Note that Microsoft cleared its image and has not become the subject of government or popular scrutiny again today. Today’s regulators are likely to place a greater burden of proof on tech companies attempting mergers and acquisitions. The alternative for startups is to hold an initial public offering – and IPOs have exploded amid the current context of low rates, easy money, investor exuberance, a chilling effect on M&A, and a lingering pandemic. The markets are frothy, buyer beware (Chart 19). Chart 18Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Chart 19Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Strategically we remain favorable toward value stocks over growth stocks given the changing macro and policy backdrop outlined above (Chart 20). However, in the very near term we would not encourage investors to take on any additional risk. The latest bout of volatility is not necessarily over, political and geopolitical risks are now underrated after a period in which they subsided from peak levels, and exuberant markets are subject to very sharp corrections.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Congressional Budget Office, “Overview of the Economic Outlook: 2021-2031,” February 2021, cbo.gov. 2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The Cost of the Trump and Biden Campaign Plans” October 7, 2020, and “The Cost of the Trump and Biden COVID Response Plans,” October 29, 2020, October 7, 2020, crfb.org. 3    The huge gap between the two parties can be illustrated by the recent case of Parler, the microblog that sought to rival Twitter by maintaining laissez faire content moderation standards. When Parler came under fire for attracting conservatives in the wake of the Twitter ban against Trump, Apple and Amazon teamed up to block it from their app purchasing and cloud services, thus effectively banning the app for 99% of users. There is no doubt that any private platform can regulate content according to its own standards on its own sites. In the words of Section 230, this extends not only to “obscene” or “excessively violent” material but to anything “otherwise objectionable.” But once tech companies prevent the emergence of competitors and alternatives, and cooperate in doing so, they enter much more dangerous legal territory. And yet the response from the House Democrats on the oversight committee was to ask the FBI to investigate Parler for hosting far-right extremists. Conservatives are therefore up in arms. The courts have not yet weighed in but the case represents a larger risk to the tech firms than the usual challenges under Section 230. 4    Representative Ken Buck, “The Third Way,” House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law 5    See Will Duffield, “Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet Speech,” Cato Institute, January 26, 2021, cato.org. 6    See Ryan Grim and David Dayen, “Merrick Garland Wants Former Facebook Lawyer To Top Antitrust Division,” The Intercept, January 28, 2021, theintercept.com. 

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Indicators Hook Up There’s no doubt that inflationary pressures are building in the US economy. The latest piece of evidence is January’s ISM Manufacturing PMI which saw the Prices Paid component jump above 80 for the first time since 2011 (Chart 1). Large fiscal stimulus is clearly leading to bottlenecks in certain industries that were not negatively impacted by the pandemic, and this could cause consumer price inflation to rise during the next few months. However, the Fed will not view a spike in inflation as sustainable unless it is accompanied by a labor market that is close to maximum employment. The Fed estimates that “maximum employment” corresponds to an unemployment rate of 3.5% to 4.5%, and we calculate that average monthly payroll growth of about +500k is required to reach that target by the end of the year. The bottom line is that rising inflation will not lead to Fed tightening this year. We continue to expect liftoff in late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month, leaving it 4 bps above its pre-COVID low. As discussed in last week’s report, the combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy means that the runway for spread product outperformance remains long.1 However, given that investment grade corporate bond spreads are extremely tight, investors should look to other spread products when possible. One valuation measure, the investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread – with the index re-weighted to maintain a constant credit rating distribution over time – is down to its 4th percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 4% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have also only been more expensive 4% of the time (panel 3). While we don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, we see better value outside of the investment grade corporate space. Specifically, we advise investors to favor tax-exempt municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 9). We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 8). Finally, the supportive macro environment means that we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates, particularly the Ba credit tier where spreads remain wide compared to average historical levels (see page 6). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in January. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month, leaving it 47 bps above its pre-COVID low. Ba-rated credits outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 50 bps on the month, besting B-rated bonds which outperformed by only 33 bps. The Caa-rated credit tier delivered 157 bps of outperformance versus duration-matched Treasuries. We view Ba-rated junk bonds as the sweet spot within the corporate credit space. The sector is relatively insulated from default risk and yet still offers a sizeable spread pick-up over investment grade corporates (Chart 3). We noted in our 2021 Key Views Special Report that the additional spread earned from moving down in quality below Ba is merely in line with historical averages.2 Assuming a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required risk premium of 150 bps, we calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 2.8% for the next 12 months (panel 3). This represents a steep drop from the 8.4% default rate observed during the most recent 12-month period. However, only six defaults occurred in December, down from a peak of 22 in July. Job cut announcements, an excellent indicator of the default rate, have also fallen dramatically (bottom panel). Overall, we see room for spread compression across all junk credit tiers in 2021 but believe that Ba-rated bonds offer the best opportunity in risk-adjusted terms. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened sharply in January, despite a continued rapid pace of refinancing activity (Chart 4). The option-adjusted spread adjusted downward in January and it now sits at 25 bps (panel 3). This is considerably below the 61 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 45 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly above the 20 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. The primary mortgage spread has tightened dramatically during the past few months (bottom panel), a key reason why refinancing activity has been so strong despite the back-up in Treasury yields. With the mortgage spread now closer to typical levels, it stands to reason that further increases in Treasury yields will be matched by higher mortgage rates. As such, mortgage refinancing activity could be close to its peak. While a drop in refinancing activity would be a reason to get more bullish on MBS, we aren’t yet ready to pull that trigger. The gap between the nominal MBS spread and the MBA Refinance Index remains wide (panel 2), and we could still see spreads adjust higher. Last year’s spike in the mortgage delinquency rate is alarming (panel 4), but it will have little impact on MBS returns. The increase was driven by household take-up of forbearance granted by the federal government. Our US Investment Strategy service recently showed that a considerable majority of households will remain current on their loans once the forbearance period expires, causing the delinquency rate to fall back down.3 Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January (Chart 5). Sovereign debt and Foreign Agencies underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 21 bps and 7 bps, respectively, in January. Local Authority bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 140 bps while Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals outperformed by 15 bps and 7 bps, respectively. Last week’s report contains a detailed look at valuation for USD-denominated EM Sovereigns.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage versus US corporates for all credit tiers except Ba. We recommend that investors take advantage of this spread pick-up by favoring investment grade EM Sovereigns over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space. Ba-rated high-yield US corporates offer a spread advantage over EM Sovereigns and the extra spread available in B-rated and lower EMs comes from distressed credits in Turkey and Argentina.   Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 108 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past couple of months and Aaa-rated Munis no longer look cheap compared to Treasuries (Chart 6). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (bottom panel). Revenue bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with effective tax rates above 3% and 16%, respectively. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 21% and 33%, respectively.    All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we downgraded our recommended allocation from “maximum overweight” to “overweight” in last week’s report. However, investors should still prefer municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in January. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 20 bps to 100 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 13 bps to 142 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. A timely vaccine roll-out and stimulative fiscal policy will serve to speed this process along. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels.       TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 143 basis points in January. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 14 bps and 1 bp on the month. They currently sit at 2.15% and 2.06%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.09% in December, causing the year-over-year rate to dip from 1.65% to 1.61%. Meanwhile, 12-month trimmed mean CPI ticked up from 2.09% to 2.10%, widening the gap between trimmed mean and core (Chart 8). We expect 12-month core inflation to jump during the next few months, narrowing the gap between core and trimmed mean. As such, we remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate looks expensive on our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).5 We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect short-maturity real yields to come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in January. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps in January, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 48 bps (Chart 9). The stimulus from the CARES act led to a significant increase in household income when individual checks were mailed out last April. Since then, households have used this stimulus to build up a considerable buffer of excess savings (panel 4). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, and this situation won’t change any time soon with even more fiscal stimulus on the way. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and take advantage of strong collateral performance by moving down in credit quality. The Treasury department’s decision to let the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) expire at the end of 2020 does not alter our recommendation. Spreads are already well below the borrowing cost that was offered by TALF, and these tight spread levels are justified by strong household balance sheets.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 75 basis points in January. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 42 bps in January, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 185 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Even with the expiry of TALF, Aaa CMBS spreads are already well below the cost of borrowing through TALF and thus will not be negatively impacted. Meanwhile, the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate could lead to problems for lower-rated CMBS (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in January. The average index spread tightened 4 bps on the month to reach 45 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered back to their pre-COVID lows, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. This is especially true when you consider the Fed’s continued pledge to purchase as much Agency CMBS as “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 29TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 29TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 86 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 86 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 29th, 2021) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, January 2021”, dated January 25, 2021, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights GameStop & Bond Yields: The reflationary conditions that helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Remain overweight the latter versus the former. Italy: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year. Feature Dear Client, The next Global Fixed Income Strategy publication will be a Special Report on Canada, jointly published with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, February 12. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, February 16. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Chart of the WeekExpect More Bubbles & GameStop-Like Silliness The “Reddit Retail Revolution” has exposed the dangers of staying too long in crowded short positions for equities like GameStop, but bond markets were unfazed by the wild moves in stocks last week. US Treasury yields actually crept upwards as the mother of all short squeezes became the top news story in America. Corporate credit spreads worldwide were essentially unchanged, despite the pickup in US equity volatility measures like the VIX. Bond investors recognize that, while the sideshow of rebel traders taking on mighty hedge funds makes for great theater, the underlying reflationary global policy backdrop remains the main driver of global bond yields and credit risk premia (Chart of the Week). Global fiscal policy risks are increasingly tilted towards more stimulus than currently projected, even as the pace of new COVID-19 cases is starting to slow in the US and much of Europe. Vaccine rollouts in many countries are going far slower than expected, which has forced global central banks to commit to maintaining highly accommodative policies - zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE) and cheap bank funding – for longer. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted in his press conference following last week’s FOMC meeting, “There’s nothing more important to the economy now than people getting vaccinated.” Chart 2Vaccine Rollout Critical For Fed/ECB/BoE Policy On that front, the largest economies on both sides of the Atlantic continue to perform poorly. According to data from the Duke Global Health Innovation Center, vaccination coverage (defined as actual vaccination doses acquired on a per person basis) in the US, UK and European Union remains low relative to the intensity of COVID-19 cases within the population (Chart 2) – especially compared to the experience of other major Western countries.1 As we discussed in last week’s report, it is far too soon for investors to fear a hawkish move by global central banks towards tapering asset purchases and signaling future interest rate hikes.2 The GameStop episode may cause some policymakers to worry about the financial stability risks resulting from cheap money policies, but not before the greater risks to global growth from the COVID-19 pandemic are contained. Until vaccination rates rise to levels where there is the potential for herd immunity to be reached, central banks will have little choice by to maintain 0% (or lower) policy rates for longer with continued expansion of their balance sheets (Chart 3). Policy makers will even likely respond with more QE in the event of broad financial market turmoil occurring before inflation expectations return to central bank targets (Chart 4). Chart 3Expect More Global QE ... Chart 4...To Moderate Reflationary Pressure On Bond Yields We continue to recommend the following medium-term positioning for reflation-based themes in global fixed income markets: below-benchmark overall duration exposure, favoring lower-quality corporate bonds versus government debt, and underweighting US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The reflationary conditions that have helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Italy: ECB Policy Trumps Political Uncertainty One of our highest conviction fixed income investment recommendations over the past year has been to overweight Italian government bonds (BTPs). We have maintained that bullish stance with an expectation that Italian bond yields (and spreads over German debt) would converge to the levels of Spain, restoring a relationship last seen sustainably in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5A Small Response To Italian Political Uncertainty The recent collapse of the coalition government of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would, in a more “normal” time, represent a serious threat to the stability of the Italian bond market and our bullish view. Yet the response so far has been muted, with the spread between 10-year BTPs and German Bunds up only 11bps from the mid-January lows. The current political drama stemmed from a disagreement within the ruling coalition over how the government was planning to use Italy’s share of the €750bn EU Recovery Fund. As we go to press, the survival of the current government hangs in the balance, with President Sergio Mattarella testing whether the political parties can form a government with a majority. The initial announcement of that Recovery Fund was considered to be a major reason for a reduced risk premium on Italian government bonds, as it represented a potential step towards greater fiscal integration within Europe. Unfortunately, it took the COVID-19 crisis to get the rest of Europe to offer help to the more economically fragile countries like Italy. The country suffered one of the world’s worst initial waves of the virus and the late-2020 surge has also hit hard – although, more recently, Italy has fared far better than Southern European neighbors Spain and Portugal with a slower pace of new cases and hospitalizations (Chart 6). Italy’s economy has struggled under the weight of some of the most stringent restrictions on activity within Europe to stop the spread of the virus, according to the Oxford COVID-19 database (Chart 7). Domestic spending on retail and recreation activities is estimated to be down nearly 50% from the start of the pandemic, a hit to the economy made worse by the collapse of tourism revenue that will take years to fully recover. In other words, Italy desperately needs the money from the EU Recovery Fund. Chart 6Italy's COVID-19 Situation Is Slowly Improving Chart 7A Big Economic Hit To Italy From COVID-19 Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and his Italia Viva party precipitated the crisis by withdrawing their support from Conte’s coalition, but are in a weak position electorally. They claim that the funds should be handled by parliament, rather than a technocratic council overseen by Conte, and devoted to long-term structural reform rather than short-term fixes. Renzi’s withdrawal from the ruling coalition, however, is not grounded in substantial disagreements over fiscal spending: First, the EU recovery fund requires all member states to use 30% of the funds on climate change initiatives and 25% on digitizing the economy, and none of the major parties oppose this use of the €209 billion coming their way. Second, Prime Minister Conte adjusted his spending plans, nearly doubling the allocations for health, education, and culture, in response to Renzi’s criticisms that not enough spending focused on structural needs. Third, Renzi wants to tap €36 billion from the European Stability Mechanism in addition to taking recovery funds, but this would come with austerity measures attached (which is self-defeating) and would be opposed by the left-wing populist Five Star Movement, a linchpin in the ruling coalition. Even if the immediate political turmoil passes, there will still be an elevated risk of an early election as the various parties jockey for power in the wake of the cataclysmic pandemic, and as they eye control of the presidency, which is up for grabs in 2022. The only real change on the fiscal front would come if the populist League and Brothers of Italy ended up winning a majority and control of government in the eventual elections, as they favor much greater fiscal largesse. It is possible that Conte will survive as his personal support has increased throughout the crisis. Otherwise, former ECB President Mario Draghi could replace him, although he is now less popular than Conte. President Mattarella is not eager to dissolve parliament given that the combined strength of right-wing anti-establishment parties is greater than that of the centrist and left-wing parties in the ruling coalition judging by public opinion polls (Chart 8). Yet sooner rather than later, a new election looms. The country already completed an electoral reform via a referendum in September 2020 that cleared the way for a new election to be held. Chart 8Unstable Coalition Wants To Delay Election As Populist Right Slightly Ahead Chart 9Waning Immigration Undercuts Italian Populists (For Now) The current crisis is different than past bouts of Italian political uncertainty as there is less of a question over Italy’s commitment to the euro - which in the past has resulted in higher Italian bond yields and wider BTP-Bund spreads as markets had to price in euro breakup risk. The current coalition, and any new coalition cobbled out of the current morass to prevent a snap election, are united in their opposition to the populist League and the Brothers of Italy. They will strive to remain in power to distribute the EU recovery funds and secure the Italian presidency for an establishment political elite – one, like Mattarella, who will act as a check on the power of any future populist government and its cabinet choices, just as Mattarella himself hobbled the League’s most radical proposals from 2018-19. Chart 10Italian Support For EU & The Euro Sufficient But Not Ironclad While the right-wing “sovereigntist” parties lead in the opinion polls, the League has lost support since its leader Matteo Salvini’s failed bid to trigger an election in August 2019 and especially since the COVID-19 outbreak has boosted the establishment parties and coalition members. Anti-immigration sentiment, a key support of this faction, has subsided as the EU has cut down the influx of immigrants (Chart 9). Salvini and his supporters have also compromised their euroskepticism to appeal to a broader audience as 60% of the populace still approves of the euro – although this support is falling again and bears monitoring (Chart 10). Another economic shock or a new wave of immigration could put the right-wing populists into power. Moreover, an unstable ruling coalition will lose support over time in what will be a difficult post-pandemic environment. Thus, the risk of euroskepticism and fiscal populism will persist over the coming two years, even though they are most likely contained at the moment. Has The ECB Removed The Tail Risk Of BTPs? The ECB has shown they are willing to use their balance sheet via QE and cheap bank funding tools like TLTROs to support the euro area’s weakest link – Italy. Thus, any upward pressure on Italian bond yields/spreads from the current political fracas will almost certainly be met by a more aggressive ECB response (more QE for longer, new TLTROs), limiting the damage to the Italian bond market. Chart 11What Would Italian Loan Growth Be WITHOUT ECB Support? The ECB’s TLTROs appear to have been helpful for Italy, whose LTRO allotments represent 14.7% of total bank lending (Chart 11). Yet Spanish banks have relied on cheap ECB funding to a similar degree, while the growth of bank lending in Italy has substantially lagged that of Spain since the start of the pandemic in 2020 – even with Italy having less restrictive lending standards according to the ECB’s Bank Lending Survey. The ECB has also helped Italy by being more flexible with its purchases of Italian government bonds within both the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) that began in response to COVID-19. ECB data show that, after the worst days of the COVID-19 market rout last spring when the 10-year Italian bond yield soared from 1% to 2.4% over just three weeks, the ECB increased the Italy share of its bond buying to levels well above the Capital Key weighting scheme that “officially” governs the bond purchases. This was true within both the PSPP (Chart 12) and the PSPP (Chart 13). Chart 12ECB Paying Less Attention To The Capital Key In The PSPP ... Chart 13… And The PEPP Chart 14Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds The ECB’s actions helped stabilize Italian bond yields, sowing the seeds of the major decline in yields that took place between April and September. Once Italian bond yields fell back to pre-pandemic levels, the ECB slowed the pace of its purchases of Italian bonds to levels at or below the Capital Key weights. Thus, the ECB was willing to deviate from its own self-imposed rules for its bond purchase schemes in order to ease financial conditions in Italy during a pandemic. There is no reason to believe that would not occur again if yields rise because of a growing political risk premium while the pandemic was still raging. A prolonged period of political uncertainty in Italy, especially one that ends with fresh elections, could even force the ECB to maintain or extend its full current mix of policies and not just QE. For example, a new TLTRO could be initiated later this year, or the subsidized cost of banks borrowing from existing TLTROs could be reduced further, all in an effort to help boost Italian lending activity. More likely, the PEPP could be expanded in size or extended beyond the current March 2022 expiration, or the PSPP could be upsized to allow for more purchases of Italian debt (Chart 14). From an investment strategy perspective, there is still a strong case for overweighting Italian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios, even with the current political uncertainty. The weight of ECB policy actions removes much of the usual upside risk to BTP yields. However, investors will likely be more reluctant to drive Italian yields (and spreads versus Germany) to fresh lows if there is a risk of early elections, as we expect. Italian bonds are now more of a pure carry with yields trapped between politics and QE, but that still justifies an overweight stance - especially given the puny levels of alternative sovereign bond yields available elsewhere in the euro area. Bottom Line: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Duke Global Health Innovation Center data on COVID-19 can be found here: https://launchandscalefaster.org/COVID-19. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Pause, Not A Peak, In Global Bond Yields", dated January 26, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The enormous size of US stimulus and overflow of liquidity is creating a thrill akin to riding a tiger. Remarkably, this kind of jubilation is very similar to what EM experienced in 2009-10. That was followed by a lost decade for EM. The US equity and bond markets as well as the economy have grown accustomed to constant stimulus – an addiction that will be very hard to wean off. Due to recurring stimulus, the US will experience asset bubbles and inflation in the real economy. The Fed will fall behind the inflation curve. The resulting downward pressure on the US dollar in the coming years favors EM stocks and fixed-income markets over their US counterparts. Feature Policymakers worldwide and in the US in particular “are riding a tiger”. Congress is authorizing unlimited spending and the government is on a borrowing and spending spree. So far there are no constraints on the ballooning budget deficit. Government bond yields are well behaved. In turn, the Fed is printing limitless money to finance the Treasury and there have been no market or economic constrictions. Share prices are at a record high and credit spreads are very tight. The US dollar is depreciating but it is a benign adjustment for the US because the greenback had been too strong for too long. Chart 1EM's Soft-Budget Constraints In 2009-10 Were Followed By A Decade-Long Hangover In brief, the enormous size of US stimulus and overflow of liquidity is creating a thrill akin to riding a tiger. Remarkably, this kind of jubilation is very similar to what EM experienced in 2009-10. At the BCA annual conference in New York in 2016, one of the invited speakers – a hedge fund manager – recounted that in 2010, in a private conversation with an investor, Brazilian President Lula da Silva likened ruling Brazil to driving a sports car at high speed in the city with no police around. These were prescient words to describe the situation in Brazil’s economy and financial markets in 2009-10. In 2009-10, Brazil – like many other developing countries – benefited from both the impact of China’s enormous stimulus on commodities prices as well as from foreign capital inflows in part triggered by the Fed’s QE program. In addition, its own government provided sizeable monetary and fiscal stimulus. This stimulus trifecta – emanating from China, the US and local authorities – produced a one-off economic boom and a cyclical bull market in Brazil and other EM countries. Yet, the exuberance was followed by a stagflationary period in Brazil, and later a depression and associated rolling bear markets. Brazil was a poster child for that EM era. The experience of other EM economies was similar and the performance of their financial markets was equally underwhelming. These economies, their leaders, and financial markets wholly enjoyed the stimulus of that period. What followed, however, was a drawn-out hangover that lasted many years: EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan share prices have been flat for the past 10 years and their currencies were depreciating till last spring (Chart 1). China, the epicenter of epic stimulus in 2009-10, had a similar experience. Its investable ex-TMT stocks, i.e., excluding Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan, are presently at the same level as they were in 2010 (Chart 2). The underlying cause has been a collapse in listed companies’ return on assets (Chart 2, bottom panel). It is essential to emphasize that such poor Chinese equity market performance occurred despite recurring fiscal and credit stimulus from Chinese authorities since 2009 (Chart 2, top panel). As we discussed in detail in a previous report, soft-budget constraints – unlimited stimulus and liquidity overflow – led to complacency, inefficiencies and falling return on capital in EM/China. Chart 3 demonstrates that EM EPS (including China, Korea and Taiwan and their TMT companies) has been flat for 10 years and non-financial companies’ return on assets plunged during the past decade. Chart 2China: "Free Money" Undermined Corporate Efficiency And Profitability Chart 3EM EPS And Return On Assets: The Lost Decade   Can The US Dismount The Tiger? The US is currently experiencing no budget constraints. US broad money (M2) growth is at a record high both in nominal and real terms (Chart 4). In turn, the fiscal thrust was 11.4% of GDP last year and will remain substantial this year as most of Biden’s stimulus plan is likely to gain approval from Congress.  Chart 4Helicopter Money In The US Chart 5China Has Not Been Able To Wean Off Stimulus Such an explosive boom in US money supply and fiscal largess will continue. Even after the pandemic is under control, it will be hard for policymakers to withdraw stimulus. China is a case in point. In the past 10 years, any time Beijing attempted to reduce the stimulus, China’s economic growth downshifted considerably and financial markets sold off (Chart 5, top panel). This forced Chinese policymakers to continuously enact new rounds of stimulus measures. As a result, they have not been able to achieve their goal of stabilizing the credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart 5, bottom panel). Similar dynamics will likely transpire in the US. Having been inflated enormously, US equity and corporate credit markets will be exceptionally sensitive to any policy shifts. US financial markets will riot at any attempt to withdraw monetary or fiscal stimulus. Given how sensitive US policymakers are to selloffs in financial markets, authorities will be extremely reluctant to exit these stimulative policies. Overall, the US equity and bond markets as well as the economy have grown accustomed to constant stimulus – an addiction that will be very hard to wean off. Bottom Line: Riding a tiger is fun. The hitch is that no one can safely get off a tiger. Similarly, US authorities are currently enjoying the exuberance from stimulus, but they will not be able to safely and smoothly dismount. Inflation, Asset Bubbles Or Capital Misallocation? In any system where an explosive money/credit boom persists, the outcome will be one or a combination of the following: inflation, asset bubbles or capital misallocation. Charts 6 and 7 illustrate that rampant money/credit growth in Japan and Korea in the second half of the 1980s produced property and equity market bubbles. Chart 6Japan: Money And Asset Prices Chart 7Korea: Money And Asset Prices   Chart 8Deploying Credit To Capital Spending Could Lead To Deflation In China’s case, the 2009-10 stimulus resulted in a property bubble as well as capital misallocation. Over the years, we have discussed these outcomes in China in detail and will not elaborate on them in this report. The pertinent question is why inflation has remained depressed in China. In fact, bouts of deflation occurred in various industries in China in the past 10 years. One usually associates a money/credit boom with demand exceeding supply resulting in higher inflation. That is correct if money/credit origination finances consumption with little capital expenditures taking place. However, the credit outburst in China enabled a capital spending boom. This led to a greater supply of goods and services, which in many cases exceeded underlying demand. The upshot has been deflation in various goods prices (Chart 8). History does not repeat but it rhymes. Open-ended stimulus in the US will eventually lead to years of economic and financial malaise. The nature of the challenges that the US will face matters not only to US financial markets but also to EM. Odds are that the US will experience asset bubbles and inflation in the real economy. We will not debate whether the US equity market is already in a bubble or not. Suffice it to say that in our opinion, parts of the market are already in a bubble. The main observation we will make in that regard is as follows: the sole way to justify the current broad US equity valuations is to assume that US Treasurys yields will not rise from the current levels. If US bond yields do not rise much, equity prices could hover at a high altitude. However, any mean reversion in US bond yields will deflate American share prices considerably. In turn, the outlook for US bond yields is contingent on the Fed’s willingness to continue with QE. We do not doubt the Fed will continue buying government securities until it faces a significant inflationary threat. Hence, the primary threat to US and global equity prices is inflation. Fertile Grounds For Inflation In The US Odds of inflation rising meaningfully above 2% in the US economy in the next 12-24 months have increased substantially:1 1. A combination of surging money supply and a potential revival in the velocity of money herald higher nominal GDP growth and inflation. It is critical to realize that in contrast to the last decade when the Fed was also undertaking QE programs, US money supply is now skyrocketing, as shown in Chart 4.  In the Special Report from October 22 we discussed in depth why US money growth is currently substantially stronger than the post-GFC period. With household income and deposits (money supply) booming due to fiscal transfers funded by the Fed, the only missing ingredient for inflation to transpire is a pickup in the velocity of money. Lets’ recall: Nominal GDP = Price Level x Output Volume = Velocity of Money x Money Supply Solving the above equation for inflation, we get: Price Level = (Velocity of Money x Money Supply) / (Output Volume) Going forward, the velocity of US money will likely recover, for it is closely associated with consumer and businesses’ willingness to spend. At that point, a rising velocity of money and greater money supply will work together to exert upward pressure on nominal GDP and inflation (Chart 9). Chart 9The US: The Velocity Of Money Correlates With Inflation Momentum 2. Government policies targeting faster growth in employee compensation are conducive to higher inflation. One of the Biden administration’s key priorities is to boost wages and reduce income inequality. Unless productivity growth accelerates considerably in the coming years, odds are that labor’s share in national income will rise and companies’ profit margins will shrink (Chart 10).  Businesses will attempt to raise prices to restore their profit margins. Provided income and spending will be strong, companies could succeed in raising their prices. In the US, a modest wage-inflation spiral is probable in the coming years. Chart 10The US: Faster Wage Growth Will Likely Undermine Corporate Profit Margins Chart 11US Core Goods Price Inflation Is Accelerating 3. Demand-supply distortions and shortages will lead to higher prices. The pandemic has distorted supply chains while the overwhelming demand for manufacturing goods has produced shortages of manufacturing goods. US household spending on goods is booming and US core goods prices as well as import prices from emerging Asia and China are rising (Chart 11). In the service sector, lockdowns will permanently curtail capacity in some sectors. Meanwhile, the reopening of the economy will likely release pent-up demand for services, leading to shortages in certain segments. 4. De-globalization – the ongoing shift away from the lowest price producer – entails higher costs of production and, ultimately, higher prices. 5. Higher industry concentration and less competition create fertile grounds for inflation. Over the past two decades, the competitive structure of many US industries has changed – it has become oligopolistic. Due to cheap financing and weak enforcement of anti-trust regulation, large companies have acquired smaller competitors. In many industries, several dominant players now have a substantial market share. Such a high concentration across many industries raises odds of collusion and price increases when the macro backdrop permits. In sum, US inflation will rise well above 2% in the coming years. Inflationary pressures will become evident later this year when the economy opens up. The main and overarching risk to this view is that technology and automation will boost productivity and allow companies to cut or maintain prices despite cost pressures. Conclusions And Investment Strategy As America’s economy normalizes in the second half of this year, US inflationary pressures will begin rising. However, the Fed will fall behind the inflation curve – it will be late to acknowledge the potency of the inflationary pressures and act on it. It is typical for policymakers to downplay a budding new economic or financial tendency when they have long been pre-occupied with the opposite. Policymakers often fight past wars and are slow to calibrate their policy when the setting changes. The Fed falling behind the inflation curve is bearish for the US dollar in the medium and long-term. Share prices will be caught between rising inflationary pressures and the Fed’s continuous dovishness. This could create large swings in share prices: the market will sell off in response to evidence of rising inflation but will rebound after being calmed by the Fed. Eventually, fundamentals will prevail and the next US equity bear market will be due to higher inflation and rising bond yields. Over the coming several years, US share prices and bond yields will be negatively correlated as they were in the second half of the 1960s (Chart 12). Chart 12The 1960-70s: US Treasury Yields And The S&P 500 Were Negatively Correlated Chart 13Will Gold Outperform Global Equities? This is not imminent, but it is not several years away either. Inflation could become the market’s focus later this year. Such a backdrop of heightening inflation risks and the Fed falling behind the curve will favor gold over equities – this ratio might be making a major bottom (Chart 13). In this context, we reiterate our trade of being long gold/short EM stocks. For now, global risk assets are extremely overbought and many of them are expensive. In short, they are overdue for a correction. During this setback, EM equities and credit markets will suffer and in the near term could even underperform their respective global benchmarks. In anticipation of such a setback, we have not upgraded EM to overweight. We continue to recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Consistently, the US dollar will rebound because it is very oversold. We continue shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the euro, CHF and JPY. High-risk currencies will underperform low-beta currencies. The EM/China backdrop remains disinflationary. Therefore, fixed-income investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates in the following EM countries: Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, Korea, India, and Malaysia. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1  This is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets team and is different from BCA’s house view. The latter is more benign on the US inflation outlook in the coming years.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Highlights Biden’s initial political capital is moderate-to-strong according to our Political Capital Matrix. He will pass his American Rescue Plan and one or two budget reconciliation bills over the next 18 months. Investors will need to discount the impact of tax hikes eventually.  The Democrats’ second impeachment of President Trump is a distraction but the party will not let it derail their legislative agenda. The bipartisan power-sharing agreement in the Senate will keep the filibuster in place for now (though not permanently). This does not affect the most market-relevant aspects of Biden’s policies, at least not in 2021, but beyond that it is an open question.  The stock rally is stretched, so prepare for volatility in the near term. But over the long run continue to prefer stocks over bonds, cyclicals over defensives, and value over growth stocks. Feature The US equity rally is getting frothy even as President Joe Biden kicks off his administration with a flurry of executive orders. Financial exuberance stems from combined monetary and fiscal stimulus that will provide a positive backdrop for risk assets for most of this year. Still, most of the good news is priced so we expect volatility to revive in the short run. The BCA Equity Capitulation Indicator is nearing the highest points of its historic range, which is typically a signal for a 10% equity correction or more (Chart 1). Not all indicators point decisively to a bubble that will pop imminently but several suggest that a bubble is being formed.1 The policy backdrop of fiscal largesse combined with an ultra-dovish Fed makes it easy to see why some parts of the market are getting manic. In this context, the Biden administration’s regulatory and tax agenda will become a negative catalyst in the short run even though its big spending will secure the economic recovery, which is positive in the long run. Chart 1Mania Unfolding Biden’s First Executive Orders Biden’s initial decrees brought zero surprises so far. He rejoined the Paris climate agreement, canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, suspended new oil and gas leasing on federal land, reversed President Trump’s border emergency and immigration curbs, ordered federal workers to wear masks, and directed the federal government to “Buy American.” The energy sector suffered the brunt of Biden’s initial regulatory salvo but the relative performance of energy stocks did not drop as much as financials, where Biden’s regulatory risks are less immediate. Biden’s policies are negative for health care stocks but they suffered least from what was a general setback for value plays in the context of a small bounce in the dollar and fears about global growth weakness stemming from the pandemic which has not yet been quelled. Large caps in all three of these sectors are underperforming small caps, suggesting that Biden’s new regulations and looming tax hikes are not driving the markets – at least not yet (Chart 2). Rather these cyclical small caps stand to benefit from the administration’s large spending plans, which include the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan currently being negotiated (Table 1). These plans are highly likely to pass as explained below.    Chart 2Biden's Executive Orders: No Surprises So Far Table 1Biden’s American Rescue Plan (With Previous COVID Relief) Going forward, Biden’s regulatory onslaught will bring negative surprises eventually as it expands and deepens but these will not counteract the stronger tailwinds of the vaccine and fiscal spending. Democrats have yet to invoke the Congressional Review Act, which enables them rapidly to reverse the regulations that the Trump administration ordered just before leaving office.2 The regulatory risk is greater for health care and energy than it is for financials and tech, though the latter two are not void of risk. Health care is the Democrats’ top priority outside of pandemic relief and economic recovery. (See Appendix for our updated political risk matrix by sector.) While the market can look through Biden’s regulatory threat, at least for now, it cannot look through the impact of higher taxes on corporate earnings forever. Over the next two months House Democrats will start revealing details of their budget proposals, which could serve as a negative catalyst for the overstretched equity rally. Other negative catalysts from an ambitious new administration are also possible with a market at such dizzy heights. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen has discouraged raising taxes initially but investors know that taxes will go up sooner or later. Moreover the specific legislative vehicle for Biden to push his agenda – “budget reconciliation” – requires tax hikes to offset spending increases. Thus if Democrats initiate a reconciliation bill in February or March then it will imply at least some revenue offsets, even if the biggest tax increases are saved for the second reconciliation bill for FY2022. Bottom Line: Value stocks have taken a breather but will continue to outperform over the cyclical 12-month time horizon. Looming Democratic tax proposals are more likely to serve as a near-term negative catalyst for the overstretched equity rally than Biden’s regulatory onslaught, which will take time to be felt. We are sticking with value over growth stocks due to the extremely accommodative fiscal and monetary policy setting. The Filibuster Preserved (For Now) A critical check on lawmaking in the Senate, the filibuster, has been preserved – at least for the moment. This is positive news for markets as it lowers the odds of major legislative surprises this year. The filibuster enables senators to block normal legislation through endless debate. Sixty senators are needed to invoke “cloture” and bring debate to a close. Otherwise the bill goes nowhere. With the Senate divided evenly at 50-50 seats between the two parties, Biden’s agenda will now depend on any bills that can garner 10 Republican senators, plus two “budget reconciliation” bills for fiscal 2021-22. Reconciliation bills only require a simple 51-seat majority in the Senate. Eliminating the filibuster will remain a risk over the long run. It was only preserved because two centrist Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, declared that they would not vote to abolish it. This prompted Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to drop his chief demand, that the filibuster be kept, in his negotiations with Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer toward an agreement for the two evenly divided parties in the Senate to share power. Now a power-sharing agreement is in place so the legislative process can begin, albeit within the filibuster’s guardrails. Notice that Schumer never conceded to McConnell that the filibuster would be preserved. And two Democrats is not very many. Later these centrists may succumb to party pressure, say amid Republican obstructionism of a voting rights bill, to eliminate the filibuster. The last time the Senate was evenly divided, after the 2000 election, the power-sharing agreement only lasted six months, from January to June 2001. A single retirement or death could turn the balance. Moreover since Democrats have the option of two reconciliation bills first, the filibuster is not a substantial check on them until 2022 or beyond, at which point the centrists could fall under sustained pressure.3 Bottom Line: Preserving the filibuster provides a source of stability – it reduces policy uncertainty and polarization. It restricts Biden’s agenda largely to his major initiatives: entrenching the Affordable Care Act, expanding infrastructure spending, partially repealing Trump tax cuts, and various other tax-and-spend measures known to investors. It lowers the chance that financial markets will be blindsided in 2021 by a sweeping new legislative initiative – for example, the Green New Deal – or radical redistributive schemes. While markets will need to discount the tax hikes they will be able to recover more quickly than if they also expected a stream of unpredictable legislation from a Senate unshackled from the filibuster. Stimulus And The Tax Hike Timeline The American Rescue Plan could pass in February at the earliest or April at the latest. If at least 10 Republican senators cooperate then it will fly through Congress. The advantage of this bipartisan route is that it would achieve an early Biden objective while still leaving Democrats with two full chances to pass reconciliation bills covering fiscal 2021-22. The economic recovery would be on sure footing thereafter, giving Biden more room to maneuver (Charts 3 and 4). Chart 3Is More Stimulus Necessary? Bipartisan talks are under way. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia set up talks with about 15 other senators and three White House aides, including National Economic Council director Brian Deese, toward revising and passing the rescue plan.4 Winning over ten Republicans is a tall order but GOP senators are aware that the pandemic is still going and even Republican voter opinion favors more relief. So far Democrats have not allowed any compromise in the size of the deal but that could change to get 60 votes, since they can always make up the difference through reconciliation later. The rescue plan is unlikely to be passed before Trump’s second impeachment trial begins on February 8, however. If 10 Republicans cannot be found, the Senate will be slowed down by juggling reconciliation and impeachment. Trump’s first impeachment took 49 days, leaving the average at 65 days (Table 2). It will keep the Senate busy at least through mid-March. Chart 4More Checks Coming For Households? Table 2Impeachment Takes At Least A Month Since Democrats are highly unlikely to win over 17 Republicans to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, the impeachment could be a policy mistake. Democrats are determined not to let slide the opportunity to position themselves as the arch defenders of democracy. Acquitting Trump would put several prominent Republicans on record endorsing him even after his alleged interference with the peaceful transition of power. However, impeachment will not be allowed to derail Biden’s agenda. The Democratic Party controls both processes. The Senate can wrap up the trial if it becomes an obstacle. Diagram 1 presents the timeline for these events to occur. The implication is that March 14, when the latest expansion of unemployment benefits starts to expire, will serve as a deadline for Biden’s rescue plan. Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Budget reconciliation takes seven months on average but it only took three months in 2017, which is the proper analogy for today. Even if tax hikes are passed in Q2 there is an open question as to when they would take effect (Diagram 2). Prudent investors should be prepared for a retroactive January 1, 2021 effective date, even if it is more likely that they will kick in on January 1, 2022 to give the economy more time to recover. Again, taxes pose a risk to the rally. Diagram 2How Long Does It Take To Pass A Budget Reconciliation Bill? If Republicans do not cooperate on Biden’s rescue plan then Democrats will cite it as obstructionism from the beginning, despite Biden’s call to unity, and it will play into any future efforts to eliminate the filibuster. But those will likely center on the period after the two reconciliation bills. Bottom Line: As the House Democrats begin to draft their first budget resolution, to initiate the reconciliation process, tax hikes will come more into focus. The near-term upside risk is that Democrats skip taxes in the first bill and save it for later. But there will have to be at least some revenue raisers in any reconciliation bill. So a near-term pullback is entirely reasonable to expect. We would be buyers on the dip given the extremely accommodative fiscal and monetary backdrop. Introducing Our Political Capital Index To assess any government’s capability – namely its ability to alter the policy setting that affects the economy and financial markets – we need to measure its political capital or grounds of support. To this end we have constructed a Political Capital Index to measure the strength and capability of US ruling parties and presidencies (Table 3). Table 3Political Capital Index The Political Capital Index shows a series of political and economic indicators, as of the latest available data (December or January), as well as the change since Biden’s election in November.5 Below we describe the political and economic categories of political capital that we chose and the data we use to represent them: Political Strength: The most basic measure of political capital is President Biden’s margin of victory in the popular vote (4.4%) and Electoral College vote (306/538), the number of days he has been in power, his party’s Congressional majorities, and the Supreme Court’s ideological leaning. These components will last for two-to-four years and can only be changed by new elections or deaths (Table 4). Even a president elected in a landslide would see his political capital decay over time. The sooner the next election, the less political capital the ruling party has. The president and Congress will have more trouble passing legislation just before the election and will be more careful about what they do pass to avoid punishment at the ballot box. Any difficult economic policies or reforms will tend to be done at the beginning of the term, as political capital is still abundant and the next election is not a clear and present danger. President Biden has moderate political capital. His popular victory was solid, his electoral victory was the same as President Trump’s, but his congressional majorities are weak. His initial legislative efforts should be assumed to pass but aside from his rescue plan and one or two reconciliation bills he will not be able to get much else done. Table 4Political Capital: White House And Congress Household Sentiment: Household sentiment is the origin of political capital since households are voters. We measure it through presidential net approval ratings, both in general and in handling the economy, as well as through consumer confidence (Chart 5). Household sentiment changes easily – it can drive policies and react to them. Even if the economy is objectively improving, sentiment can remain downbeat if politicians fail to communicate their policies, which could cost them the election. Measures that improve household pocketbooks or welfare are more popular than those that impose structural changes like taxes and regulation. But reforms are possible when a politician has sufficient political capital, or when a worse outcome would follow from doing nothing. Biden will start with a higher approval rating than President Trump but his average approval is not much higher at present and consumer confidence has ticked down as a result of the pandemic. His economic stimulus should create an improvement in household sentiment in the coming year. Chart 5US Households: Still Downbeat Business Sentiment: Business sentiment is another important element of political capital. Businesses that are confident about the economy’s prospects will spend on capex, new orders, and new hires, and they will also deplete their inventories (Table 5). Animal spirits respond to spending, taxation, regulation, and trade – all areas where politicians have some control. Table 5Political Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Policymakers can run down business sentiment by enacting painful policies for business, in favor of government or households or personal whim – or they can pass business-friendly policies to boost animal spirits. Businesses cannot vote like households but they have a powerful influence over politicians through lobbyists and political donations and a powerful influence on voters through employment. Higher animal spirits encourage new employment, which improves household welfare, thus boosting political capital. Biden is starting out fairly strong with respect to business sentiment, with the exception of the service sector, which is still beaten down by the pandemic. This is an area where his political capital could decay over time. Big business was happy to get rid of Trump’s trade war but now it faces larger government encroachment. This risk is flagged by small businesses, which are already highly distrustful of new taxes and regulation (Chart 6). Chart 6US Business Sentiment Chart 7Measures Of Polarization Political Polarization: Starkly divided populations and governments are often gridlocked or obstructionist, preventing policies from getting approved or implemented (Chart 7). Our polarization proxy measures the difference in approval of the sitting president according to party, while our economic polarization measure does the same for economic sentiment. Structural polarization is a low-frequency data series from political science literature that measures whether House members and senators tend to vote with the “party line” or “reach across the aisle.”6 The Philly Fed Partisan Index also measures the degree of political disagreement among politicians at the federal level. A highly polarized environment ensures that there will be strong opposition to any policy put forward by lawmakers and a higher likelihood of reversal by the next governing party. This leads to erratic policymaking and policy uncertainty among households and businesses. Lower polarization increases the durability of policies. Fiscal Policy: The government sector contributes to political capital through fiscal policy, especially fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted primary budget deficit) (Table 6). An expansionary fiscal policy affords policymakers greater latitude – especially in times and places where inflation is not a public concern. It can also be an effort by the ruling party to boost its political capital when it is low, or when an election looms. The Biden administration is lucky to start off with a new business cycle, as Obama did in 2009, but the large dose of fiscal support today will become a fiscal drag by 2024 so the long-term effectiveness of today’s “pump priming” will be essential. Table 6Political Capital: The Economy And Markets Economic Conditions: Economic conditions are arguably the most important component of political capital. We included several objective measures of household wellbeing such as unemployment, inflation, gasoline prices at the pump, and wage growth. If voters have seen their quality of life improve under the current set of leaders then they are more likely to vote to continue their windfall. To judge whether a party will be re-elected, it is critical to know whether household wellbeing has changed since the last election. High unemployment, high inflation, high economic uncertainty, and high bankruptcy levels point to struggling voters who are more likely to take their grievances to the ballot box. By the same token, leaders will struggle to get anything done if voters are beset with these ills. Asset Markets: Asset markets play at least some role in determining political capital. Most voters are not highly exposed to the stock market, though they care about their pension fund. Most voters are highly exposed to the property market. A euphoric stock market will not necessarily buoy the political capital of a president or ruling party, as demonstrated by the recent election: President Trump’s approval was closely linked to the stock market, which also restrained his actions, yet a rallying market did not get him re-elected. A market crash will always hurt policymakers, especially if it happens just before an election. We watch the stock market primarily as a downside risk to the ruling party’s political capital rather than upside. Bottom Line: Our Political Capital Index is how we will monitor President Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s capability in the coming months and years. The administration begins with moderate political capital but it is likely to improve on economic recovery, which will be secured through control of Congress and the purse strings. Our confidence that Biden’s American Rescue Plan and one or two reconciliation bills will pass stems from this assessment. This means a large spending program and tax hikes are highly probable and investors should prepare for them. Investment Takeaways Signs of mania – from Bitcoin to TESLA to GameStop – have gripped the market as the combined effect of ultra-dovish monetary and fiscal policy is priced. This process can continue beyond reasonable expectations. Nevertheless we are prepared for near-term volatility and a correction at any time. The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine faces inevitable bumps and the pandemic is still triggering government lockdown measures and consumer caution – though these will improve over time. Biden’s regulatory agenda and especially looming tax hikes will also spur some risk aversion in the near term as the House Democrats begin preparing a reconciliation bill. Overcoming the hurdle of Trump’s impeachment will free up the Senate to move forward on reconciliation as well, which means tax hikes will fall under the market’s radar sooner or later. A regular bill could be passed in February without new taxes but otherwise a reconciliation bill will pass as early as April and include at least some new taxes, even if they take effect next year. We would still use the opportunity to buy into any further weakness in value plays relative to growth plays (Chart 8). Fundamentally the economy is set to improve this year, the pandemic is set to subside, and the policy support will be reinforced and expanded as necessary. Chart 8A Setback For Growth Versus Value Chart 9Equity Correction Looms The reflation trade is technically over-extended, investors are complacent, and some profit-taking is due. The extremely depressed put-to-call ratio tracks well with the US dollar index, both of which are showing signs of life (Chart 9). We would fade a rebound in the dollar, however, as the Democratic Party’s policies will ensure widening twin deficits (budget and trade deficits) even as the Fed demonstrates its commitment to its new goal of allowing an inflation overshoot to make up for past undershoots.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     See BCA Research US Equity Strategy, “Overdose?” January 25, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 2     The Congressional Review Act of 1996 enables Congress to speed up the removal of regulations that were adopted recently, in this case since August 21, 2020. The process requires both houses of Congress to repeal a regulation but the Senate cannot prevent repeal via filibuster. The Trump administration used the law aggressively to remove several of President Barack Obama’s outgoing regulations. See Jonathan H. Adler, “Will Democrats Learn To Love The Congressional Review Act?” Reason, January 23, 2021, reason.com.  3    Democrats are explicitly interested in repealing the filibuster, as Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have indicated (not to mention former President Obama who characterized it as a relic of the racist Jim Crowe era). 4    See Ed O’Keefe et al, “16 senators from both parties meet with White House on COVID-19 relief plan,” CBS News, January 25, 2021, cbsnews.com; Aamer Madhani and Lisa Mascaro, “White House Begins Talks With Lawmakers On COVID-19 Relief,” Associated Press, January 25, 2021, apnews.com.  5    Biden’s term technically began on January 20 but voters in 2024 will judge the president and ruling party based on whether they are better off than they were four years ago, i.e. when they last made a major judgment. 6    See Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, et al, at voteview.org.