Informe especial
Dear Client, I am on vacation this week. Instead of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan explores the risks posed to commercial real estate and the banking system from work from home policies and the potential for urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Despite pronouncements that the “office is dead,” there are several arguments against the idea that working from home policies or urban flight will become broad-based and spell disaster for commercial real estate loans and the economy. However, the reality is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. Within the US, small banks clearly have more commercial real estate loan exposure than large banks. Applying the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) to small US banks highlights that roughly 2/3rds of small banks might need to raise capital in the scenario modeled by the Fed, underscoring that forbearance and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses. Incorporating outsized, Work From Home (WFH)-driven CRE loan losses into our test of small banks highlights that WFH policies may act as a moderate “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur. But it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. To the extent that the “white flight” phenomenon of the 1950s to 1970s is a reasonable historical analogue for large-scale urban flight today, the experience of Michigan in the 1960s suggests that it would not likely cause widespread problems in the housing market and/or systemic stress in the banking system. But even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or health & safety concerns, there are some concerning parallels to the severe decay and decline of the city of Detroit that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities if not prevented by policymakers. This could spur large-scale urban flight for reasons unrelated to WFH policies. The possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. We expect large bank outperformance at some point over the coming year, reinforcing our positive stance towards value over growth. Feature Chart 1Rising CRE Prices And Deteriorating Fundamentals, Even Before The Pandemic Concern had already been growing among investors over the past few years about the potentially systemic implications of a possible crash in sky-high US commercial real estate (CRE) prices. Chart 1 highlights that overall CRE prices have doubled over the past decade, which has occurred alongside falling real rents (and thus deteriorating fundamentals) in most CRE subcategories. But the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new risks for US CRE that many investors view as potentially acute. CMBS delinquency rates surged in May and June (but fell in July), led by accommodation and retail properties. And while multifamily and office delinquencies have so far remained low, many investors have questioned whether this can continue if recently enacted work from home policies become permanent and “urban flight” towards less populated and more affordable areas durably takes hold in major US cities. In this report we focus on the issue of WFH policies, the potential for urban flight, and the risk that these factors may pose to the CRE loans of small domestically-chartered US banks (sometimes informally referred to as “community banks”). There are arguments for and against the idea that work from home policies and/or migration out of city centers will have an extremely negative impact on office properties, but the truth is that it is currently a risk of largely unknown magnitude. It is not likely to be positive for owners of office properties, but it is yet unclear how negative it will be. As a result, we address the question as a “what if?” scenario, by stress testing small bank balance sheets. We conclude that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risks facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. Did COVID-19 Really Kill The Office? Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well In mid-to-late March, COVID-19 was spreading rapidly in industrialized economies. Following recommended or mandatory stay at home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to WFH arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay at home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by WFH arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved (Chart 2). These findings led many in the business community to conclude that WFH policies are not, in fact, emergency measures that will ultimately be reversed and instead reflect the “new normal” for work. The arrangement ostensibly appears to be a win-win scenario for workers and firms: Employees save time and money not commuting to the office and gain more control over their work schedules, and businesses save money on the rental or purchase of office space. The conclusion for many in the marketplace has thus been that “the office is dead,” with the focus shifting to the potential investment implications. When thinking about the potential consequences that permanent and widespread WFH options may have, there are two distinct issues that must be considered. The first is the degree to which these policies will push up office property vacancy rates, and the second is whether the availability of WFH policies will cause significant urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. On the margin, we agree that both events will occur at least to some degree, and thus are likely to be highly unwelcome developments for owners of prime central business district real estate. This is in line with the conclusions of a recent Special Report by my colleague Garry Evans.1 But there are at least a few arguments against the idea that these trends will occur en masse, or that they will spell economic disaster on their own: While surveys show that many employees expect to continue to work remotely after the pandemic ends, these results likely reflect the desire to retain some flexibility afforded by WFH policies. In terms of office property utilization, there is a large difference between an employee never working from an office again and permanently working from home one day per week, and many surveys that have been conducted on the topic are not structured to distinguish between the two. Surveys that specifically ask how long employees expect it will take for them to return to the office and that include “never” as a possible answer imply a considerably lower impact on office space utilization than other surveys would suggest (Chart 3). If the percentage of never-returning workers shown in Chart 3 (5%-7%) is accurate and maps closely to the expected rise in the office vacancy rate, Chart 4 highlights that the corresponding increase in vacancy would not be unprecedented: It rose from roughly 8% in 2000 to 17% in 2003, without causing a disastrous collapse in office property prices (they fell, but not enormously). Today the vacancy rate would be rising from a much higher level than in 2000, but the point is that very significant changes have occurred in the vacancy rate before without substantially destabilizing the office property market. Chart 3Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well For offices that reopen before the end of the pandemic, the need for physical distancing will act to at least somewhat restrain a rise in the vacancy rate over the coming several months, as it implies the need for more physical space per employee rather than less. Chart 4Large, Non-Impactful Rises In The Office Vacancy Rate Have Occurred Before Some surveys suggest that Americans are already starting to change their minds about their desire to move out of the city. In April and early-May, upwards of 35%-40% of people responding to a Harris poll said that the pandemic made them want to live either in a rural area more than 21 miles outside of a major city or a suburb within 10 miles of a major city. As of late-July / early-August, that number had fallen to 26% (Chart 5), with only 9% reporting that it is “very likely.” This suggests that the end or reduction of lockdown measures may have returned a sense of normality for many Americans, and that the ultimate degree of urban flight may end up being considerably smaller than some investors expect. Chart 5Few People Say It Is Very Likely They Will Move Due To COVID-19 Finally, the example set by Facebook in May suggests that employees who wish to work from home permanently and relocate to more affordable areas will experience salary reductions, as part of a plan to “localize employees' compensation.”2 If adopted on a widespread basis among firms offering their employees the option to permanently work from home, localized compensation will very likely erode some of the cost advantages of moving to a cheaper area, and thus is likely to result in even fewer employees choosing permanent WFH arrangements. However, even after considering these arguments, the bottom line for investors is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19, because it hinges both on the evolution/resolution of the pandemic as well as potentially ephemeral human sentiment and behavior – both of which are extraordinarily difficult to predict with high accuracy. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. As such, we agree that the chance of a major and lasting shock to the holders of US commercial real estate loans warrants a thorough investigation, focused on its potential to affect the stability of the US financial system. We first present an overview of CRE exposure for all US banks, and then examine in detail the risk facing small domestically-chartered US banks. Reviewing US Bank CRE Exposure Table 1 presents an overview of CRE loan exposure for domestically-chartered US banks from the Fed’s H.8 data release (Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States), as well as a breakdown in exposure for large and small banks. Investors should note that different definitions of “large banks” exist in the US, and in the H.8 release they are defined as the top 25 domestically-chartered banks ranked by domestic assets. Table 1Most US Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Held By Small Banks Table 1 highlights two points. First, while CRE loans account for approximately 13% of total US domestically-chartered bank assets, exposure is clearly more concentrated for smaller banks than for the largest banks. CRE loans account for a full 1/4th of total assets for small banks, compared to just 6% for the top 25 domestic banks. Given this, the focus of our report will be on small rather than large bank exposure to CRE loans. Second, the table makes it clear that loans backed by nonfarm nonresidential structures account for just 2/3rds of total CRE exposure; the remaining exposure is to apartment buildings, construction and land development loans, and farmland. While not shown in Table 1, bank call reports also highlight that 1-4 family residential construction loans are included in the overall construction and land development category, accounting for up to 20% of those loans for small domestically-chartered banks. Chart 6Office Properties Make Up About 40% Of The Value Of Commercial Structures Unfortunately, it is difficult to break down small bank nonfarm nonresidential structure exposure by property type from a top-down perspective. Chart 6 highlights that office properties (including all financial buildings) make up approximately 37% of the current-cost net stock of US nonresidential commercial and health care structures, whereas office loans make up approximately 30%-40% of those included in US commercial mortgage-backed securities. For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that 40% of small domestically-chartered US banks’ nonfarm nonresidential property loans are secured by office properties. Stress Testing Small US Banks The first step in stress testing small US bank CRE exposure is to simply apply the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) that was focused on large banks to the approximately 5,100 small banks in the US. We use Q1 bank call reports (which we use as a pre-COVID benchmark) sourced from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to test the breadth of the impact on small banks, and include essentially all US banks in our list except the top 25 banks by assets (those designated as “large” in the Fed’s H.8 release). The Federal Reserve recently released the 2020 DFAST results, which examined the impact on capital ratios of 33 large US banks in a “severely adverse” economic scenario. The scenario modeled by the Fed resulted in $553 billion in projected losses on loans and other positions for the banks included in the test over a 2-year period, of which $433 billion were from accrual loan portfolios (Table 2). These projected loan losses corresponded to a 6.3% loan portfolio loss rate; for comparison, Chart 7 highlights that this would represent even higher losses than what occurred during the worst two-year period following the global financial crisis (Q1 2009 – Q4 2010) by roughly one percentage point. Table 2The Fed’s Recent Stress Test Modeled A 6.3% Loan Loss Rate Over 2 Years Chart 7The Fed's Main Loss Scenario Is Meaningfully Worse Than What Occurred After 2008 In combination with additional provisioning, these assumed losses caused a 1.8% projected decline in the aggregate tier 1 capital ratio for the 33 firms participating in the stress test – from 13.6% to 11.8% – and a 1.7% projected decline in the common equity tier 1 capital ratio – from 12% to 10.3% (Table 3). While these declines are not trivial, they are far from a disastrous outcome for the US financial system. The capital ratios shown in Table 3 are relative to risk-weighted assets, and it is important to note that the projected change in capital ratios shown do not match the projected loan losses (plus provisioning) as a percent of risk-weighted assets. This is because projected losses are netted out against the banks’ projected pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”) in the Fed’s exercise. In short, while the banks’ capital ratios declined roughly 2% in the DFAST scenario, simulated loan losses amounted to roughly 4% of risk-weighted assets and about 1/3rd of tier 1 common equity capital. Table 3Large Bank Capital Ratios Fell In The Stress Test, But Not Dramatically SoTo avoid the need to project PPNR for thousands of small US banks, we use these loan loss metrics (4% of risk-weighted assets and 33% of tier 1 common equity capital) from the 2020 DFAST to represent whether any individual small bank would likely have to raise capital. We also use the overall portfolio loan loss rate of 6.3% to stress small bank balance sheets, rather than a set of loan loss rates by loan type. Chart 8In The Fed’s Main Stress Test Scenario, Many Small Banks Would Likely Have To Raise Capital Chart 8 illustrates the number of small US banks that would “fail” the stated tier 1 common equity and risk-weighted asset thresholds given the DFAST assumptions. Roughly 64% of small banks would fail the equity test and 94% would fail the risk-weighted assets test. Weighting these results by bank assets rather than the number of banks does not generate a materially different result; instead, 63% and 97% of small bank assets would be held by banks failing the equity and risk-weighted assets tests, respectively. This exercise clearly highlights how much better capitalized large US banks are relative to smaller banks, and underscores that the existing forbearance programs and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses – meaning that while widespread capital raising and the accompanying tightening in lending standards would undoubtedly have a major impact on the economy and capital markets, the solvency of the US banking system is not in question in the scenario modeled by the Fed. Stress Testing Outsized CRE Losses As noted above, we employed the same average loan portfolio loss rate across all loan categories when testing the impact of the DFAST scenario on small banks, including commercial real estate loans. In order to gauge the specific risks facing commercial properties if recent WFH trends persist, we perform two additional exercises. First, we raise CRE loan losses beyond what was assumed in the DFAST scenario (see Box 1) while employing the same 6.3% loan loss rate on all other loan types to measure the incremental WFH effect on small bank balance sheets in a very negative economic scenario. Second, we examine a high CRE loan loss scenario alone, in order to isolate the potential impact of sustained WFH policies. Box 1Simulating Outsized CRE Loan Loss Rates The assumptions detailed in Box 1 result in an overall CRE loan loss estimate of 11.1%, versus the 6.3% assumed in the DFAST. Chart 9 replicates the DFAST scenario shown in Chart 8 but with our outsized CRE loss rate, whereas Chart 10 highlights the isolated impact (i.e., without any losses assumed for other loan categories). Chart 9Adding Outsized CRE Loans To The Stress Test Scenario Only Moderately Increases “Failure” Chart 10Big CRE Losses Alone, With No Other Loan Losses, Would Be A Relatively Minor Problem Two important observations emerge from Charts 9 and 10. First, despite the fact that small US banks carry disproportionately higher exposure to commercial real estate loans than large banks, it seems clear that the isolated effect of WFH policies on CRE loans, even in the extreme, do not amount to a major risk for the banking system. 80% of small US banks would pass our equity capital test, and 70% would pass the risk-weighted assets test, with absolutely devastating and unprecedented office and retail property losses but no losses outside of their commercial real estate portfolio. Second, while our outsized CRE losses would raise the number of banks that fail our equity capital test relative to the base DFAST scenario (from 64% to 74%), it is clear that this pales in comparison to the effect of the other loan losses assumed in the Fed’s stress test. The bottom line for investors is that while WFH policies may act as a “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur, it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. Outsized Residential Real Estate Losses: The Elephant In The Room As noted above, the results shown in Charts 8 - 10 only include outsized losses on nonresidential CRE loans (excluding multifamily) in order to test the risk to bank balance sheets of widespread and continued use of highly permissive WFH policies and significantly reduced demand for office properties. On top of that, banks also face the risk of additional potential disruptions to residential real estate loans if the WFH phenomenon morphs into full-blown urban flight. In this scenario, migration out of densely-populated urban areas towards considerably cheaper suburbs and exurbs could possibly lead to significant house price declines in richly-valued metro-areas, leading in turn to defaults on underwater mortgages. Table 2 highlighted that the Fed’s base 2020 DFAST scenario assumed a 1.5% loan loss rate on first-lien mortgages, and a 3.1% loss rate on junior liens and HELOCs over a two-year period. Unfortunately for investors, it is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint the magnitude of urban migration that would be necessary to cause loss rates in line with the DFAST scenario or higher, forcing us to rely on an inferential approach based on historical example. Chart 11“White Flight” In The US: An Analogue For Urban Flight Today? The only meaningful historical analogue that we can identify for the idea of WFH-driven urban flight is the “white flight” phenomenon that occurred in the US from the 1950s to 1970s. During this period, many white middle-class Americans moved from increasingly racially mixed city centers to racially homogenous suburban or exurban areas. The city of Detroit is often cited as an example of the "white flight" phenomenon. Chart 11 shows Detroit’s white population over time, and highlights the sharp decline in the number of white residents that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. The white share of Detroit’s population fell earlier, beginning after WWII, but this mostly reflected larger increases of the non-white population. Actual “white flight” occurred during the 50s and 60s, when several episodes of racial violence occurred in the United States. In Detroit, this was most clearly epitomized by the 12th Street Riot in 1967, which involved Federal troop deployment and resulted in over 40 deaths and the damage or destruction of over 2,500 businesses. Did “white flight” cause widespread problems for urban housing markets and/or systemic stress in the banking system? Table 4 and Chart 12 suggest that the answer is no. Table 4 highlights that the median real house price in Michigan rose in the 1960s, grew faster than nationwide house prices, and was modestly higher than the national average in 1970. While it is very likely that this reflects outsized suburban house price gains and that urban center prices fell, Chart 12 highlights that there was no noticeable uptick in US banking failures as a share of total depository institutions in the 1960s. Chart 13 also highlights that the late-1960s did not exhibit any particularly unusual behavior for bank stock prices, after considering interest rates and the state of the business cycle. Table 4Real Michigan Home Prices “Outperformed” The US In The 60s Chart 12No Uptick In Bank Failures In The 1960s Chart 13No Unusual Bank Underperformance In The 1960s The US economy is very different today than it was in the 1960s, and it is possible that “white flight” serves as an insufficient analogue for potential urban flight today. It is also true that real house prices today are considerably higher than in the 1960s and thus have room to fall further. Nevertheless, based on the Detroit experience, our best inference (for now) is that urban flight does not pose a risk of outsized mortgage loan losses for banks. This is reinforced by the fact that mortgage interest rates have fallen to a record low and have the potential to fall even further based on their spread to 30-year Treasury yields (Chart 14), which may act to boost house prices outright or cushion any potential declines. Chart 14Low And Potentially Lower Mortgage Rates Will Help Cushion Any House Prices Declines Is The Real Risk To Cities Urban Flight, Or Urban Blight? In our view, the city of Detroit is a useful case study for two reasons. First, as noted above, it provides us with some sense of whether urban flight has the potential to pose a systemic threat to the financial system. But, second, it also serves as an example of another potential risk of the COVID-19 pandemic: urban “blight,” or decay. Chart 15Progressive Post-War Deindustrialization Hammered Cities Like Detroit The economic and sociological decay of the city of Detroit has taken place over several decades and has been caused by multiple factors whose relative importance is still debated today. But broadly-speaking, Detroit’s decline can be boiled down to three interacting and self-reinforcing sets of factors: Sociological factors: the general post-WWII trend towards suburbanization, rising levels of violent crime, the “white flight” phenomenon, and the outright decline in Detroit’s population that began in the 1950s; Economic factors: the progressive deindustrialization of the US economy that began in the early 1950s, as well as the debilitating effects of high inflation and energy prices in the 1970s and the double-dip recession of the early-1980s on manufacturing employment (Chart 15); Policy factors: the negative impact on city finances, tax competitiveness, and service quality from the previous two factors, as well as poor governance and outright corruption. Even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or pandemic-related health & safety concerns, there are some worrying parallels to Detroit’s experience that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities that could cause similarly self-reinforcing effects if not prevented by policymakers. On the economic front, very acute income and wealth inequality arrayed against stout house price gains over the past decade have made home ownership unaffordable for some, increasing the allure of urban flight even if localized compensation programs apply. In addition, the pandemic has most severely affected small retail businesses, raising the specter of a “hollowed out” or abandoned urban retail landscape which could push consumers to avoid shopping and travelling downtown. On the policy front, there is a clear risk that inadequate state & local government funding could contribute to a potential downward spiral of higher taxes, reduced city services, and economic decay – similar to what occurred in Detroit. Chart 16 highlights that the financial situation of state & local governments following the global financial crisis caused persistent fiscal drag for several years into the expansion that followed. This significant fiscal drag contributed importantly to the subpar nature of the expansion, and the odds that this will occur again without federal funding are high. Chart 16 shows that the contribution to real GDP growth from state & local government spending has again turned negative, and the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is currently forecasting state budget shortfalls of approximately $555 billion over state fiscal years 2020-2022 – in line with the $510 billion cumulative shortfall that occurred from 2009-2011.4 Finally, in this scenario, the sociological factor somewhat mimicking Detroit’s experience could be a significant rise in urban crime (especially if violent). This could cause urban flight for reasons totally unrelated to WFH policies, but if it occurred it would likely reinforce both the failure of urban center businesses and the deterioration in state & local government finances (risking a downward spiral). Chart 17 highlights that murders have already significantly increased this year in major American cities (by mid-year) relative to 2019, although other types of violent crimes have fallen.5 A trend of rising urban crime could also be sparked or accelerated if recent calls to cut police department funding in favor of other social services succeed, and if those newly funded initiatives fail to effectively prevent criminal activity. Chart 16Persistent State & Local Fiscal Drag Must Be Prevented This Time Chart 17Will US Cities Become Unsafe? While this scenario is far from our base case view, it underscores how urban flight and the accompanying second round effects on commercial real estate loans and the banking system could occur following the pandemic even if not triggered by WFH policies. It also underscores the great importance of Federal fiscal relief efforts: not only to households and businesses, but as well to state & local governments. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to three main investment conclusions: First, while there are arguments for and against the idea of significant CRE losses stemming from the widespread adoption of permanent WFH policies and the potential for large-scale urban flight, the uncertainty surrounding the question will likely linger for the coming few months, at a minimum. This suggests that the equity risk premium applied to bank stock prices may remain elevated in the near term. Chart 18Large US Banks Unduly Cheap Second, while large-cap banks may struggle to outperform in the near term due to this elevated risk premium, it is clear that large banks are far less susceptible than small banks to not only potential CRE loan losses, but also to the severely adverse economic scenario modeled in the Fed’s recent stress test. Our calculations suggest that large bank capital ratios would only marginally decline from the ending ratios shown in the DFAST scenario even with the outsized CRE loan loss scenarios that we used to stress test small bank balance sheets, and we highlighted how the Fed’s main stress test scenario involved 2-year loan losses in excess of what occurred in 2009-2010. Consequently, the collapse in large-cap bank valuation ratios seems unwarranted (Chart 18), and we would expect large banks to outperform the broad market at some point over the coming 6-12 months (and possibly even over the coming 0-3 months). This is also consistent with our expectation that value stocks are likely to outperform growth stocks at some point over the coming year.6 Third, while investors are often right to ask what risk they are “missing,” our analysis above highlights that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risk facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. This need for relief extends very significantly to state & local governments, and a failure to adequately resolve the substantial state budget shortfalls that will occur due to the pandemic and its aftermath would all but guarantee a repeat of the persistent fiscal drag that contributed to the subpar nature of the recent economic expansion. Our base case view remains that US policymakers will do what is necessary to avoid a very negative economic outcome and that the hiccup in congressional negotiations is temporary, but the possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation / Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not?” dated August 7, 2020. 2 “Facebook employees could receive pay cuts as they continue to work from home,” USA Today, dated May 21, 2020. 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Mallpocalypse, Part 1: An Overnight Collapse Decades In The Making,” dated August 17, 2020 for the first of two reports presenting a detailed analysis of the challenges facing US retail properties. 4 Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman, “States Continue to Face Large Shortfalls Due to COVID-19 Effects,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated July 7, 2020. 5 Jeff Asher and Ben Horwitz, “It’s Been ‘Such a Weird Year.’ That’s Also Reflected in Crime Statistics.,” The New York Times, Updated August 24, 2020. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Return Of Nasdog,” dated August 21, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores
