Developed Countries

Highlights Financial markets are now fully priced for an economic downturn lasting one quarter… …but they are not fully priced for a recession. To go tactically long equities versus bonds requires a high conviction that the coronavirus induced downturn will last no longer than one quarter. The big risk is that the coronavirus incubation period might be very long, rendering containment strategies ineffective. Hence, a better investment play is to go long positive yielding US T-bonds and/or UK gilts versus negative yielding Swiss bonds and/or German bunds… …or go long negative yielding currencies versus positive yielding currencies. Our favoured expression is long CHF/USD. Fractal trade: overweight Poland versus Portugal. Feature Chart I-1AFinancial Markets Are Priced For A One-Quarter Downturn... Chart I-1B...But Not For A ##br##Recession They say that when China sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. But the saying was meant as an economic metaphor, not as a literal medical truth.1 The current coronavirus crisis has two potential happy endings: ‘containment’, in which its worldwide contagion is halted; or ‘normalisation’, in which it becomes accepted as just another type of winter flu. The virus crisis also has a potential unhappy ending in which neither containment nor normalisation can happen. Containing Contagion To determine whether the virus crisis has a happy or unhappy ending, we must answer three crucial questions: 1. Does the virus thrive only in cold weather? If yes, then the onset of spring and summer should naturally contain the contagion (in the northern hemisphere). We are not experts in epidemiology or immunology, but we understand that the Covid-19 virus surface is a lipid (fat) which could become fragile at higher temperatures. Albeit this might just be a temporary containment until temperatures drop again. 2. Does the virus have a short incubation period before symptoms arise? If yes, then quarantining and containment will be effective because infected people are quickly identified. But if, after infection, there is a long asymptomatic period, then containment would be impossible – because for an extended period the virus would be ‘under cover’. In this regard, the dispersion of infections is as important as the number of infections. A thousand cases across a hundred countries is much more worrying than a thousand cases concentrated in two or three countries (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Covid-19 Has Spread To 80 Countries 3. Are most infections going undetected because the symptoms are very mild? If yes, then the true mortality rate of the Covid-19 virus is much lower than we think, and perhaps not that different to the mortality rate of winter flu, at around 1 in a 1000. In which case, the new virus could become ‘normalised’ as a variant of the flu. But if the current mortality rate, at ten times deadlier than the flu, is accurate, then it would be difficult to normalise (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Covid-19 Mortality Rate Is Ten Times Deadlier Than The Flu. Or Is It? An unhappy ending to the crisis will happen if the answer to all three questions is ‘no’. The main risk is that the asymptomatic incubation period appears to be quite long, rendering containment strategies ineffective. Still, even if the happy ending happens, there are two further questions. How much disruption will the economy suffer before the happy ending? And what have the financial markets priced? The Economic Disruption The disruption to the economy comes from both the supply side and the demand side: the supply side because containment strategies such as quarantining entire towns, shuttering factories, and cancelling major sports and social events hurt output; the demand side because a fearful public’s reluctance to use public transport, visit crowded places such as shopping malls, or travel abroad hurt spending. In this way, both production and consumption will suffer a large hit in the first quarter, at the very least. However, when normal activity eventually resumes, production and consumption will bounce back to pre-crisis levels, and in some cases overshoot pre-crisis levels. For example, if the crisis lasts for a quarter, movie-goers will return to the cinemas as usual in the second quarter, albeit they will not compensate for the visit they missed in the first quarter; but for manufacturers, the backlog of components that were not made during the first quarter will mean that twice as many will be made in the second quarter. For the financial markets, it is not the depth of the V that is important so much as its length. Therefore, economic output will experience a ‘V’ (Chart I-4): a lurch down followed by a symmetrical, or potentially even larger, snapback. However, for the financial markets, it is not the depth of the V that is important so much as its length. Chart I-4Economic Output Will Experience A 'V' The Financial Market Disruption Anticipating the economy to experience a V, investors respond to the crisis according to the expected length of the V versus the different lengths of their investment horizons. By length of investment horizon, we mean the minimum timeframe over which the investor cares about a price move, or ‘marks to market’. Say the market expects the downturn to last three months, followed by a full recovery. A three-month investor, caring about the price in three months, will capitulate. He will sell all his equities and buy bonds. Whereas a six-month investor, caring about the price only in six months, will not capitulate because he will factor in both the down-leg and subsequent up-leg of the V. Meanwhile, a twelve-month investor will be completely unfazed by the short-lived downturn. Therefore, if the downturn lasts one quarter only, the market will bottom when all the three-month investors have capitulated, which is to say become indistinguishable in their behaviour from a 1-day trader. In technical terms, the tell-tale sign for this capitulation is that three-month (65-day) fractal structure of the market totally collapses. Last Friday, the financial markets reached this point, meaning that financial markets are now fully priced for an economic downturn lasting one quarter (Chart I-5). Chart I-5When 3-Month Investors Capitulate It Usually Signals A Trend-Reversal... However, six-month and longer horizon investors are still a long way from capitulation. Meaning that the markets are not yet priced for a recession – defined as a contraction in activity lasting two or more straight quarters. It follows that if the down-leg of the V lasts significantly longer than a quarter then equities and other risk-assets have further downside versus high-quality bonds (Chart of the Week). During the global financial crisis, three-month investors had fully capitulated by September 3 2008 when equities had underperformed bonds by a seemingly huge 20 percent. However, equities went on to underperform bonds by a further 50 percent and only found a bottom when eighteen-month investors had fully capitulated in early 2009 (Chart I-6). This makes perfect sense, because profits contracted for a full eighteen months (Chart I-7). Chart I-6...But In The Global Financial Crisis The Market Turned Only When 18-Month Investors Had Capitulated... Chart I-7...Because In The Global Financial Crisis, Profits Contracted For 18 Months All of which brings us to a very powerful investment identity: Financial markets have fully priced a downturn when the time horizon of investors that have fully capitulated = the length of the downturn. The message right today is to go tactically long equities versus bonds if you have high conviction that the coronavirus induced downturn will last no longer than one quarter. Given that the coronavirus incubation period appears to be quite long, rendering containment strategies ineffective, we do not have such a high conviction on this tactical trade. Central banks that are already at the limits of monetary policy easing cannot ease much more. Instead, we have much higher conviction that those central banks that are already at the limits of monetary policy easing cannot ease much relative to those that have the scope to ease. The conclusion is: go long positive yielding US T-bonds and/or UK gilts versus negative yielding Swiss bonds and/or German bunds. Conversely, go long negative yielding currencies versus positive yielding currencies. Our favoured expression is long CHF/USD (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Overweight Positive-Yielding Bonds, And Overweight Negative-Yielding Currencies Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to overweight Poland versus Portugal. Set the profit target at 3.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long EUR/GBP achieved its 2 percent profit target at which it was closed. And short palladium has quickly gone into profit, given that the palladium price is down 10 percent in the last week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-9Poland Vs. Portugal When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The original version of the metaphor is attributed to the nineteenth century Austrian diplomat Klemens Metternich who said: “When France sneezes all of Europe catches a cold”. Subsequently, the Metternich metaphor has been adapted for any economy with outsized influence on the rest of the world. Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Joe Biden is the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee following Super Tuesday. The onus is on Bernie Sanders to upset the race yet again. This is unlikely. Biden’s nomination is less market-negative than that of Sanders, but increases the risk of a Democratic Senate and hence tax hikes. The coronavirus threat to Trump’s reelection is two-pronged – and rising. Go long global equities ex-US on the basis that the virus fears will give way to public resilience and global stimulus. Feature A non-populist, non-protectionist candidate is emerging as the Democratic Party nominee for the US presidency – a positive development for global risk assets in 2020. Judging by preliminary results from the Democratic Party’s “Super Tuesday” primary elections, former Vice President Joe Biden has become the presumptive nominee, one of our key 2020 views. Our simple, back-of-the-envelope projection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 13-16 shows that as long as Biden maintains his average vote share thus far, he is narrowly on track to win a majority of pledged delegates and thus clinch the nomination by June (Chart 1).  Chart 1Projection Of Democratic Delegates To National Convention, Milwaukee, July 2020 The chief risk to our view – that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a left-wing populist, would run away with his momentum in February – has peaked. While Sanders won an average of 38% of the delegates on offer, he only won 28% of the popular vote, compared to Biden’s 44% of the delegates and 33% of the popular vote. The centrists as a bloc are outvoting the progressives and only two candidates are left. Ultimately Biden’s two-pronged path to victory in the Electoral College in November reinforces the Super Tuesday results, giving him greater electability and making him the likeliest victor of the Democratic Party primary. Super Tuesday Makes Biden Presumptive Nominee Biden racked up victories in key states including Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia. He is now the leader in delegates to the party’s national convention (Chart 2), the popular vote, the number of states won, and the biggest states. The exception is California, one of the country’s most left-leaning states, where Sanders won, albeit with the combined progressive vote less than 50%. The voting pattern shows that Democrats still prefer centrist candidates to left-wing or “progressive” candidates by 50% to 40% on average (Chart 3). With two candidates left, this dynamic should favor Biden. Chart 2The Delegate Count Thus Far Chart 3Popular Vote: Biden/Centrists Versus Sanders/Progressives Chart 4Super Tuesday And Beyond By winning Texas and sweeping the South, Biden is heavily favored to win Florida on March 17 – always one of his strong suits vis-à-vis Sanders and a sign of electability in November. But his surprise victories over Sanders in Minnesota and Massachusetts show that he is competitive in the Midwest and Northeast, meaning that he is also likely favored to come out on top in Michigan and Ohio on March 10. The same goes for Illinois, the home state of his 2008-12 running mate Obama, on March 17 (Chart 4). True, in Minnesota and Massachusetts Biden benefited from Senator Elizabeth Warren’s clearing the 15% threshold, thus subtracting from Sanders’s vote share and delegate share. Warren may or may not drop out of the race. Sanders needs to arrest Biden’s Super Tuesday bounce and convince Democratic voters that he is more electable against Trump than Biden. This is a tall order for March 10-17, but Sanders has performed as well or better than Biden in the Northeast and Midwest as a whole, and these are the two regions that yield the most delegates in the rest of the primary (Chart 5).  Biden’s centrist rivals dropped out of the competition after his big win in South Carolina on February 29. His remaining centrist rival, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, suffered a humiliating defeat – pulling in Aspen, Colorado and Napa Valley California along with American Samoa despite spending over $400 million in advertisements (Chart 6). As we have argued, it takes votes, not just money, to win elections. Chart 5The Battle For The Northeast And Midwest Chart 6Bloomberg’s Folly It is a two-man race. If Biden can beat Sanders surrounded by competitors, then the onus is on Sanders to change the game from here. Otherwise Biden wins. Bottom Line: Biden is the likeliest winner. We will have to see another drastic change in momentum for this outcome to be overturned. Sanders’s underperformance on Super Tuesday suggests that his challenge to our base case (a centrist nomination) has peaked.    A Contested Convention? Still Unlikely Chart 7Biden’s Super Tuesday Bounce The coalescing of the centrist and progressive blocs, combined with a likely Super Tuesday bounce, will put Biden back in the lead in national polling (Chart 7). A contested Democratic convention remains unlikely, though it cannot be ruled out. Biden and Sanders are racing neck-and-neck for delegates and another twist in the race could deprive Biden of the simple majority of pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination. The problem for Sanders is that in a close delegate matchup, a centrist candidate is favored to come out with the nomination. VIX futures suggest that this outlook is priced in, as they are falling for July (the month of the convention) relative to June (the conclusion of the primary election). Volatility induced by the primary election should gradually subside from now through July. Volatility will spike with the conventions in July mostly because of the uncertainty over the general election, and it should also pick up in September and October ahead of the November 3 vote. The spike in volatility that is always to be expected in the October ahead of a presidential election should continue increasing relative to July (Chart 8).   How can we be confident? The combination of the party establishment and the alternate or “reformist” centrist faction should be sufficient to overwhelm the combined “progressive” or anti-establishment bloc. Biden could fail to win the nomination on the first ballot, but the pro-establishment “super delegates” (party stalwarts who are not pledged to any particular candidate) would have the ability to swing subsequent ballots either in his favor or in favor of an alternate centrist (Chart 9). From a game-theoretical point of view, a sequential voting procedure is deadly to Sanders. His only hope was to rack up such a strong plurality in the primaries that he could take the convention by force. That is now unlikely. Chart 8VIX, Rightly, Not Pricing Contested Convention Chart 9Which Way Will The Super Delegates Swing? Even without a contested convention – and certainly with one – the Democratic Party could suffer from internal divisions that affect its challenge to the Republicans in November. The closer Sanders comes to Biden in delegate count, and especially if he should lead Biden yet still lose the nomination, the more his supporters will cry foul. In that case the party would send anywhere from 30%-40% of its voters away feeling disenfranchised. The worst-case scenario for the Democrats would be a convention troubled by open partisan rancor and social unrest, as occurred in the infamous 1968 convention in Chicago. Peace protesters against the Vietnam War and supporters of anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy besieged the convention and were hounded and repressed by police forces under Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Moderate Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination despite the strong showing of anti-war sentiment in the primary election. The convention exposed the party’s rifts for all the nation to see. Humphrey went on to lose the election to Republican Richard Nixon. Chart 10Democrats Need To Avoid 1968 Replay Something akin to 1968 could occur this summer if Sanders’s supporters believe he has, for the second time, been deprived of the nomination unfairly in preference for a lackluster establishment candidate who will lose to Trump. But circumstances today are not (yet) so dire. The backdrop in 1968 was one of general upheaval, with opposition to the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert F. Kennedy, the latter directly contributing to the dispute over delegates at the convention. The labor market was extremely tight (as today), but inflation was spiking (unlike today), fueling domestic unrest (Chart 10). The Democratic Party establishment is neither as disconnected from its base nor as draconian as in 1968. Biden or any other centrist nominee will seek to placate the left wing, likely through a leftward shift on some policies and a progressive vice-presidential pick. Opposition to Trump will act as a unifying force among Democrats. Bottom Line: A contested convention remains unlikely, but it cannot be ruled out. Biden is more likely to win the nomination due to his Super Tuesday bounce and the tailwind for centrists over progressives within the primary voting patterns thus far. If the convention is contested, it will likely result in a centrist candidate and the alienation of the progressive wing, and thus favor Trump’s reelection odds. Implications For The General Election Since November 2018 we have emphasized that US presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent party. Only rarely can the opposition defeat a sitting president amid an expanding economy, even if the ruling party lost the midterm election (as did the GOP in 2018). Major scandals reduce the historic reelection rate, but Trump has been acquitted so his biggest scandal is largely neutralized (Chart 11). The uptick in his approval rating after signing trade deals with China, Canada, and Mexico and getting acquitted by his fellow Republicans in the Senate confirms that he should be seen as favored for reelection. His approval is historically low but not prohibitive, as it tracks with Obama’s ahead of the 2012 election – low approval being in part a structural indicator of highly partisan times (Chart 12).  Chart 11Unseating An Incumbent Is Difficult Chart 12Trump’s Low Approval Not Prohibitive Yet Trump is only slightly favored. The coronavirus outbreak – and more importantly, the fear of it – threatens to damage Trump’s economy and highlight his fatal policy flaw: health care. Most of his first year in office consisted of a failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), leaving 28 million Americans without health insurance (uninsured individuals increased by 2 million in 2018, the first increase since Obamacare was passed). The Democrats weaponized this gaping policy vulnerability in the vital Rust Belt swing states during the midterm election. Anything that shifts the focus of the election to health, as opposed to the growing economy, is positive for the Democrats on the margin (Chart 13). Granted, the narrative over Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis will become a non-diagnostic partisan battle. Neither Xi Jinping nor Donald Trump are responsible for the virus outbreak, but Trump is accountable for the popular perception of his handling of it whereas Xi is not. Ultimately the underlying material conditions of the economy will prove decisive. If the fear factor at home and abroad results in a sharper slowdown and higher unemployment by November, Trump is doomed. The swing states are already vulnerable because they took a heavy blow as a result of Trump’s trade war with China (Chart 14). Chart 13Is Health Care Trump’s Fatal Flaw? Chart 14Virus Fears Threaten Trump's Economy On the other hand, if the fear factor subsides due to the virus’s non-apocalyptic death rate, globally coordinated stimulus – starting with China but reinforced by the Federal Reserve’s surprise 50 basis point rate cut on March 3 – could generate a rebound by Q4 that redounds to Trump’s favor. Doesn’t America’s extreme political polarization create a kind of tribalism that overwhelms traditional “pocketbook” variables in forecasting an election (Chart 15)? Aren’t Democrats sufficiently fired up against President Trump to generate massive voter turnout that wipes out his thin margins of victory in the key swing states? After all, turnout in some of the primary elections is on par with the year the Great Recession began (Chart 16). Chart 15Does Reality Matter Amid Polarization? YES Chart 16Democrats Not Turning Out At 2008 Levels Most likely the economy will be decisive. Democratic fury against Trump will not translate as easily to the broader public if the economy is decent or rebounding in the second half of the year. Voter turnout tends to correlate with unemployment, including in the swing states (Chart 17). The coronavirus shock to the economy, not the blame game surrounding the virus or health care system, will be the determining factor. Chart 17Voter Turnout Responds To Economy … Including In Key Swing States This offers little consolation for Trump, since the brunt of the coronavirus impact on the economy is yet to be felt. While we still give Trump the benefit of the doubt for reelection, our quantitative election model says that the election is “too close to call,” primarily because of weak state-by-state leading economic indicators for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Chart 18). These indicators will tick down further due to the virus impact before they tick back up. Our base case is that the uptick will occur, but clearly the fear factor is the biggest risk to Trump’s reelection. Chart 18Quant Model Says US Election “Too Close To Call” The fact that Biden is a slightly more competitive candidate against Trump than Sanders will not help. Biden has a broader Electoral College pathway than Sanders. Both are competitive in the key Rust Belt swing states on which the 2016 election hinged – Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. But Biden is also competitive in Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina, states largely closed to Sanders. Still, the difference between the Democratic challengers is marginal as neither is extremely charismatic and the election is a referendum on the ruling party and national direction as a whole. The Senate race is critical to the general election outcome (Chart 19). A Democratic president will be constrained if the Republicans maintain control – Sanders’s revolutionary agenda would be put on ice from the beginning, whereas Biden would have to focus on compromise (and would be prevented from repealing Trump’s tax cuts). Because Republicans saw a banner year in the Senate election in 2014 they must defend a larger number of competitive seats this year (10) than Democrats do (3) (Chart 20). If Democrats win the White House then they also need to win all three “toss up” races (Arizona, Colorado, Maine) – which is very doable – as well as keeping hold of their weakest seat (Alabama) or winning one additional seat (Kansas? North Carolina? Iowa?) in order to get an even balance in the Senate. This would give them the minimum necessary for majority voting since the vice president casts the decisive vote in a tie. Chart 19Democrats Lead Generic Ballot Chart 20Balance Of Power In The US Senate, 2020   Winning this many seats seems extremely difficult, based on the voting patterns in 2016 and 2018 (Table 1, Appendix), unless one considers the type of national environment that would see the incumbent Trump removed from office: it is an environment in which either voter turnout or support rates have shifted, in which case voters who view the Republicans as discredited are less likely to retain Republican senators who carried Trump’s water in the impeachment trial. Note that Biden is an asset in every key Senate race mentioned above except Colorado, whereas Sanders is probably a liability. Chart 21Balance Of Power In the US House Of Representatives, 2020 By contrast the Democrats are defending many more seats than Republicans in the House of Representatives (Chart 21). Yet Republicans would have to retain their five toss-up seats, three vacant seats, while poaching 18 of the Democrats 19 toss-up seats, to reclaim a majority (Table 2, Appendix). This is possible if there is a strong economic rebound in the second half of the year and Trump is “winning” on other policies, but it is unlikely. Thus a second-term President Trump is much more likely to be constrained by the House than a first-term President Biden is likely to be constrained by the Senate. It follows that Trump would focus on foreign policy, where he faces the fewest constitutional constraints – and in a second term he would be unshackled from reelection concerns. He would only be constrained by the desire for a magnificent legacy that keeps Ivanka Trump electable someday. This is not a constraint worth betting money on, especially not in the first two years when he is fresh off reelection (2021-22). The implication is more trade war with China, Europe, or both. Meanwhile Biden with the Senate would focus on the Democrats’ domestic legislative agenda – and would be likely to rack up successes. Without the Senate he too would be driven toward foreign policy, and given his age he would face a limited reelection constraint, like Trump. Bottom Line: Biden’s likely nomination solidifies our view that if Democrats win, they are likely to eke out a bare one-vote majority in the Senate, though not guaranteed. Biden is a Democratic asset for key Senate races while Sanders would be more likely to be constrained by a Republican Senate. If Democrats lose, they would have to lose in the context of a big economic rebound (or some other policy windfall for Trump) in order to yield the House of Representatives. In the context of the coronavirus shock, this seems unlikely. But it is likeliest if the economy is rebounding and the Democrats run a “socialist” for the presidency. Economic Policy Implications The most important investment takeaway from Super Tuesday is that the “Bernie Sanders Panic Index” risk will now tend to subside and the key sectors of the US stock market – tech and health – plus financials and energy will no longer have as big of a threat of punitive regulation hanging over their heads (Chart 22). Chart 22Bernie Panic Index Will Subside Biden’s approach to health would be to restore and expand Obamacare, which is already the law of the land and thus not nearly as disruptive as the attempt by Sanders to create a universal single-payer program that would eliminate private insurance (a large source of uncertainty since it would have been extremely difficult to achieve yet central to his agenda). Incidentally, Big Pharma faces headwinds under Democrats or Republicans, as the populist demand for lower prices will carry the day. President Biden would certainly re-regulate, reversing the deregulatory tailwind for corporate profits and animal spirits under President Trump (Chart 23). But there is much less negative of an impact on business optimism and the job market under Biden than Sanders. Business concern over tax hikes, as outlined, will largely depend on the Senate outcome (Chart 24). The consolation for the financial markets is that, with Biden the presumptive nominee, the tax cut rollback would not be complete: Biden aims for a 28% corporate rate, which is still a net seven percentage point cut from 2016. Chart 23Trump’s De-Regulatory Shock Chart 24The Oval Office Has A Pen And A Phone   The financial industry has faced a long and rocky recovery since the 2008 crash, reminiscent of the tech sector in the wake of the dotcom bubble (Chart 25). A Democratic victory will be negative on the margin, as even Biden will need to sharpen his knives when it comes to the banks. Even the Wall Street candidate Bloomberg had proposed a financial transactions tax. By contrast, Trump would clearly benefit this sector – as long as the business cycle recovers and the yield curve steepens. Chart 25Regulation Returns To Financial Industry? The loser, in either outcome, is the tech sector – which is the most richly valued. Both Republicans and Democrats are investigating Big Tech for anti-competitive practices. Wealth inequality, and the eventual end of the bull market and business cycle, will generate public unrest and encourage the government to identify and punish scapegoats, as in the past with leading companies that had excessive market concentration (Chart 26). Yet neither Trump nor Biden will be as aggressive on this front as Sanders would be. Chart 26Anti-Trust Suits Distract From Inequality, Late-Cycle Woes Chart 27Infrastructure Stocks Will Reboot There is little difference between Trump and Biden (or Sanders for that matter) on the question of infrastructure. Americans want better infrastructure but an economic slowdown is required to provide the impetus. Democrats are unlikely to grant new spending to Trump prior to the election unless he is reelected or a full-blown economic collapse is occurring (in which it is his final act). The performance of BCA’s Infrastructure Basket will improve after the election given that both parties are embracing expansive fiscal spending while China is launching another stimulus mini-cycle (Chart 27). The fiscal trajectory of the United States is unlikely to correct anytime soon. Trumpism has routed the fiscal hawks within the Republican Party and Biden is attempting to lead a Democratic Party that is making increasingly extravagant spending demands. The median American voter is demanding greater government provision of services and social spending. If Democrats win the White House and Senate, they will be able to claw back some revenue by repealing Trump’s tax cuts, but the pressure to spend will outweigh their ability to increase taxes (Chart 28). They will need to expand non-defense discretionary spending even as mandatory outlays rise inexorably due to the aging of the population (Chart 29). Chart 28More Fiscal Profligacy In The US Outlook Chart 29Zero Chance Of Entitlement Cuts Investment Conclusions The US election is eight months away and much can change between now and then. What we know is that Biden now has the clearest path to the Democratic nomination, while Sanders would require another rapid reversal in momentum in order to take the lead. Even if he does, the Democratic convention will favor a centrist as long as Sanders falls short of a commanding lead, which is likely given the 50%-versus-40% split in favor of centrists over progressives thus far. A two-man race will favor Biden as long as this dynamic persists. Biden is slightly more competitive against Trump than Sanders, and slightly more likely to take the Senate for the Democrats. Yet ultimately Trump’s presidency will live or die based on the economy. Otherwise a significant policy humiliation (or surprise right-wing third party candidate) would be required to undo his reelection bid. Chart 30Valuations Favor Non-US Stocks Unfortunately for Trump, the coronavirus outbreak presents precisely this two-pronged risk of worsening economy and policy failure. If this risk fully materializes then he is finished, but markets will most likely have the consolation that it is Biden, not Sanders, waiting in the wings. Our base case remains constructive over the next twelve months, particularly for global stocks ex-US, which are much more heavily discounted and will benefit from Chinese stimulus (Chart 30). The virus shock is clearly a massive risk, but as long as the death rate does not surprise to the upside the ultimate impact will be public resilience and global stimulus.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1Democrats Likely To Win The Senate If They Win White House Table 2Republicans Unlikely To Reclaim House Even If They Keep White House Footnotes

Neutral Market events last week compelled us to take profits of 51% in the S&P software index above and beyond the S&P 500’s return since the late-2017 inception and downgrade exposure to neutral. Last Monday we wrote that AAPL’s profit warning was the tip of the iceberg and an avalanche of warnings would ensue.1 MSFT followed suit and issued their own profit warning and this negative backdrop is not yet reflected in the sell side’s S&P software profit and revenue forecasts. Tack on the message from the contracting software sector deflator and odds are high that sales will underwhelm in the coming quarters (third panel). The latest GDP report also revealed that, up to recently bulletproof, software capex growth sunk to nil in Q4 (bottom panel). Not only in absolute, but also in relative terms software outlays have petered out and have been decreasing in intensity as measured by the decelerating contribution to GDP growth (second panel). Bottom Line: We took profits of 51% since inception in the S&P software index and downgraded to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ADBE, CRM, ORCL, INTU, NOW, ADSK, ANSS, SNPS, CDNS, FTNT, PAYC, CTXS, NLOK. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.   1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Vertigo" dated February 24, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.