Developed Countries

We first separated the SPX in the S&P 5 vs. the S&P 495 in late-July, and showed how a handful of tech titan stocks dominated S&P 500 returns especially since 2015. This was part of our drilling deeper in the concentration of returns, and roughly a month later these tech stocks peaked. Since early September, the S&P 495 has trounced the S&P 5 outperforming to the tune of 15%. We deem there are more gains in store and our “Back-To-Work” basket vs. the “COVID-19 Winners” basket pair trade (already up 24% since the September 8 inception) along with the small vs. large (we initiated a small size bias on October 26) breakout corroborate the message that returns are broadening out. What could short-circuit this ongoing shift from lopsided returns to more even returns? A relapse in the 10-year Treasury yield back to 60bps. Such a setback would bring to the forefront the allure of tech shares as lower interest rates boost valuations of the longest duration sector in the SPX: tech stocks. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend investors rebalance portfolios away from tech titans and toward their brethren the still beaten down deep cyclicals energy, industrials and materials sectors.  

Highlights President Trump’s final actions and the US fiscal impasse pose non-trivial risks to the rally. Biden’s foreign policy cabinet picks have limited impact but are mildly positive for now. Biden’s multilateralism will eventually conflict with the need to get things done. Continuities with Trump foreign policy are underrated. The RCEP trade agreement is not a game changer but a pro-trade shift in the US would be. Europe is a clear winner of the US election but continental politics risk will pick up next year from today’s lows. Book profits on select risk-on trades, but go strategically long GBP-EUR. Feature Global financial markets are surging on a raft of good news. We are booking some gains as we expect the rally to be capped in the near term either by Trump’s final actions as president or by the US fiscal impasse. First, the good news. The US power transition is officially under way, reducing US policy uncertainty. The popular vote within the critical battleground states acted as a restraint on the Republican Party’s ability to dispute the results or appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.1 Chart 1US And Global Policy Uncertainty Falling President-Elect Joe Biden is preparing the US for a return to rule by experts. This will not prevent grand policy errors in the future but it will give confidence to the market today. Biden is nominating a slate of White House advisers and cabinet members who are traditional Democrats or left-leaning technocrats. For example, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen looks to serve as Treasury Secretary, longtime Biden and Barack Obama adviser Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State, and former Hillary Clinton and Obama staffer Jake Sullivan as national security adviser. Biden may nominate a few far-left officials (e.g. for the Labor Department) but the most important positions are quickly filling up with conventional faces, a boon for financial markets. Democrats are unlikely to win control of the Senate on January 5 but even if they do their single-vote majority will probably be too small to enable any radical cabinet picks – or radical legislation.2 The downside is that spending will be constrained and monetary and fiscal policy will remain uncoordinated, regardless of Yellen’s unique ability to work with Fed Chair Jay Powell. With Biden reportedly leaning on House Democrats to cut a COVID fiscal relief deal, there is a 50/50 chance that a $500-$750 billion bill passes in the “lame duck” session of Congress prior to Christmas. This would be a positive surprise. We are not counting on a deal until the first quarter next year. Hence US policy uncertainty will remain elevated. Meanwhile global policy uncertainty could spike again as long as President Trump remains in office and seeks to achieve policy objectives on the way out. Biden does not take office until January 20, but over a 12-month horizon we see a clear case for cyclical sectors and European stocks to outperform defensive sectors and American stocks as a result of Biden’s trade peace dividend, i.e. eschewing sweeping unilateral tariffs (Chart 1). Chart 2Vaccine On The Horizon While COVID-19 spikes, consumer wariness, and partial lockdowns will weigh on fourth quarter economic activity, several vaccines are on the way. The latest wave of the outbreak is already rolling over in Europe, which bodes well for the United States (Chart 2). Again, the 12-month outlook is brighter than the near term. Over the long haul, investors also have reason to be optimistic about governance in the developed world. The takeaway from this year is that the US and UK, the two major developed markets that saw right-wing populist movements win big votes in 2016, and two governments whose handling of the pandemic was at best muddled, led the development of vaccines in record time to deal with an entirely novel coronavirus and global pandemic.3 The US constitutional system withstood a barrage of partisan assaults both from President Trump and his supporters and their opponents. The British constitutional system is handling Brexit. Most other developed markets also navigated the crisis reasonably well. Weaknesses were revealed, and there will be aftershocks, but the sky is not falling. Near term US policy uncertainty will remain elevated due to fiscal impasse. Bottom Line: The rise in global risk assets may overshoot on positive news, but the US fiscal impasse could undercut the rally, as could Trump’s parting actions over the next two months. Market Not Priced For Lame Duck Trump There is a fair chance of an American or Israeli surgical strike against Iran or its militant proxies to underscore the red line against nuclear weaponization. Financial markets are not prepared for a major incident of armed conflict. Neither Israeli nor UAE equities are priced for near-term risks to materialize. The same goes for UAE or Saudi credit default swaps (Chart 3). An even greater risk to financial markets comes from the Trump administration’s pending actions on China. Trump is highly likely to take punitive or disruptive actions against China. His major contribution to US foreign policy is the confrontation with China, which was also the origin of the coronavirus and hence his electoral defeat. Already since the election Trump has imposed sanctions on US investments in state-owned enterprises. China’s fiscal and quasi-fiscal stimulus is peaking at the moment. This provides some buffer for its economy and the global economy if Trump hikes tariffs or imposes sweeping sanctions. But there are signs of instability beneath the surface. Authorities have tightened interbank rates sharply and intervened to prevent asset bubbles. The country is seeing turmoil in the bond market as a result of these actions and ongoing economic restructuring (Chart 4). Chart 3Risk Of US Or Israeli Strike On Iran Chart 4Chinese Stimulus And Bond Market Volatility Once again the market is not prepared for another major shock in the US-China relationship. The People’s Bank has allowed the renminbi to appreciate drastically this year. This trend will reverse if President Trump punishes China. As China’s economic momentum wanes and a new US administration enters office, it would make sense to allow the currency to depreciate. After all, the Biden administration will expect the renminbi to appreciate just as all previous administrations have done, but the People’s Bank will not want the yuan to fall much below the ~6.2 level that prevailed just before the trade war started in early 2018 (Chart 5). Chart 5Renminbi Priced For Zero Trump Tariffs Biden’s Foreign Policy: Continuities With Trump It is too soon to speak of the “Biden Doctrine.” Cabinet appointments will have limited impact relative to geopolitical fundamentals. Neither Biden nor Blinken have a consistent theme to their foreign policy decisions. Michèle Flournoy may or may not be nominated as Defense Secretary. What is clear is that Biden is in favor of establishment national security policymakers who want the US to work more closely with allies and international institutions. Starting in January, this shift will make US foreign policy somewhat more predictable. On Iran, Biden will seek to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal prior to the June 18, 2021 Iranian presidential election, but he will also have reason to sustain the Arab-Israel rapprochement that the Trump administration initiated via the Abraham Accords. News reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu met with Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman along with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a “secret” meeting on November 23. The Saudis could eventually normalize ties with Israel, but only once an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is reached. The Democrats have a long-running interest in negotiating such a settlement. Progress can be made as long as the Saudis and Israelis do not try utterly to sabotage Biden’s Iran deal. They would risk isolation from American support – an intolerable risk for both states. An American détente with Iran combined with normalized Arab-Israeli relations would create something resembling a balance in the region, which is what the Biden administration needs in order to maintain the “pivot to Asia” that will be its dominant foreign policy agenda. Biden’s pivot to Asia will start with a diplomatic “reset” with China so that strategic dialogue can resume and areas of cooperation can be identified. As Chart 5 above shows, the market is priced for Biden to reduce tariffs back to their September 2018 level (25% on $50 billion of imports and 10% on $200 billion). Anything is possible, since tariffs are an executive decision, but we would not bet on Biden sacrificing all of his leverage when the US-China strategic tensions are fundamentally rooted in the US’s loss of global standing and China’s rejection of the liberal world order. What is clear is an emerging contradiction that Biden will eventually have to resolve between multilateralism and getting things done. The Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. If Biden relies on multilateral diplomacy to update and extend the Iranian nuclear deal, he will find it much more difficult to gain Russian and Chinese cooperation than Obama did. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s trade war have poisoned the well. If Biden does not give enough ground to get Russo-Chinese cooperation, then he will have to use unilateral American power (i.e. Trump’s maximum pressure policy) or just settle for rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal without any safeguards against ballistic missiles or militant proxies. The original deal expires in 2025. Chart 6Greater China Still Center Of Geopolitical Risk The same goes for Biden’s handling of Trump’s China policy. Biden wants to revive the World Trade Organization. But if he adheres to the WTO then he will have to rescind all of Trump’s tariffs, since they have been declared illegal. This will reduce his leverage on unresolved structural disagreements. Biden wants to reach out to the allies on how to handle China. It is not clear how he will respond to the Trump administration’s outgoing scheme to create an alliance of liberal democracies that would arrange to purchase each other’s goods and possibly implement counter-tariffs in response to Chinese boycotts, such as the one placed on Australia today. Biden may not adopt the scheme. But the alternative would be to leave states to succumb to China’s political boycotts, thus failing to build an effective multilateral response to China’s aggressive foreign policy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan reveals that the Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. Thus we expect the Biden administration to conduct a foreign policy that is tougher on China than the Obama administration, that retains most of the Trump tariffs and tech sanctions, and that more resolutely attempts to build a coalition to pressure China into adopting international liberal norms. This policy trajectory virtually ensures that Biden will have to adopt some of Trump’s policies. Chinese equities are not priced for this risk. The pronounced risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is just starting to be recognized (Chart 6). The risk to our view is a grand US-China re-engagement. This is possible, but we think the current trajectory of China will cause a new confrontation even if Biden is less hawkish than Trump. Bottom Line: Financial markets are underrating Chinese/Taiwanese political and geopolitical risks, both from Trump’s lame duck period and from Biden’s pivot to Asia. Did China Just Take Charge Of Global Trade? Several clients have written to ask us about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a large new free trade agreement (FTA) signed by China and its Asian trading partners. RCEP is not a game changer but it is marginally positive for the global economy. Moreover it has the potential to ignite a new round of trade agreements, for instance by provoking the US (and the UK) to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. RCEP is a traditional free trade agreement that will cut tariffs by an average of 90% for its members. Membership includes China, Japan, South Korea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia, and New Zealand. It has not been ratified and will take ten years to fully implement after ratification. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing-oriented East Asian nations have reflexively responded to global shocks and slowdowns by deepening their trade integration. RCEP shows that this trend remains intact. China is the only member of the pact that is seeing trade grow at the moment – the others are still seeing declines due to the global recession but are hoping to increase nominal growth by removing trade barriers (Chart 7). RCEP is also notable because it is China’s second multilateral trade deal (the first was the China-ASEAN FTA). Beijing normally prefers bilateral deals where its size gives it the advantage, but it is trying to demonstrate greater willingness to work multilaterally. President Xi Jinping has rhetorically positioned himself as an advocate of free trade and multilateralism on the global stage, despite his pursuit of import substitution and state industrial subsidies at home. As long as China continues expanding trade with others it will smooth the painful restructuring of its manufacturing sector and blunt some of the criticisms about mercantilism. Ironically it is Japan’s decision to join, rather than China’s, that makes RCEP distinct. Japan did not have an FTA with South Korea and it was the only member of RCEP that did not already have a free trade deal with China. (Japan also lacked a deal with New Zealand.) This decision is not new but reflects the paradigm shift in Japanese national policy that began after the global financial crisis of 2008. In 2011, Japan signed an FTA with India. Thereafter Abenomics supercharged international trade and investment policies as part of the “third arrow” of pro-growth structural reform, which Abe’s successor Yoshihide Suga is continuing. So why is RCEP not a game changer? Because all of these countries other than Japan already have FTAs with each other and their tariff rates are already quite low. Moreover there is nothing particularly advanced about RCEP. It is a traditional deal focused on trade in goods and does not really attempt anything groundbreaking with services, or to incorporate new industries, lay down standards for labor or environment, or remove non-tariff barriers. Contrast the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the trade deal originated by the United States for Pacific Rim countries that attempts to do all these things, but was hobbled by the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from it. The real significance of RCEP is that even as it shows continuity in Asian economic policy, with China at the center, it will also provoke new deal-making. Now that China, Japan, and South Korea are joining a single trade agreement, they will have a foundation on which to move forward with their long-delayed trilateral FTA. These developments will provoke the Biden administration into rejoining the CPTPP, which in turn would create a new higher standard type of trade bloc that has the potential to attract democracies into a high-standards bloc that excludes China. Biden will also revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European counterpart to the Pacific deal. On the campaign trail, Biden said that he would “renegotiate” Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to rejoin it, a Trumpian formulation. This is feasible. After the US withdrawal, the various members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership modified the deal (dubbing it the CPTPP) to remove provisions that the US had insisted on and restore provisions that the US had demanded they remove. But they will gladly readmit the US now that Trump is gone, creating a trade bloc of comparable size to RCEP but with much more ambitious aims (Chart 8). The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others will be interested in joining. But China can only join if it embraces liberal reforms that are at odds with its new five-year plan, including reduced support for state-owned enterprises. Chart 7Weak Trade Prompts Asian Trade Deal Chart 8Putting RCEP Into Perspective The Republican Senate will be required to get approval for CPTPP, which is an obstacle, but Biden’s secret weapon is that the CPTPP has special appeal for Republicans precisely because it excludes China. Pro-trade moderates will find common cause with China hawks. As long as Trade Promotion Authority is renewed by the deadline on July 1, 2021, then the US can rejoin CPTPP on a simple majority vote. This is precisely how Republicans ratified Trump’s USMCA (the revised NAFTA). Trump also signed a trade deal with Japan, revealing that even under Trump’s leadership the US agreed to TPP-like deals with its biggest trading partners within the CPTPP (Canada, Mexico, Japan). More broadly, Trump’s experiment with protectionism has revealed that American attitudes toward global trade are not uniformly hostile. Polls show that Americans are generally pro-trade, and while they are skeptical that global trade creates jobs and higher wages, they are mostly skeptical of business-as-usual with China.4 Geopolitically, the US will not be able to stand idly by while China increases its sphere of influence in Asia. Therefore we should expect the Biden administration to pursue the CPTPP and other trade initiatives. The GOP Senate is the key constraint but it is not utterly prohibitive. Bottom Line: China and Asia continue to expand trade in the face of economic slowdown. The US Senate will be the key bellwether for US trade initiatives in 2021-22, but the geopolitical need to counter China will likely force the US to rejoin the CPTPP. Strategically we are long CPTPP equities – which includes some key RCEP members – as well as RCEP equities like South Korea. Chinese equities have already rallied a lot this year due to the country’s better handling of the pandemic and quicker economic recovery – they also face headwinds from US policy. Whereas emerging Asia equities ex-China, relative to all global equities, have plenty of catching up to do and will be beneficiaries of a global recovery in which both the US and China are courting them. Not Too Late To Go Long Pound Sterling The Brexit finale is approaching as the UK and EU enter the eleventh hour in their negotiation of a post-Brexit trade deal for the period after December 31, 2020. The market expects the UK, which is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa, to capitulate to an agreement that prevents a 3% tariff hike on all of its exports to the EU. This hike would occur if the UK-EU relationship reverted to WTO Most Favored Nation status. Boris Johnson promised in the Conservative Party manifesto to negotiate a trade deal and won a resounding single-party majority in December 2019. This gives him the room to marginalize hard Brexiteers and get a deal passed in parliament. The pound has rallied by 1.45% against the dollar since the beginning of the year and it is now rallying against the euro, moving off the “hard Brexit” lows (Chart 9), suggesting that the market is tentatively anticipating a trade deal. Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Failing to get a trade deal would require Johnson to break the EU withdrawal deal, since that deal requires a system of trade checks on the Irish Sea that introduces a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Johnson has no incentive to stick to this deal if he does not have privileged access to the EU’s single market. But then a hard border of physical customs checks would arise on Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland. This would not only aggravate relations with Ireland and the EU but would alienate the incoming American administration, which would view it as a violation of the US-brokered Good Friday Agreement (1998) and refuse to agree to a trade deal with the UK. Irish equities are not behaving as if a 3% tariff on all imports from the UK is about to take effect (Chart 10). Both GBP-USD and Irish equities have considerable downside if the deal falls through. The fact that the GBP-EUR appreciation is slight suggests less downside and more upside here. Subjectively we have argued there is a 35% chance that the UK will quit the EU “cold turkey” at the end of the year. The cost of more than $6 billion in foregone trade, which would grow each year, is not prohibitive. The economy is already subsisting on monetary and fiscal stimulus due to COVID-19. Boris Johnson does not face an election until 2024. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. Northern Ireland is not likely to leave anytime soon but 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. Support for independence meets resistance at 50% of the population (Chart 11), but an economic shock stemming from a failure to get a trade deal would push it above the limit (given that 62% of Scots never wanted to leave the EU in the first place). Chart 10Irish Equities Already Priced UK Trade Deal Chart 11Scotland Drives UK Toward A Trade Deal Johnson has the ability to conclude a deal, avoid an economic shock on top of COVID, keep the Scots in the union, and then set about overseeing his government’s mammoth economic recovery plan. His popularity is tenuous enough that the other pathway is not only more economically costly but also more likely to get him unseated and potentially to burden him with the legacy of being the last prime minister of a united kingdom. Bottom Line: It is not too late to go long GBP-EUR. A near-term global risk-off move would work against this trade but it is a strategic opportunity. Low EU Political Risk Will Pick Up In 2021 In our annual outlook for 2020 we highlighted how the EU was relatively politically stable while its geopolitical competitors – Russia, China, even the US – were far from stable. Today this is still the case – Europe’s political fundamentals are fine. But risks are rising due to partial COVID lockdowns, fiscal risks, and the approach of a series of important elections from now through 2022. A major problem for the global economy is the looming contraction in fiscal deficits in 2021 as economies step down from this year’s extraordinary fiscal stimulus measures. This downshift will be especially disruptive for the US, UK, and Italy due to the size of their stimulus packages, resulting in a fiscal drag of 5% of GDP if no additional measures are taken. But even Germany, France, and other EU members face at least a 2.5% of GDP contraction (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Adding more fiscal support should be feasible in a world where the Fed and ECB are maintaining ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future and the EU has agreed to allow mutualized debt issuances. Germany has embraced deficit spending in the wake of the austerity-laden 2010s, which brought significant populist challenges to the European political establishment. However, developed market economies are still highly indebted, a constraint on deficits, and those with political blockages could still have trouble passing large enough spending measures to remove the impending fiscal drag. The US faces gridlock in 2021 and therefore its fiscal cliff is a significant headwind to financial markets. One positive factor in providing fiscal support thus far is that, with the exception of Spain and the UK, European leaders and ruling coalitions have received a bounce in popular opinion this year (Chart 13). Chart 13EU Leaders’ Approval Bounced – Now What? Mark Rutte and his People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) have benefited more than other countries but the combined support for opposition parties is rising ahead of the March 17, 2021 general election (Chart 14, top panel). A leading anti-establishment candidate has dropped out of the race. Fiscal measures will depend on the election. Chart 14Will EU Elections Really Be A Cakewalk? Chart 15European Risk To Rise On Looming Elections The German and French governments have also seen a bounce in support but need to maintain it for a longer period, as they have elections due by October 24, 2021 and May 13, 2022 respectively. French President Emmanuel Macron can still summon majorities in the National Assembly, despite losing his single party majority, and has sidelined his structural reform agenda to boost the economy. Germany is also capable of passing new measures, and has time to do so before momentum wanes amid the contest to succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel. The leadership race in the ruling Christian Democratic Union will at least raise hawkish rhetoric (Chart 14, middle panels). But markets will be placated by the fact that popular opinion is not pro-austerity at present, and the alternative to the CDU is a fiscally profligate left-wing coalition consisting of the Greens, Social Democrats, and possibly the anti-establishment hard-left, Die Linke. Spain and Italy have the least stable governments, are the likeliest to see snap elections, and thus could surprise the market with fiscal risks. Both governments lack a strong mandate and rule over a divided political scene. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has seen a swell of support but he is a fairly non-partisan character and his coalition has been flat in opinion polling. It is less popular than the combined right-wing opposition, which is striving for power ahead of the fairly consequential 2022 presidential election. In Spain, not only has popular approval dropped, but the Socialist Party and the left-wing Podemos run a minority government, meaning that there is potential for gridlock to increase fiscal risk (Chart 14, bottom panels). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections (Chart 15). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections. The silver lining is that Brussels, Berlin, and the wider political establishment have become fundamentally more accepting toward budget deficits during times of distress. The ECB and European Commission Recovery Fund provide a combined monetary and fiscal backstop. Negative interest rates on debt enable fiscal largesse with minimum implications for sustainability. And none of these elections raise systemic risks regarding EU and EMU membership, other than conceivably Italy. So while fiscal risk will become more relevant in 2021, it is not a problem while COVID is still raging, and there are better chances of maintaining a fiscally proactive policy than at any previous time over the past two decades. Bottom Line: European elections and a looming fiscal drag will keep EU political risk from collapsing after the latest round of lockdowns ease. Biden And Emerging Market Strongmen Most of the emerging market strongmen – Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro – have increased their popular support this year, benefiting from national solidarity in the face of crisis. The exception is Narendra Modi, who is struggling (Chart 16). Still, Modi has a single-party majority and four years on the election clock, and is thus more stable than Bolsonaro, who fundamentally lacks a political base despite his bounce in polls, and Erdogan, whose increase in support will fade amid a host of domestic and international challenges ahead of the 2023 elections. The US election will have limited impact on these leaders. None of them have good relations with the Democratic Party and some were openly pro-Trump. But this is only marginally negative and may not have concrete ramifications. The key is that the Biden administration will be more conducive toward a global trade recovery, will relax restrictions on immigration, will favor US diversification away from China, and will put pressure on authoritarian regimes. Chart 16Strongman Popularity Boost Will Fade Other things being equal, Biden is therefore positive for India, neutral for Brazil and Turkey, and negative for Russia. Our GeoRisk Indicators suggest that political risk has peaked for Brazil and Russia and equities could bounce back, but we think Russian political risk will surprise to the upside (Chart 17). Chart 17Political Risk Still High In Emerging Markets In the case of Russia, the Biden administration will take a more confrontational approach than previous presidents, including Obama and Bush as well as Trump. However, it still needs to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and extend the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia through 2026, so the pro-democracy pressure campaign will have to be balanced with negotiations. Russia, for its part, is increasingly focused on the need for domestic stability, at least until Biden makes concrete steps with NATO that threaten Russian core interests. Bottom Line: Emerging market political risk is high, the vaccine will arrive more slowly, and the Biden administration will take a tougher approach toward authoritarian regimes. This creates an opportunity for India but a risk for Russia, and is neutral for Brazil and Turkey. Strategically we are constructive on EM equities but in the near 0-3 month time frame all bets are off. Investment Recommendations With clear near-term political and geopolitical risks, and extremely elevated equity prices and sentiment, we think it is a good time to book some profits. We are closing our long global equities relative to bonds trade for a gain of 27%. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Global Aerospace/Defense Stocks We are closing our long investment grade corporate bonds relative to similarly dated Treasuries for a gain of 15%. We are closing our long China Play Index trade for a gain of 7% in recognition that China’s stimulus is nearing its peak while the Trump administration will take punitive measures in his final two months. We will also retain our long gold trade. Gridlock in the US government is not reflationary but gold is still attractive due to geopolitical risk. Strategically we recommend going long GBP-EUR. We also recommend reinitiating a strategic long position in defense stocks. Specifically, global aerospace and defense stocks relative to the broad market (Chart 18). We have been long defense stocks since 2016 but COVID decimated the trade. The coming vaccines promise to reboot the aerospace part of this trade while there was never any reason to doubt the strong basis for global defense spending amid geopolitical great power struggle.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   We Read (And Liked) … Black Wave “What happened to us?” Black Wave seeks to answer the cardinal question facing both Middle Easterners and those looking into the Middle East from the outside.5 It takes us back four decades to events that shaped the region and walks us through time and space, politics, religion, history and culture, to where we stand – in the crosshairs of the very clash that started it all. Few are better equipped than author Kim Ghattas in doing so. A native of Beirut, she grew up amid the Lebanese civil war, living the events that created the post-1979 Middle Eastern reality. Later, she spent two decades covering the Middle East as a journalist for the BBC and Financial Times. A term first coined by Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, “black wave” characterizes the religious tide that swept Egypt in the 1990s from the Persian Gulf – one that Chahine saw as alien to Egyptians. Instead he argued that while Egyptians had always been very religious, they also had joie de vivre – enjoying art, music, talent, all taboos according to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Iranians in the late 1970s were not much different from Egyptians in the 1990s. At the time, they were unified in their opposition to the Pahlavi dynasty for being too Western and corrupt. As an exile in the sacred Iraqi city of Najaf and later in the French village of Neauphle-le-Chateau, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s speeches were capable of inspiring minds, galvanizing support, and gathering crowds. He was the right character, at the right time, but with the wrong ideas. Ideologically, Khomeini was an outsider in Najaf. The Iraqi clergy considered him too politically involved and his vision of wilayat al-faqih – a state based on Islamic jurisprudence – did not have widespread appeal. It was dismissed as outlandish by those around him who aimed to take advantage of his widespread appeal for their own gains, while hoping to limit Khomeini’s ideological influence on his audience. This proved to be a grave disregard for Iranians. 1979 was also a transformative year for Saudi Arabia. The young monarchy faced a national awakening as Juhayman al-Otaybi staged a siege on the Muslim world’s most sacred site, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It was the first act of terrorism in opposition to Western influence – the birth of Saudi extremism – and was echoed in subsequent acts of violence in the kingdom, in 1995 and later in 2003. Fearing the spread of political Islam, the House of Saud responded by emphasizing Wahhabism, Riyadh’s homegrown Islamic movement, by empowering clerics and religious authorities. The quid pro quo was that the clerics supported the monarchy from both internal and external threats. The clash between the Iranian Revolution and Saudi Wahhabism in 1979 gave rise to the first sectarian killings. The 1987 Sunni-Shia clash in Pakistan marked the beginning of the modern day Sunni-Shia divide, spreading through Pakistan and eventually the Middle East to Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Today, as youth across the Middle East struggle in despair of the aftermath of these events, Ghattas sees hope. Protests ringing from Beirut to Baghdad call for a post sectarian political system. The Saudi monarchy is relaxing its puritanical grip, and a new generation brings newfound hope of rectifying past miscalculations. We ultimately agree with Ghattas’s optimism that these changes are hopeful indications that the people of the Middle East are ready to shift gears and move past the conflicts that have dominated the past four decades. However, there are other forces at play and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is still a dominant feature of the region’s geopolitical landscape. True, Ghattas’s account not only highlights how deeply engrained the conflict is, but also that the early signs of tidal shifts can be easily missed. But we cannot ignore the specter of near-term risk facing the Middle East that continue to challenge its economic and political ascent. Thus, from an investment standpoint, we favor a more cautious approach and remain on the lookout for a better entry point once the near-term manifestation of these long-standing hurdles are overcome.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court could still rule that Pennsylvania should have stuck with its November 3 deadline for ballots, but such a ruling would not change the outcome of the election. As with Florida following the disputed election in 2000, the various states’ electoral systems will likely be stronger as a result of this year’s polarized contest and narrow margins. 2 Biden could use the Vacancies Act or recess appointments to ram through his cabinet picks, but it would be controversial and at present he looks to be taking advantage of the Republican veto to nominate center-left figures that are more ideologically lined with his lane of the Democratic Party. 3 US-based Moderna developed one vaccine while US-based Pfizer and Germany-based BioNTech developed another. The Anglo-Swedish company AstraZeneca jointly developed its vaccine with Oxford University. Vaccine trials were administered across these countries and others, including South Africa, India, Brazil, and the entire global health care and pharmaceutical supply chain contributed. 4 See Pew Research. 5 Kim Ghattas, Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 2020), 377 pages. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil   Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights New recommendation: Go neutral growth versus value on a 6-12-month horizon… …and exploit the greater opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe. Within the growth universe, overweight healthcare versus technology. New recommendation: Within the value universe, overweight utilities versus banks. Downgrade tech-heavy Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Upgrade utilities-heavy Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal trade: Overweight Portugal versus Italy. Feature Chart of the WeekBank Profits In Structural Decline Last week, Fed Chair, Jay Powell explained: “We’re not going back to the same economy. We’re going back to a different economy.” What will the different economy look like? We will only really know when the pandemic ends and short-term palliatives like government-funded job furlough schemes and rent and debt payment moratoriums are removed. Only then will we get the true price discovery to know which activities, jobs, and debts are viable and which are not. At the very least, the now widespread acceptance of remote working, remote shopping, and remote business meetings means that city centres, bricks and mortar retailers, and business aviation will become pale shadows of their former selves. This is worrying because the retail sector, on its own, employs 10 percent of all workers. Furthermore, economic shocks give impetus to structural changes that were already underway. Case in point, the UK government has just announced a ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The lockdowns gave the British people the taste of clean air, and the British people liked it, so the government accelerated its initiative to abolish fossil fuels. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, there are two ways that sectors go bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly. A Textbook Market Slump… But Will We Get A Textbook Recovery? During an economic slump and the subsequent recovery, three fundamental drivers shape the evolution of stock prices. The first two drivers are well understood by any student of Financial Markets 101, but the third driver is not so well understood. More on that later. The first well understood driver of stock prices is the outlook for near-term profits. During a slump, the profits of ‘defensive’ sectors that are insensitive to fluctuations in the economy, outperform those of ‘cyclical’ sectors that are sensitive to the economy. For example, during this year’s slump, the profits of defensive healthcare remained remarkably resilient, whereas the profits of cyclical banks collapsed by 30 percent (Chart I-2). During the recovery, this should reverse, says the textbook. Cyclical profits should outperform defensive profits. Chart I-2Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? The second well understood driver of stock prices is the discount rate applied to long-term profits. The present value of long-term profits is highly sensitive to the (inverted) bond yield. As discussed last week, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity at ultra-low bond yields. When the bond yield collapses to an ultra-low level, the present value of long-term profits surges. This favours ‘growth’ sectors like technology, whose profits are weighted to the distant future, versus ‘value’ sectors like utilities, whose profits are weighted closer to the here and now. ‘Cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, but markets do not always follow the textbook. During this year’s slump, the near-term profits of technology and utilities performed similarly (Chart I-3). But when the bond yield collapsed and boosted the value of long-term profits, the multiple paid for near-term profits surged by 20 percent for technology, while remaining unmoved for utilities (Chart I-4). When the bond yield rises, this relative move should reverse, says the textbook. Value sector multiples should outperform growth sector multiples. Chart I-3Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Chart I-4But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities So far, so good. The student of Financial Markets 101 will tell you that ‘defensive growth’ stocks outperform when the economy slumps, and bond yields collapse. Whereas ‘cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, and bond yields rise. Yet as we all know, the real world is not that simple. Financial markets do not always follow the textbook. Major Economic Shocks Can Destroy Industries One real-world complication to the textbook recovery is that the bond yield might not be able to rise meaningfully before causing a relapse in the economy. This could be because of a high structural level of debt, a high structural level of unemployment, or a high structural level of risk-asset valuations. Any one of these three structural fragilities would make the economy incapable of tolerating a higher bond yield. Yet today the worry is not one fragility, it is all three of the above! Still, even if the bond yield cannot rise meaningfully, it might not fall much either, making the choice between value and growth unclear. The other real-world complication to the textbook is that major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. The point that Jay Powell made last week, and which forms the title of this report. Major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. This brings us to the third – less well-understood – driver of stock prices during and after a slump: the structural change in the sector’s long-term profit outlook. For some sectors, the long-term profit outlook phase-shifts down. Meaning that even if the bond yield does not keep falling, value sectors could continue to underperform as the collapse in their long-term profits gets recognised. For example, after oil and gas profits reached an all-time high in 2008, each slump has been followed by a progressively lower subsequent peak (Chart I-5). European banks look even worse. In the recovery following each slump since 2008, profits have regained only a third of the preceding slump’s losses. This implies that after each slump, the long-term profit outlook for the banks is phase-shifting down (Chart of the Week). Chart I-5Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Hence, European banks have failed to generate sustained outperformance in any recovery, even though the textbook says that as ‘cyclical value’ stocks, they should. Only a brave person would bet that it will be any different this time (Chart I-6). Chart I-6European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery The Big Opportunities Are Within The Growth And Value Universes After a major economic shock, a structural change in a sector’s long-term profit outlook renders any backward-looking valuation framework obsolete. In such cases we cannot use mean-reversion to inform our investment strategy, because the past will be a poor guide to the future. As European banks have taught us for fifteen years, it is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. It is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. Right now, there is a much smarter investment strategy. Go neutral growth versus value, and exploit the bigger opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe where mean-reversion strategies are more justified. Specifically, within the growth universe, the valuation premium on technology versus healthcare is at its highest level since 2009 (Chart I-7). Even more extreme, the US technology versus US healthcare valuation premium is approaching the peak of the dot com bubble (Chart I-8). Hence, we reiterate last week’s recommendation. Chart I-7The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... Chart I-8...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak Go overweight healthcare versus technology. The regional and country allocation implications are to go overweight healthcare-heavy Europe versus technology-heavy Emerging Markets. And within Europe, to go overweight healthcare-heavy Denmark and Switzerland versus technology-heavy Netherlands. The upshot is that today we are downgrading Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Turning to the value universe, the performance of cyclical banks versus defensive utilities just tracks the bond yield (Chart I-9). This means that the recent snapback rally in banks versus utilities needs higher bond yields for support. Absent a sustained rise in bond yields, the rally is fragile and vulnerable to reversal. Chart I-9Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Yet as we explained last week, the 10-year T-bond yield can rise by only 30 basis points or so before undermining the broad stock market. On this basis, we are making a new recommendation. Go overweight utilities versus banks. Within Europe, the implication is to go overweight utility-heavy Portugal versus bank-heavy Spain and Italy (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks The upshot is that today we are upgrading Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal Trading System* Fractal analysis confirms that Portugal’s underperformance is approaching a potential reversal point if bond yields do not rise meaningfully. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is overweight Portugal versus Italy. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.6 percent. In other trades, long coffee versus corn achieved its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-11MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights US Corporates: The decision by the US Treasury to let the Fed’s emergency lending programs expire does not sound the death knell for the bull market in US corporate debt. Credit markets are functioning normally and US economic growth remains resilient, even amid a surge in COVID-19 cases, with politically unpopular European-style lockdowns unlikely. Global Corporate Strategy: Remain moderately overweight developed market corporate debt, favoring the US over the euro area. Look to increase allocations to lower-rated US high-yield credit on any near-term spread widening, as there is more room for junk spread compression over the next 6-12 months as defaults peak. Feature When looking at the 2020 year-to-date total returns from global corporate credit, the performance at first blush has not been terrible. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Investment Grade Corporate index has returned 8.2% since the start of the year, while the benchmark global high-yield index has returned 3.6%. While the bulk of those returns have come from duration exposure as global bond yields have fallen sharply, a passive allocation to corporate bonds on January 1 has been a money-making investment in 2020. Chart of the WeekUS Credit Markets Need Less Policymaker Support Of course, a lot has happened since the beginning of the year. A global pandemic, a historically severe global recession, a massive selloff of risk assets in February and March and an equally robust recovery of equity and credit markets on the back of huge monetary and fiscal stimulus. It should come as no surprise that the 2020 peak in US corporate bond spreads occurred on March 23 – the day that the Fed and US Treasury introduced asset purchase vehicles designed to support stricken US credit markets. This is why the announcement last week that outgoing US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has decided to let those emergency lending facilities expire on December 31, with the Fed returning the US Treasury’s capital invested in those programs, is potentially of major significance for credit investors. It is reasonable to think that credit markets could suffer without the Fed’s involvement. The growth and market liquidity backdrop, however, has improved substantially over the past several months. US corporate bonds can live, and likely thrive, without the Fed backstop. The US economy remains surprisingly resilient, with the November flash estimate for the Markit composite PMI index reaching the highest level since 2015. This occurred even in the midst of a huge surge of global COVID-19 cases that has weighed heavily on European economies (Chart of the Week). Add to that signs that corporate bond markets are functioning smoothly - investors are willing to commit capital to credit markets, and borrowers are having no problem placing large volumes of debt at low yields and spreads – and it is easy to conclude that Fed’s explicit support is no longer required. The growth and market liquidity backdrop, however, has improved substantially over the past several months. US corporate bonds can live, and likely thrive, without the Fed backstop. From the point of view of corporate bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend a moderate overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds over the next 6-12 months, favoring US investment grade and high-yield over European equivalents, even with the Fed pulling away its bid. Steve Mnuchin May Have A Good Point Even though Fed Chair Jerome Powell publicly disagreed with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s decision, the Fed will shut down the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility, the Municipal Liquidity Facility and the Main Street Lending Program on December 31. Those facilities are part of the US government support programs under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The US Treasury seeded the facilities with $195 billion in capital, which the Fed levered up to create as much as $2 trillion in buying power (Table 1). Yet the actual usage of that spending capacity has been quite low, with only $13.3 billion spent in the Fed’s secondary market facility. Not a single dollar was spent in the primary market facility, as companies had no problems issuing debt directly to markets rather than selling new bonds to the Fed. Table 1US CARES Act Programs: Little-Used, But Highly Successful According to data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the pace of monthly US corporate bond issuance and daily trading volumes are now following the typical seasonal pattern seen over the past two years (Chart 2). This occurred after a surge of issuance activity in Q2 as issuers took advantage of the vastly improved trading conditions in corporate bond markets after the initiation of the Fed’s liquidity backstop. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin noted these trends in his letter to Fed Chair Powell that was essentially an order to shut down the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.1 Chart 2US Credit Markets Are Functioning Normally Chart 3No Stomach For Nation-Wide Lockdowns In The US US credit markets are not only functioning well, so is the US economy. The Markit US services PMI rose in November to 57.7 (from 56.9 in October), while the same index fell to 41.3 (from 46.9) in the euro area and 45.8 (from 51.4) in the UK (Chart 3). As services industries like dining, travel and retail spending are most directly impacted by lockdowns related to COVID-19, it should not be a surprise that the data underperformed massively in Europe, where severe economic restrictions have been imposed to slow the spread of the virus. This compares to the US where the restrictions have been far more modest and varying across cities and regions. The pace of monthly US corporate bond issuance and daily trading volumes are now following the typical seasonal pattern seen over the past two years. Some slowing of US domestic economic activity should be expected over the next month or two, with more parts of the country putting greater restrictions on activities like indoor dining and in-person schooling. However, the political will to impose the sort of harsh nation-wide “shelter at home” type lockdowns currently in place in Europe is simply not there in the US after the shock of the Q2 lockdown-induced economic slump. US growth should thus continue to outperform – to the benefit of US corporate bond market performance relative to US Treasuries and European corporate equivalents. US corporate bond yields, both for investment grade and high-yield credit, have already declined massively in 2020, as have yields for European credit and even emerging market bonds (Chart 4). Given our view that US Treasury yields have bottomed and will likely drift higher over the next 6-12 months, it will be difficult to see further declines in corporate bond yields that are already near record lows. Chart 4Corporate Yields Falling To New Lows Chart 5Corporate Spreads Approaching 2020 Lows Corporate bond spreads, on the other hand, do have room to compress even just to levels seen before the February/March credit market rout – especially for US high-yield. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for the Bloomberg Barclays US investment grade index is now 17bps away from the 2020 low, while the OAS for the euro area and UK are 7bps and 8bps away, respectively. For high-yield, the US index OAS is 107bps above the 2020 low, compared to 95bps for euro area high-yield and 81bps for UK high-yield (Chart 5). The near-term economic case for favoring US corporates over European corporates is a strong one, given the slightly larger spread cushions for US credit and the absence of large-scale US lockdowns.  Given the severity of the lockdown-induced economic slump in the euro area and UK, which is likely to linger over the holiday season and into the early part of 2021, the near-term economic case for favoring US corporates over European corporates is a strong one, given the slightly larger spread cushions for US credit and the absence of large-scale US lockdowns. Bottom Line: The decision by the US Treasury to let the Fed’s emergency lending programs expire does not sound the death knell for the bull market in US corporate debt. Credit markets are functioning normally and US economic growth remains resilient, even amid a surge in COVID-19 cases, with politically unpopular European-style lockdowns unlikely. A Quick Look At Corporate Bond Spread Valuations In The US & Europe The tremendous rally in global corporate bond markets since late March has pushed credit spreads down to levels that raise concerns about valuations. Thus, it is now a good time to revisit some of our favorite spread valuation metrics. One simple way to evaluate the attractiveness of the level of spreads, and how much further they could fall, is to compare them to standard macro volatility gauges like the US VIX index. Credit spreads and equity volatility are highly correlated, as both are measures of investor uncertainty that rise during risk-off episodes and vice versa. The ratio of corporate credit spreads to equity volatility, therefore, can signal if spreads appear stretched relative to the broader risk backdrop. Chart 6US Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol Chart 7Euro Area Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol We show the ratio of the US investment grade and high-yield index OAS to the VIX index in Chart 6. For both higher-quality and lower-rated corporate credit, the spread-to-VIX ratio is now close to the lowest level seen since 2000 – both around 1.7 standard deviations below the long-run mean – suggesting that spreads are tight relative to overall macro volatility We show similar ratios for euro area corporates versus the VStoxx European equity volatility index in Chart 7, and UK corporates versus the IVI UK equity volatility index in Chart 8. The conclusions are similar to US credit, with spread-to-volatility ratios for both investment grade and high-yield now at low levels, one standard deviation below the mean since 2000. Chart 8UK Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol Chart 9Notable Duration Differences Between Corporates It is difficult to draw any relative conclusions about credit valuations between the regions from the spread/volatility ratios, as they all point to spreads looking tight. Thus, we need to look at other valuation tools. Our more preferred metric to assess credit spreads is to look at the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. The 12-month breakeven spread is the amount of credit spread widening that must occur for a credit product to have a return equal to a duration-matched, risk-free government bond over a one-year horizon. We look at the historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spreads to determine how current levels compare with the past. It is difficult to draw any relative conclusions about credit valuations between the regions from the spread/volatility ratios, as they all point to spreads looking tight.  To calculate the 12-month breakeven spreads for corporate bonds, we take the ratio of the index OAS to the index duration for the specific bond market in question. This allows a comparison of breakeven spreads across different markets with varying risks, with duration being a main source of price risk (Chart 9). The 12-month breakeven spreads for the investment grade and high-yield corporate debt for the US, euro area and UK are shown in Charts 10, 11 and 12, respectively. For the US, the breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is currently in the bottom decile of its history, suggesting that the spread does not look particularly attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. Chart 10US Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Chart 11Euro Area Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Chart 12UK Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Euro area and UK investment grade breakeven spread percentile rankings are a bit higher than in the US, right on the cusp of the bottom quartile for both. Although for euro area corporates, the breakeven spread is boosted by the much lower duration of the euro area investment grade index and does not necessarily suggest that spreads there are currently more attractive than in the US and UK. Turning to junk bonds, the US high-yield 12-month breakeven spread is currently in the 67th percentile of its own history, suggesting that spreads are relatively attractive. The UK high-yield breakeven spread is also above average, with the latest reading in the 55th percentile. Euro area high-yield is the least attractive, with the latest 12-month breakeven spread in the 33rd percentile of its own history. Taking the 12-month breakeven spread as a measure of value (and, hence, a gauge of prospective future returns), we can compare it to a measure of spread volatility to evaluate the risk/return tradeoff for various credit markets. To measure spread risk, our preferred metric is duration times spread (DTS). We show a scatter chart of the latest 12-month breakeven percentile ranking for the overall US, UK and euro area corporate bond markets – for investment grade and high-yield, and including all the major credit rating tiers – in Chart 13. The most attractive trade-off of valuation versus spread risk is currently in the lower rated US junk bond tiers (B-rated and Caa-rated). Chart 13Comparing Value (Breakeven Spreads) With Risk (Duration Times Spread) Chart 14A Lingering Positive Impact On Credit Markets From Global QE What stands out in the chart is that the most attractive trade-off of valuation versus spread risk is currently in the lower rated US junk bond tiers (B-rated and Caa-rated). At the other end of the spectrum, US investment grade offers one of the least attractive risk/reward tradeoffs. This suggests a potential attractive opportunity to move down in quality within US corporate debt, particularly with ultra-accommodative global monetary policies providing a lingering tailwind for global corporate bond performance over the next 6-12 months (Chart 14). We prefer scaling into that trade on any bouts of US high-yield weakness, however. There are still near-term risks associated with the rapid spread of COVID-19 in the US and the lack of momentum on US fiscal stimulus negotiations during the transition period to the new Biden administration. Turning across the Atlantic, euro area high-yield looks far less attractive than US high-yield on a risk/reward basis. This fits with our current recommendation to underweight euro area junk bonds versus US equivalents (see our strategic recommendation tables on page 14). We also continue to recommend an overweight stance on UK investment grade corporates, which still offer a slightly more attractive risk/return tradeoff versus US equivalents. Bottom Line: Remain moderately overweight developed market corporate debt, favoring the US over the euro area. Look to increase allocations to lower-rated US high-yield credit on any near-term spread widening, as there is more room for junk spread compression over the next 6-12 months as defaults peak.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Mnuchin’s letter to Powell can be found here: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/letter11192020.pd Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns