株式

Highlights The fourth quarter will be volatile as China still poses a risk of overtightening policy and undermining the global recovery. US political risks are also elevated. A debt default is likely to be averted in the end. Fiscal stimulus could be excessive. There is a 65% chance that taxes will rise in the New Year. A crisis over Iran’s nuclear program is imminent. Oil supply disruptions are likely. A return to diplomacy is still possible but red lines need to be underscored. European political risks are comparatively low, although they cannot go much lower, Russia still poses threats to its neighbors, and China’s economic wobbles will weigh on European assets. Our views still support Mexican equities and EU industrials over the long run but we are booking some gains in the face of higher volatility. Feature Our annual theme for 2021 was “No Return To Normalcy” and events have borne this out. The pandemic has continued to disrupt life while geopolitics has not reverted to pre-Trump norms. Going forward, the pandemic may subside but the geopolitical backdrop will be disruptive. This is primarily due to Chinese policy, unfinished business with Iran, and the struggle among various nations to remain stable in the aftermath of the pandemic. Chart 1Delta Recedes With Vaccinations Chart 2Global Recovery Marches On Chart 3Global Labor Markets On The Mend The underlying driver of markets in the fourth quarter will be the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is waning as vaccination campaigns make progress (Chart 1). New cases of the Delta variant have rolled over in numerous countries and in US states that are skeptical toward vaccines. Global growth will still face crosswinds. US growth rates are unlikely to be downgraded further while Europe’s growth has been upgraded. However, forecasters are likely to downgrade Chinese growth expectations in the face of the government’s regulatory onslaught against various sectors and property sector instability (Chart 2). Barring a Chinese policy mistake, the global composite PMI is likely to stabilize. Labor markets will continue healing (Chart 3). The tug of war between unemployment and inflation will continue to give way in favor of inflation, given that wage pressures will emerge, stimulus-fueled household demand will be strong, and supply shortages will persist. Central banks will try to normalize policy but will not move aggressively in the face of any new setbacks to the recovery. Will China Spoil The Recovery? Maybe. Chinese policy and structural imbalances pose the greatest threat to the global economic recovery both in the short and the long run. The immediate risk to the recovery is clear from our market-based Chinese growth indicator, which has not yet bottomed (Chart 4). The historic confluence of domestic political and geopolitical risks in China is our key view for the year. China is attempting to make the economic transition that other East Asian states have made – away from the “miracle” manufacturing phase of growth toward something more sustainable. But there are two important differences: China is making its political and economic system less open and free (the opposite of Taiwan and South Korea) and it is confronting rather than befriending the United States. The Xi administration is focused on consolidating power ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Xi is attempting to stay in power beyond the ten-year limit that was in place when he took office. On one hand he is presenting a slate of socioeconomic reforms – dubbed “common prosperity” – to curry popular favor. This agenda represents a tilt from capitalism toward socialism within the context of the Communist Party’s overarching idea of socialism with Chinese characteristics. On the other hand, Xi is cracking down on the private sector – Big Tech, property developers – which theoretically provides the base of power for any political opposition. The crackdowns have caused Chinese equities to collapse relative to global and have reaffirmed the long trend of underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensives within Chinese investable shares (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4China Threatens To Spoil The Party In terms of financial distress, so far only high-yield corporate bonds have seen spreads explode, not investment grade. But current policies force property developers to liquidate their holdings, pay off debts, and raise cash while forcing banks to cut bank on loans to property developers and homebuyers. (Not to mention curbs on carbon emissions and other policies squeezing industrial and other sectors.) Chart 5Beijing Could Easily Trigger Global Market Riot If these policies are not relaxed then property developers will continue to struggle, property prices will fall, credit tightening will intensify, and local governments will be starved of revenue and forced to cut back on their own spending. Yet the government’s signals of policy easing are so far gradual and behind the curve. If policy is not relaxed, then onshore equities will sell off (as well as offshore) and credit spreads will widen more generally (Chart 5, bottom panel). Broad financial turmoil cannot be ruled out in the fourth quarter. Ultimately, however, China will be forced to do whatever it takes to try to secure the post-pandemic recovery. Otherwise it will instigate a socioeconomic crisis ahead of the all-important political reshuffle in fall 2022. That would be the opposite of what Xi Jinping needs as he tries to consolidate power. Chinese households have stored their wealth, built up over decades of economic success, in the housing sector (Chart 6). Economic instability could translate to political instability. Chart 6Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus … Or Face Political Instability Investors often ask how the government can ease policy if doing so will further inflate housing prices, which hurts the middle class and is the opposite of the common prosperity agenda. High housing prices are the biggest of the three “mountains” that are said to be crushing the common folks and weighing on Chinese birthrates and fertility (the other two are high education and medical costs). The answer is that while policymakers want to cap housing prices and encourage fertility, they must prevent a general collapse in prices and economic and financial crisis. There is no evidence that suppressing housing prices will increase fertility or birthrates – if anything, falling fertility is hard to reverse and goes hand in hand with falling prices. Rather, evidence from the US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and other countries shows that a bursting property bubble certainly does not increase fertility or birthrates (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 7AEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Chart 7BEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Bringing it all together, investors should not play down negative news and financial instability emerging from China. There are no checks and balances on autocrats. Our China Investment Strategy has a high conviction view that policy stimulus is not forthcoming and regulatory curbs will not be eased. The implication is that China’s government could make major policy mistakes and trigger financial instability in the near term before changing its mind to try to preserve overall stability. At that point it could be too late. Will Countries Add More Stimulus? Yes. Chart 8Global Monetary Policy Challenges With China’s stability in question, investors face a range of crosswinds. Central banks are struggling with a surge in inflation driven by stimulus-fueled demand and supply bottlenecks. The global output gap is still large but rapid economic normalization will push inflation up further if kinks are not removed (Chart 8). A moderating factor in this regard is that budget deficits are contracting in 2022 and coming years – fiscal policy will shift from thrust to drag (Chart 9). However, the fiscal drag is probably overstated as governments are also likely to increase deficit spending on the margin. The US is certainly likely to do so. But before considering US fiscal policy we must address the immediate question: whether the US will default on national debt. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has designated October 18 as the “X-date” at which the Treasury will run out of extraordinary measures to make debt payments if Congress does not raise the statutory debt ceiling. There is presumably a few weeks of leeway after this date but markets will grow very jittery and credit rating agencies will start to downgrade the United States, as Standard & Poor’s did in 2011. Chart 9Global Fiscal Drag Rears Its Head Democrats have full control of Congress and can therefore suspend the debt ceiling through a party-line vote. They can do this through regular legislation, if Republicans avoid raising a filibuster, though that requires Democrats to make concessions in a back-room deal with Republicans. Or they can compromise the filibuster, though that requires convincing moderate Democrats who support the filibuster that they need to make an exception to preserve the faith and credit of the US. Or they can raise the debt ceiling via budget reconciliation, though this would run up against the time limit and so far Senate Leader Chuck Schumer claims to refuse this option. While the odds of a debt default are not zero, the Democrats have the power to avoid it and will also suffer the most in public opinion if it occurs. Therefore the debt limit will likely be suspended at the last minute in late October or early November. Investors should expect volatility but should view it as short-term noise and buy on dips – i.e. the opposite of any volatility that stems from Chinese financial turmoil. Congress is likely to pass Biden’s $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill (80% subjective odds). It is also likely to pass a partisan social welfare reconciliation bill over the coming months (65% subjective odds). The full impact on the deficit of both bills should range from $1.1-$1.6 trillion over ten years. This will not be enough to prevent the fiscal drag in 2022 but it will provide for a gradually expanding budget deficit over the course of the decade (Chart 10). Chart 10New Fiscal Stimulus Will Reduce Fiscal Drag On Margin The reconciliation package will be watered down and late in coming. Investors will likely buy the rumor and sell the news. If reconciliation fails, markets may cheer, as it will also include tax hikes and pose the risk of pushing up inflation and hastening Fed rate hikes. Elsewhere governments are also providing “soft budgets.” The German election results confirmed our forecast that the government will change to left-wing leadership that will be able to boost domestic investment but not raise taxes. This is due to the inclusion of at least one right-leaning party, most likely the Free Democrats. Fiscal deficits will go up. Germany has a national policy consensus on most matters of importance and thus can pass some legislation. But the new coalition will be ideologically split and barely have a majority in the Bundestag, so controversial or sweeping legislation will be unlikely. This outcome is positive for German markets and the euro. Looking at popular opinion toward western leaders and their ruling coalitions since the outbreak of COVID-19, the takeaway is that the Europeans have the strongest political capital (Chart 11). Governments are either supported by leadership changes (Italy, Germany) or likely to be supported in upcoming elections (France). The UK does not face an election until 2024, unless an early election is called. This seems doubtful to us given the government’s strong majority. Chart 11DM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 Chart 12EM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 After all, Canada called an early election and it became a much riskier affair than the government intended and did not increase the prime minister’s political capital. Spain is far more likely to see tumult and an early election. Japan’s election in November will not bring any surprises: as we have written, Kishidanomics will be Abenomics by a different name. The implication is that after November, most developed markets will be politically recapitalized and fiscal policy will continue to be accommodative across the board. In emerging markets, popular opinion has been much more damning for leaders, calling attention to our expectation that the aftershocks of the global pandemic will come in the form of social and political instability (Chart 12). Russia has a record of pursuing more aggressive foreign policy to distract from its domestic ills. The next conflict could already be emerging, with allegations that it is deliberately pushing up natural gas prices in Europe to try to force the new German government to certify and operate the NordStream II pipeline. The Americans are already brandishing new sanctions. Chart 13Stary Neutral Dollar For Now Brazil and Turkey both face extreme social instability in the lead-up to elections in 2022 and 2023. India has been the chief beneficiary of today’s climate but it also faces an increase in political and geopolitical risk due to looming state elections and its increasing alliance with the West against China. Putting it all together, the US is likely to stimulate further and pump up inflation expectations. Europe is politically stable but Russia disrupt it. Other emerging markets, including China, will struggle with economic, political, and social instability. This is an environment in which the US dollar will remain relatively firm and the renminbi will depreciate – with negative effects on EM currencies more broadly (Chart 13). Annual Views On Track Our three key views for 2021 are so far on track but face major tests in the fourth quarter: 1. China’s internal and external headwinds: If China overtightens policy and short-circuits the global economic recovery, then its domestic political risks will have exceeded even our own pessimistic expectations. We expect China to ease fiscal policy and do at least the minimum to secure the recovery. Investors should be neutral on risky assets until China provides clearer signals that it will not overtighten policy (Chart 14). 2. Iran is the crux of the US pivot to Asia: A crisis over Iran is imminent since Biden did not restore the 2015 nuclear deal promptly upon taking office. Any disruption of Middle Eastern energy flows will add to global supply bottlenecks and price pressures. Brent crude oil prices will see upside risks relative both to BCA forecasts and the forward curve (Chart 15). Chart 14Wait For China To Relax Policy Chart 15Expect A Near-Term Crisis Over Iran The reason is that Iran is expected to reach nuclear “breakout” capability by November or December (i.e. obtain enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear device). The Biden administration is focused on diplomacy and so far hesitant to impose a credible threat of war to halt Iranian advances. Israel’s new government has belatedly admitted that it would be a good thing for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal – if not, it supports a global coalition to impose sanctions, and finally a military option as a last resort. Biden will struggle to put together a global coalition as effective as Obama did, given worse relations with China and Russia. The US and Israel are highly likely to continue using sabotage and cyberattacks to slow Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Chart 16Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Chart 17Europe: A Post-Trump Winner? Depends On China Thus the Iranians are likely to reach breakout capability at which point a crisis could erupt. The market is not priced for the next Middle East crisis (Chart 16). Incidentally, any additional foreign policy humiliation on top of Afghanistan could undermine the Biden administration more broadly, in both domestic and foreign policy. 3. Europe benefits most from a post-pandemic, post-Trump world: Europe is a cyclical economy and is also relatively politically stable in a world of structurally rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. We thought it stood to benefit most from the global recovery and the passing of the Trump administration. However, China’s policy tightening has undermined European assets and will continue to do so. Therefore this view is largely contingent on the first view (Chart 17). Investment Takeaways Strategically we maintain a diversified portfolio of trades based on critical geopolitical themes: long gold, short China/Taiwan, long developed markets, long aerospace/defense, long rare earths, and long value over growth stocks. Taiwanese equities have continued to outperform despite bubbling geopolitical tensions. We maintain our view that Taiwan is overpriced and vulnerable to long-term semiconductor diversification as well as US-China conflict. Our rare earths basket, which focuses on miners outside China, has been volatile and stands to suffer if China’s growth decelerates. But global industrial, energy, and defense policy will continue to support rare earths and metals prices. Russian tensions with the West have been manageable over the course of the year and emerging European stocks have outperformed developed European peers, contrary to our recommendation. However, fundamental conflicts remain unresolved and the dispute over the recently completed Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany could still deal negative surprises. We will reassess this recommendation in a future report. We are booking gains on the following trades: long Mexico (8%), long aerospace and defense in absolute terms (4%), long EU industrials relative to global (4%), and long Italian BTPs relative to bunds (0.2%).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Appendix: Geopolitical Calendar

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Sep 30, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI -1.89% -3.15% Top Contributors   EOG:US NFG:US CBRE:US CQP:US ESGR:US Weekly Return 15 bps 10 bps 4 bps 3 bps 3 bps Top Detractors   MRNA:US GOLF:US IT:US TGT:US GOOG.L:US Weekly Return -53 bps -23 bps -20 bps -17 bps -16 bps Top Prospects   ANAT:US ESGR:US TX:US GOOG.L:US WAT:US BCA Score 94.97% 94.96% 94.82% 94.25% 93.48% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -1.35% -1.80% Top Contributors   PXT:CA IMO:CA TOU:CA WN:CA L:CA Weekly Return 24 bps 22 bps 20 bps 10 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   GIB.A:CA NVEI:CA CSU:CA CRON:CA TOY:CA Weekly Return -23 bps -22 bps -17 bps -17 bps -15 bps Top Prospects   ELF:CA LNF:CA CS:CA RUS:CA IGM:CA BCA Score 98.19% 95.55% 95.03% 94.95% 94.00% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI -2.22% 0.20% Top Contributors   GLTR:GB TEP:GB ROSN:GB CNE:GB NVTK:GB Weekly Return 19 bps 15 bps 15 bps 14 bps 5 bps Top Detractors   MXCT:GB BBOX:GB SGRO:GB KLR:GB TRMR:GB Weekly Return -40 bps -24 bps -23 bps -21 bps -17 bps Top Prospects   VVO:GB AGRO:GB SVST:GB BPCR:GB N91:GB BCA Score 99.60% 99.07% 98.78% 97.49% 97.49% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI -2.61% -3.15% Top Contributors   RDSA:NL EDNR:IT MVV1:DE BFF:IT FLUX:BE Weekly Return 26 bps 14 bps 13 bps 8 bps 2 bps Top Detractors   HLAG:DE MELE:BE IPS:FR BSL:DE ALTA:FR Weekly Return -71 bps -26 bps -25 bps -24 bps -23 bps Top Prospects   094124453:BE FSKRS:FI SOL:IT STR:AT HLAG:DE BCA Score 99.87% 99.77% 99.75% 99.22% 98.95% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.41% 0.12% Top Contributors   5021:JP 8334:JP 9436:JP 9543:JP 3468:JP Weekly Return 20 bps 14 bps 14 bps 12 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   6960:JP 4928:JP 3132:JP 4544:JP 4966:JP Weekly Return -22 bps -21 bps -11 bps -9 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   6960:JP 9882:JP 9728:JP 4928:JP 9436:JP BCA Score 99.93% 99.66% 99.51% 99.28% 99.05% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI -0.70% 0.32% Top Contributors   2686:HK 1735:HK 182:HK 1277:HK 6118:HK Weekly Return 105 bps 80 bps 62 bps 22 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   1967:HK 710:HK 316:HK 323:HK 329:HK Weekly Return -102 bps -63 bps -39 bps -32 bps -24 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 746:HK 857:HK 323:HK 3306:HK BCA Score 100.00% 99.80% 98.86% 98.38% 98.07% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.31% -0.65% Top Contributors   MMS:AU YAL:AU SGF:AU GRR:AU SXY:AU Weekly Return 35 bps 21 bps 16 bps 15 bps 15 bps Top Detractors   UWL:AU AVN:AU AST:AU AGL:AU BXB:AU Weekly Return -27 bps -10 bps -9 bps -9 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   MHJ:AU ZIM:AU AVN:AU ADI:AU PL8:AU BCA Score 99.44% 99.21% 98.90% 98.75% 98.71%

Highlights The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Consumer complaints of “poor buying conditions” mean that higher prices will cause demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond yield is no higher than 1.8 percent. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary versus the market, given the very tight connection between weaker spending on durables and the underperformance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary sector. Commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those whose prices have corrected. Hence a new cyclical recommendation is to go underweight tin versus iron ore. Fractal analysis: Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, and AUD/NZD. Feature Chart of the Week"Buying Conditions Are Poor" The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Getting this diagnosis right is crucial, because responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. Responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. The current burst of inflation cannot be due to a demand shock. If it was, aggregate demand would be surging. But it is not. For example, in the US, both consumer spending and income lie precisely on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-2). Furthermore, consumers are complaining that high prices for household durables, homes, and cars have caused “the poorest buying conditions in decades”, according to the University of Michigan’s latest consumer sentiment survey. If a positive demand shock was boosting incomes relative to prices, consumers would not be making this complaint. Given that they are making this complaint, there is the real risk of demand destruction. Meanwhile, employment remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, in the US, by about 8 million jobs (Chart I-3). How can demand be on trend, but employment so far below trend? As an economic identity, the answer is that productivity has surged. Yet this should come as no surprise, because after recessions, productivity always surges. Chart I-2Demand Is On Trend... Chart I-3...But Employment Is Well Below Trend After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges As we explained in What The Olympics Teaches Us About Productivity Growth, productivity growth comes from better biology (which improves both our physical and intellectual capacity), better technology, and finding better ways to do the same thing. Of these three drivers, the first two are continuous processes but the third, finding better ways to do the same thing, is a step function whose up-steps come after disruptive changes in the economy such as recessions (Chart I-4). Chart I-4After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges To do things better, a recession is the necessary catalyst for the wholesale adoption of an existing technology. For example, the mass manufacturing of autos already existed well before the Great Depression, but the Depression catalysed its wholesale adoption. Likewise, word processors existed well before the dot com bust, but the 2000 recession finally killed the office typing pool. In the same way, the technology for remote meetings and online shopping has been around for years, but the pandemic has catalysed its wholesale adoption. Of course, it is sub-optimal to meet people remotely or shop online all the time. But it is also sub-optimal to do these things in-person all the time. The most productive way is some hybrid of remote and in-person, which will differ for each person. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to find this personally optimal hybrid, and thereby to boost our productivity. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has reshaped the entire economy. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has forced us all to challenge our best practices. This is different from previous post-recession periods where transformations were focussed in one sector. For example, the 80s recession reshaped manufacturing, the dot com bust changed the technology sector, and the 2008 recession transformed the financial sector. By comparison, the current transformation is reshaping the entire economy. Yet, if productivity is booming, why has inflation spiked? The answer is that we have experienced a massive and unprecedented (negative) supply shock. It’s A Supply Shock, Not A Demand Shock To repeat, there has been no positive shock in aggregate demand. Yet there has been a massive shock in the distribution of this demand. Pandemic restrictions on socialising, interacting, and movement meant that leisure, hospitality, in-person shopping, and travel services were unavailable. As spending on services slumped, consumers shifted their firepower to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, durable goods (Chart I-5). Chart I-5A Massive Displacement In The Distribution Of Demand Led To Supply Shocks The problem is that modern supply chains have few, if any, built-in redundancies. They are always working ‘just in time’ and cannot cope with any surge in demand. To make matters worse, the type of goods in high demand also shifted: for example, from electronic goods during full lockdown – to cars when lockdowns eased, and people required local mobility. These shifting spikes in demand stressed and indeed snapped fragile supply chains, resulting in skyrocketing prices for durables. To assess the contribution to overall inflation, we need to gauge the deviation from the pre-pandemic trend. Relative to where they would have been, prices are higher by 0.5 percent for services, 1 percent for non- durables, but by a staggering 10 percent for durables. It follows that most of the current burst of inflation is due to the supply shock for durables (Chart of the Week). But now, consumer complaints that “buying conditions are poor” imply that high prices risk demand destruction as people wait for better conditions (lower prices) to make non-essential purchases. In any case, as we learn to live with the pandemic, the shock in the distribution of demand is easing. Meaning that the abnormally high spending on durable goods has a long way to fall. Furthermore, supply bottlenecks always clear as output responds with a lag. This risks unleashing a flood of supply just as higher prices have destroyed demand. Add to this mix a slowdown, or worse a slump, in China’s real estate and construction sector as we highlighted last week in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). And the irony is that, for many global sectors, there could be a demand shock after all but it would be a negative demand shock. Three Investment Recommendations As consumers’ current complaints of poor buying conditions testify, the higher prices that come from a supply shock eventually lead to demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with tighter policy, including the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The higher bond yields will, with a lag, choke demand just as the supply bottlenecks ease and unleash a flood of supply. Resulting in a deflationary shock for the economy, stock market, and commodities (Chart I-6). Chart I-6When Supply Shocks Ease, Prices Slump On this basis, we are making three investment recommendations: The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond is no higher than 1.8 percent, as we detailed in Stocks, Not The Economy, Will Set The Upper Limit To Bond Yields. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary plays versus the market, given the very tight connection between spending on durables and the relative performance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary plays in the stock market. As supply shocks always ultimately ease, those commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those commodities whose prices have corrected. Specifically, the price of industrial metals such as tin are at their most stretched versus iron ore in a decade (Chart I-7). Moreover, this fragility is confirmed by fractal analysis (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-7Tin Is Very Stretched Versus Iron Ore Chart I-8Tin Is Fragile Chart I-9Tin Versus Iron Ore Is Fragile Hence, as a new cyclical recommendation, go underweight tin versus iron ore. Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard, And AUD/NZD Are Susceptible To Reversal In pure entertainment plays, the strong outperformance of Netflix versus Activision Blizzard has been fuelled by the delta wave of the virus, which helped Netflix, combined with the Chinese crackdown on gaming companies, which weighed down the whole gaming sector including Activision. The gaming company was also hit by a discrimination lawsuit, which it has now settled. Fractal analysis suggests that this strong outperformance is now fragile. Accordingly, the recommended trade is to short Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard Is Susceptible To Reversal Meanwhile, in foreign exchange, the recent sell-off in AUD/NZD has reached fragility on the 130-day dimension which has reliably signalled previous reversal points (Chart I-11). Hence, the recommended trade is long AUD/NZD, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent. Chart I-11AUD/NZD Is Likely To Rebound   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations 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  

特別レポート

HighlightsSince 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance.There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon.In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples.Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US.The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.Feature Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities.In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar.We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are:Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency termsThe change in profit marginsThe impact of changes in capital structure and index compositionThe change in the trailing P/E ratioThe income return from dividendsThe impact of changes in foreign exchangeThe sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends.Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects.Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar Box II-1Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares OutstandingWe proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects.However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period.What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services.Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion.Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension…  Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition  Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally.The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US StocksWe present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis.Profit MarginsChart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.1 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation.But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.”On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors.Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems.In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive).Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize.Capital Structure And Index CompositionAs noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US.In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments.However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates.Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks?  Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers  Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years.Equity MultiplesThere are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close.Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange EffectAs a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance.The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance...  Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive  The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US StocksOver a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall.For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%.One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium.In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields.This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades  Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time  We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.2In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US.Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era.Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.Jonathan LaBerge, CFAVice PresidentThe Bank Credit AnalystFootnotes1  Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

The BCA Score factor model, the quantitative pillar of the Equity Analyzer platform, is built around a core of factors that aim to optimize risk-adjusted returns in systematically rebalanced portfolios. In particular, the low volatility and low beta factors, which tend to reduce the aggregate standard deviation of portfolios, are crucial for lowering the denominator (and thus boosting the value) of our primary risk-adjusted measure, the Sharpe ratio. However, during strong equity bull markets, a low volatility tilt can come at the expense of excess returns relative to benchmark, especially in a large cap stock universe. In this insight, we explore how a straightforward use of the Beta factor scores can improve the performance of BCA score strategies during these phases. Understanding Sharpe Although convenient, the simple Sharpe ratio represents only one type of utility function for investors. While it does simultaneously measure historical reward versus risk in a single metric, it does not necessarily differentiate between a safe, defensive portfolio and a riskier, high-beta portfolio. Consequently, a low-risk strategy with a Sharpe ratio greater than or equal to that of a benchmark index can still be subject to periods of negative excess returns, especially during equity bull markets. With regards to the BCA Score model, we have found that this can be an issue within the global large-cap universe (top 25% by market cap.), where the BCA Score factor return premium is lower compared with the small and mid-cap segments.1 In this size segment, portfolios constructed around the BCA Score tend to have excellent downside protection relative to cap-weighted market indices, but struggle when markets heat up. This is reflected by a few key portfolio statistics that typically arise during large-cap backtesting, namely, a strong Sharpe ratio, low beta (less than 1.0), but an upside benchmark capture ratio below 50%.2 To improve this situation, we can target the Beta factor itself when setting up our backtest parameters. Targeting The Beta  Score Mathematically speaking, if we can raise the aggregate beta of our portfolio relative to benchmark, we should be able to improve the upside performance of the portfolio (though likely at the expense of some downside protection). Fortunately, since BCA Score strategies already excel when the benchmark is struggling, we can sacrifice some of this downside protection by selecting stocks with more exposure to the broad market. Since the Beta factor ranks a stock’s sensitivity to our global cap-weighted market index, it’s an obvious target for raising the aggregate beta of any strategy relative to a cap-weighted benchmark. Recall that within the BCA Score ranking system, lower beta stocks are assigned a higher score. Therefore, if we filter out stocks scoring highly on beta as part of our stock selection process, we can increase our overall exposure to the broad market. As further empirical evidence that targeting the Beta factor could be beneficial for large firms, we observed that post GFC (2009-03-31 to present), the top decile of low beta stocks underperformed the MSCI World Index on average (Chart 1). This is characteristic of a prolonged bull market where the downside protection offered by Beta does not come into play as frequently. Despite this, over the same period the Sharpe ratio of the Beta top decile surpassed that of the MSCI World index due to a constant and steady growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Beta Across Cycles Chart 2Recent Beta Performance Implementing Higher Beta  Portfolios As mentioned above, our goal is to increase the aggregate beta of our BCA Score strategies to capture more upside in the broad market. To achieve this when backtesting EA strategies, we can add a Beta score entry filter in “Step 3 – Selection Strategy” of a backtest configuration (Figure 1). The filter shown in Figure 1 will ensure that stocks in the top 30% by Beta score (ranked globally) will not enter the portfolio. Figure 1Beta Score Filtering To test the effectiveness of this filter, we created a sample large-cap strategy using the EA Backtest module, and swept through different values of the Beta entry condition ranging from 50% to 100%. The base strategy is equal-weighted, rebalanced monthly, and selects the top 100 by BCA Score from a universe of the top 500 global stocks by market cap. The portfolio aims to be representative of a general strategy that picks a subset of the top ranking stocks from a pool of large-cap firms. The key statistics from the portfolio simulations are presented in Table 1. We can interpret the results as follows: Adding a Beta score entry filter with decreasing threshold increases the aggregate beta of the portfolio relative to benchmark. Higher beta portfolios have lower Sharpe ratios but more consistent outperformance when the benchmark is up (Upside Capture). Lower beta portfolios have higher Sharpe ratios but more consistent outperformance when the benchmark is down (Downside Capture). The cumulative performance (CAGR) of the base portfolio (without beta restrictions) is still highest over the entire sample, however, high beta portfolios have had stronger returns during the latest market cycle. Table 1Beta Breakdown*   Overall, we can conclude that allowing for higher beta stocks to enter the portfolio has been beneficial for large-cap portfolios over the last ten years. Investors in this space who wish to achieve better tracking relative to cap-weighted indices may consider tilting their portfolios in this direction using a Beta filter when screening or building strategies. In support of this, BCA Research’s 12-month outlook on equity markets is bullish as monetary policy remains easy, lockdowns continue to ease, and inflation shows signs of cresting. On the other hand, we caution that straying too far from the defensive nature of the model increases the risk of heavy drawdowns during market corrections. Current risks to the equity market include stretched valuations in the S&P500, the collapse of Evergrande in China, and the risk that inflation does not subside as expected. Considering these two sides, it is therefore sensible to take a middle-of-the-road approach when using Beta to take on more market exposure in a screen or stock strategy. Footnotes 1    The effect of company size on factor returns is demonstrated in Chart 1 of the Documentation section: https://ea.bcaresearch.com/#/docs/performance  2    The benchmark capture ratios can be accessed via the “Performance” tab when viewing backtest results.    

Highlights Evergrande has not only crossed regulatory gridlines but also regulators’ bottom lines; the government will use the example of Evergrande to impose discipline on real estate developers. The policy response will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers to minimize systemic risks and damage to the real economy. However, a bigger risk stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy. The existing policy restrictions on China’s housing sector will not be reversed; the sector is on a structural downshift and will face risks of further consolidation and profit growth compression. Feature China Evergrande Group continues to stir up the global markets. Last Thursday the company missed a deadline to pay USD $83.5m in bond interest. The firm has now entered a 30-day grace period; it will default if that deadline also passes without payment. Chart 1Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Evergrande has not remarked on the potential default nor have China’s authorities or state media offered any clues about a potential rescue package. Meanwhile, the PBoC injected large amounts of liquidity into the banking system of late, a clear sign of support for the markets. Evergrande share prices continued their roller-coaster ride (Chart 1). Evergrande’s tumult is indicative of an industry-wide problem.  Real estate developers have expanded their businesses and profits through high-debt growth models. China’s policymakers have been trying to crack down on this business practice since 2017 and their clampdown has significantly intensified since August 2020. In this report, we follow up on last week’s Special Alert and share our thoughts on the potential market implications and policy response to the evolving Evergrande situation. The “Three Red Lines” Versus The “Bottom Lines” Evergrande has not only crossed the “three red lines” – three debt metrics China’s authorities laid out a year ago to reduce the housing sector’s leverage – but it has also crossed the bottom lines of policymakers. Therefore, we do not expect the government to lend a financial hand to bail out the corporation and its shareholders. Meanwhile, as discussed in our Special Alert, we expect that there will be some kind of a rescue plan to help onshore homebuyers and suppliers recover their losses. The authorities’ silence in the past three months as investors’ concerns about Evergrande’s debt situation escalated speaks volumes about plans for the overleveraged company. The Evergrande episode is not idiosyncratic; it represents an industry-wide problem linked to the sector’s high-debt growth model.  However, Evergrande has become China’s and the world’s most indebted property developer; the “three red lines” policy last year has pushed the company into a severe liquidity crunch.  Evergrande not only borrowed heavily to pursue an aggressive expansion strategy (“disorderly expansion of capitals”), but did so as President Xi Jinping famously remarked “houses are for living, not for speculation” in late 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, Evergrande’s total liabilities almost doubled and its stock prices jumped by 460%. Evergrande’s founder was ranked the richest man in China in 2017, building his company’s fortune on excessive leverage. The way that the company accumulated wealth conflicts with the government’s new mantra of building “common prosperity”, a policy shift to reduce income and wealth inequality. Furthermore, Evergrande paid its offshore investors in June this year while it continued to borrow from onshore banks and offload its onshore assets. This move did not bode well for China’s domestic stake- and shareholders, along with policymakers. Chart 2Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities In contrast with policymakers’ silence about the future of Evergrande and its shareholders, the authorities have reportedly urged the company to finish and deliver its housing projects.  Evergrande’s projects are mostly in tier-three cities where post-pandemic home price inflation has been subdued compared with top-tier cities (Chart 2). As such, policymakers will be less concerned about fueling home prices in these cities and more willing to work out a plan to finish and deliver those housing projects. Bottom Line: Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande rather than its shareholders. Contagion Risks We discussed our baseline scenario for Evergrande’s bankruptcy and restructuring in last week’s Special Alert. Our message has been that the well-telegraphed Evergrande default might not create an imminent systemic crisis or crash in China’s financial markets. However, it will likely reinforce the credit tightening that has been underway in China over the past 12 months.  This will delay and weaken the transmission of liquidity easing into the real economy. So far things are not bad enough for policymakers to reflate the economy in any meaningful way. Since the contagion risks from Evergrande’s debt crisis to China’s onshore financial markets seem to be contained, policy easing in the coming months will likely be gradual. Regulators have shown no sign of reversing the existing policy restrictions. Therefore, a bigger risk to China’s financial markets stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a spillover to other segments in the economy. Real estate activity and investment in China are set to slow structurally (discussed in the section below). If policymakers allow a disruptive deceleration in the sector's growth while being reluctant to ramp up support in other industries, China’s economic growth could downshift much more than policymakers would like to see. A rapid deceleration in the real economic activity and jitters in the financial markets could reinforce each other and spiral out of control. The facts below explain why risks of an imminent systemic crisis in China’s and global financial markets are limited (Table 1): The exposure of China’s banks to real estate developers is small relative to the banks’ total lending.  Although about 40% of total bank loans are property-related, only 6% are in loans to real estate developers. The majority of the 40% is in mortgage loans, construction loans and other loans collateralized by land and property. Evergrande’s outstanding bank debt accounts for less than 0.1% of China’s total onshore loan balances. The company owes about 1% of China’s existing trust loans and 0.04% of domestic bonds. The company has quality assets, as we discussed in last week’s report, that could cover most of its onshore outstanding debt. Widespread mortgage loan defaults are unlikely to happen, even if Evergrande does not strike a debt restructuring deal with the government. Strict housing and home-sale regulations cap the upside and limit the downside in home prices. Moreover, conservative loan-to-value ratio requirements have contributed to China’s low default rates on mortgage loans.1 Evergrande’s overseas liabilities are more significant, with its USD $20 billion bonds accounting for about 10% of China's corporate USD bonds issued by real estate developers. On the other hand, major US financial institutions have minimal direct exposure to China and Hong Kong SAR. Table 1Evergrande Debt, An Overview* Despite limited systemic risks to the financial markets, a lack of government intervention could result in a disruptive bankruptcy of the company, risking substantial ripple effects on other parts of the economy. Evergrande’s accounts payable and bills amount to nearly RMB 700 billion, owed to companies in the upstream and downstream industry supply chains.  In addition, Evergrande’s contract liabilities are as high as RMB 170 billion and are associated with the pre-sold but unfinished residential units in more than 200 cities. We think policymakers and Evergrande will ultimately agree on a debt restructuring plan. Evergrande could transfer some of its hard assets to state-owned banks or enterprises and the banks could either extend or restructure Evergrande’s existing loans to help finish and deliver the company’s housing projects. Regardless of how the debt is restructured, a government-led rescue will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers. Evergrande shareholders and investors in offshore, USD-denominated corporate bonds will suffer large losses. Bottom Line: Our base case scenario is that the government will restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. Will Policymakers Reverse Restrictive Housing Policies? Even though China’s monetary and fiscal policies have eased at margin, policy restrictions on the property market remain in place. The bar for regulators to significantly ease or to reverse policy tightening in the real estate industry is much higher than in past cycles. Furthermore, the government’s efforts to contain the sector’s leverage and home price inflation are structural rather than cyclical. Our view is based on the following observations: Chart 3China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China’s housing demand is on a structural downshift due to China’s falling birthrate and working-age population.  The decline in demand will likely accelerate in the next four to five years (Chart 3). Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the growth in real estate investment in the coming years will continue growing at the same rate as in the past cycles.  The government is determined to improve housing affordability by capping home prices in the coming years while increasing lower-income household wage growth. Previous “big bang” stimulus and soaring home prices have widened rather than narrowed income and wealth inequality. Beijing’s current primary focus is “common prosperity,” which aims to reduce inequality. This overarching policy initiative will prevent policymakers from backtracking on reforms in the property sector. Things are not bad enough for a major shift in policy direction. Demand for housing is down, but from a very elevated level (Chart 4). The growth of home sales is now reverting to its pre-pandemic rate. In a previous report we pointed out that the current policy backdrop resembles that of 2H2018 and 2019, when the stimulus was very measured despite a slowing economy and an escalating trade war with the US. Demand for housing in the first eight months of this year is stronger than in 2018/19, thus policymakers may not feel pressure to loosen restrictions in the housing sector.  Chart 4Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Chart 5Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Growth in real estate investment has been steady despite contracting housing starts (Chart 5).  The government’s deleveraging pressure on the sector since August last year has forced developers to hurry and finish their existing projects (Chart 5, bottom panel). This has helped to reduce developers’ project inventories and discourage them from hoarding land reserves, and the policy intention is unlikely to change (Chart 6). Additionally, the government has prioritized home price stability by capping prices and fine-tuning the supply of land (Chart 7). In other words, housing starts have become less market-driven and weaker readings may reflect regulators’ policy intentions to rein in land supplies.2 Local governments may increase the supply of land when real estate investment softens too fast, but home sales and project completions will have to decelerate more significantly. Chart 6Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Chart 7Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Funding constraints will not be removed soon and restrictive policies apply to both developers and banks. Banks need to meet the “two red lines” while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. The “two red lines”, which the PBoC unveiled in January this year, set the upper limit on the portion of household mortgages and real estate loans in banks’ total lending.  Despite aggressively scaling back lending to the housing sector, the lending ratio in many banks – including China’s six large banks and various medium-sized banks – still exceeded the upper limit. These banks will have to continue to reduce their property-related lending while the other banks will maintain a lower percentage of loans to the housing sector than in the past. Consequently, binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years, suggesting that the property market downturn will last longer than in previous cycles. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to have much appetite for more robust construction activity in the current environment with supply-side constraints for both raw materials and energy. More than 10 provinces in China are currently under power rationing and have cut factory production amid electricity supply issues and a push to enforce environmental regulations. We expect supply shortages and production decreases to continue through the winter, limiting the upside potential of the country’s economic activity. Bottom Line: China’s reforms in the property sector are structural and the leadership is much less likely to use housing as counter-cyclical policy support to the economy than in previous cycles. Investment Implications China’s growth and its ever-important property market activity have slowed. Given the policymakers’ higher pain threshold for a slower economy and lower appetite for leverage, policy easing will likely be gradual and piecemeal in the near term. The current monetary, fiscal, and industry policy backdrops resemble China’s response in H2 2018 and early 2019. Chinese stock prices rose briefly in early 2019 on the expectation of a sizable stimulus, but the rally was short-lived (Chart 8). Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility that policymakers will be overconfident in their capability to stabilize the economy as they balance structural reforms against growth volatility. They may choose to wait until there are signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy before backtracking the deleveraging campaign in the property sector and lending more support to the market/economy. In this scenario, the near-term response in the equity market will likely be very negative. China-related asset prices will not stabilize until policymakers decisively and significantly dial-up their reflationary response. Property sector stocks in China’s on- and offshore markets have been beaten down by policy tightening and lately the Evergrande saga (Chart 9). We maintain our view that these stocks have not reached their bottom. The property downturn in China is a structural change and authorities are unlikely to reverse current restrictions on the sector to support the economy. Chart 8Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chart 9Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom The real estate sector’s contribution to China’s economic growth is expected to gradually decline in the medium to long term. The industry will be further reformed and consolidated, and more developers will be forced to abandon their high-leverage, high-growth business expansion model. The outlook for the real estate industry’s profit growth will become less certain.  Investors will require higher risk premiums for real estate sector stocks, which means that these stocks’ valuations will be further compressed.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Chinese homeowners’ down payment ratios on a first property is 30% and 50% on a second property. 2Land auctions were delayed in July and August due to overwhelming demand from developers in the first half of the year. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance