Economy

Highlights We remain constructive on the economy and financial markets, … : US households have stored up a great deal of dry powder for consumption once the economy fully reopens, last month’s stopgap fiscal measures will help relieve pressure on the most vulnerable households, and the Georgia Senate results ensure that even more fiscal transfers are in store. … but there is a non-negligible risk that investors will get too excited about the positive backdrop: The exceedingly supportive policy backdrop could easily help the S&P 500 push into the low 4,000s, but it’s not clear what investors will have to look forward to for the rest of 2021 if it ascends to that level early in the year. We do not share the bubble-spotters’ alarm, but we are willing to study their arguments: We like to test our convictions by seeking out opposing views and we therefore read Jeremy Grantham’s bubble essay with great interest. We do not share his urgent concern, and our recommended asset allocations are nearly the mirror image of his, but we are taking a deep dive into his view and its implications. Feature As a grad student on the South Side of Chicago, I used to run on the bike path along the lake. On windless days, the three or four miles north from Hyde Park Boulevard felt especially easy, and I would think, “this is what it’s like when there’s no wind.” Then I’d head for home and discover there’d been a breeze behind me all along. A mile or two in, I’d realize it was no breeze and marvel at how I hadn’t noticed it on the way out. The moral of the story, as I told it then, is that if you think it’s not windy in Chicago, just turn around. Now it seems that it has a broader, weightier lesson: it can be easy to miss the wind when it’s behind you. Jeremy Grantham’s carefully reasoned bubble warning, posted online last Tuesday,1 has inspired us to re-examine our outlook and how widely it’s shared. We are not changing our view – we remain vigilantly bullish – but it is worth devoting ample time to consider the risks to it. This week, we highlight the elements of Grantham’s piece that most caught our attention; next week, we will discuss strategies to try to reduce an investor’s vulnerability to them. The Belated Blue Wave Grantham’s essay highlights vulnerabilities that could come to the fore sometime in the near future, but the Democratic sweep of Georgia’s Senate seats has immediate market implications. By virtue of Vice President-elect Harris’s tie-breaking vote, the Democrats will hold a majority in the 50-50 chamber beginning January 20th. The outcome ensures that the Biden administration will have slim majorities in both houses of Congress for its first two years (pending appointments and special elections). Although a five-seat House majority and the slimmest possible Senate majority will not give the incoming administration carte blanche to enact sweeping legislative changes, it will have an easier time pursuing its agenda than it would have had the Republicans held on to just one of the Georgia Senate seats. Item number one on that agenda is likely to be bulked-up fiscal aid for struggling households, states and municipalities. The economic and market significance of the blue wave is that Congress can now become a full partner supporting the monetary policy aim of erring to the side of providing too much accommodation. With the Fed pledging that it won’t take its foot off the gas any time soon, revived fiscal spending will provide the economy with an incremental reflationary boost that should benefit risk assets. Fiscal transfers will be at least partially funded with increased taxes on corporations and high-earning individuals. Profit margins will narrow, but empirical evidence of a relationship between tax rates and economic growth is elusive (Chart 1). Economic growth is largely a function of growth in the size of the working-age population and growth in productivity. Investment leads productivity – workers become more productive when endowed with more and better tools – but history suggests that investment spending is indifferent to corporate tax rates (Chart 2), as is productivity (Chart 3). Chart 1We Don't Like Taxes, Either ... Chart 2... But They Do Not Seem To Impact Investment ... Chart 3... Or Productivity Growth We are disposed to agree with the idea that higher taxes are a drag on growth. Transferring spending power from the private sector to government apparatchiks is not likely to improve efficiency. Business executives are as fallible as any other experts, however, and changes in tax rates have a smaller multiplier effect than the proposed spending measures. Net-net, we expect that the outcome of the Georgia run-offs will lead to slightly higher interest rates, a steeper yield curve, increased consumption and fewer defaults, a welcome mélange for credit performance and the equities that were left behind as investors flocked to COVID winners. A Slippery Slope Chart 4Bull Markets Tend To Go Out With A Bang [G]reat bubbles are where fortunes are made and lost – and where investors truly prove their mettle. For positioning a portfolio to avoid the worst pain of a major bubble breaking is likely the most difficult part. Every career incentive in the industry and every fault of individual human psychology will work toward sucking investors in. [Emphasis added.] As Jeremy Grantham lays it out, the latter stages of a bull market are especially perilous. Given that bull markets run hot before they end (Chart 4), it becomes fiendishly difficult to resist their pull. The recency bias drives an investor to focus on the most recent data points to the exclusion of older ones, pointing to higher expected returns than might be inferred from a more comprehensive sample. The phenomenon encourages equity overexposure at inopportune times if returns are mean-reverting. Professional investors are as susceptible to recency bias and overconfidence (fueled by having had the wind at their back) as non-professionals, and their judgment can be additionally clouded by career pressures. Those who achieve the longest tenures are at least subconsciously attuned to Keynes’ dictum that it is better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally. Staying at the party too long with lots of others may hold far less risk than staking out a solitary position. The bottom line is that asset management incentives encourage groupthink, especially as late-stage bull markets go into overdrive. Dizzying Heights The long, long bull market since 2009 has finally matured into a fully-fledged epic bubble. Featuring extreme overvaluation, explosive price increases, frenzied issuance, and hysterically speculative investor behavior, I believe this event will be recorded as one of the great bubbles of financial history[.] Bubbles are only identifiable in retrospect, but several aspects that financial historian Charles Kindleberger associated with manias are evident. Money is cheap and readily available and valuations are quite high. One could argue that anticipation of short-term capital gains is drowning consideration of future earnings for at least some equity investors or, as Grantham puts it, “stocks [are] rising … simply because they are rising.” Make no mistake: Equity valuations are demanding and de-rating appears more likely than continued re-rating. The main valuation metrics clearly indicate that equities are richly priced. The S&P 500’s forward earnings multiple is hovering around two standard deviations above the mean, at heights previously reached only in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s (Chart 5). Price-to-sales is at an all-time high, three standard deviations above the mean (Chart 6, top panel), while book (Chart 6, middle panel) and cash flow multiples (Chart 6, bottom panel) are elevated but not yet extreme. Price-to-sales should rise if markets believe pandemic-induced margin pressure is temporary and will reverse once the country is vaccinated, but the one-plus-sigma surge above pre-COVID levels would seem to be a bit much. Chart 5Equity Valuations Are Pushing The Envelope Chart 6Making A Run At '99-'00 Equity option and IPO activity is redolent of euphoria and overtrading. Equity call option volume has surged to record levels (Chart 7, top panel), reportedly on the back of an explosion in small retail activity, and the put-call ratio has fallen to dot-com-bubble levels as demand for exposure has swamped demand for protection (Chart 7, bottom panel). New IPOs have been coming fast and furious (Chart 8, top panel) at a relatively tender average age (Chart 8, bottom panel). Sponsors’ shift away from hoarding early- and middle-stage returns to inviting the public to share them may prove to be telling. There are many reasons to sell equity interests, but expecting them to blast higher isn’t typically one of them. Chart 7The Merry Men Of Sherwood Forest Have Discovered Options Are A Gas, Too Chart 8Take The Money And Run The Legend Who Cried Wolf This isn’t the first time Grantham or one of his colleagues has expressed concern about rising stock prices. It may be unduly harsh to call him a perma-bear, but GMO has consistently underestimated equities and the firm has seen its assets under management (AUM) cut in half over the last five years, to $60 billion, while its flagship asset allocation fund has lost over 60% of AUM. As an RIA firm executive told a Bloomberg reporter, “I can see how clients lose patience with them. They get defensive way before anybody else.2” It’s important to recognize different commentators’ biases/agendas when evaluating their arguments. Grantham calls out the broker-dealers as perpetual market cheerleaders, but he has a stake in convincing GMO clients and prospects that value investing principles are still relevant. BCA’s business model is far more insulated from markets’ direction, but our research services have a bias to fit inherently unruly markets into tidy narratives. Disclosing the risks to our views is an essential part of our process, but the hypotheses we reject will always get less of an airing than the ones we embrace – no investor has time to read weekly 50-page deliberations. Why Now? The canonical BCA question – So What? – is meant to keep researchers focused on the market relevance of their inquiries. But we have long advocated for a second question – Why Now? – to keep our focus on timeliness. Spotting imbalances, which can take a maddeningly long time to reverse, isn’t enough to earn alpha. To translate macro analysis into promising investment ideas, an investor also needs to identify potential catalysts that might unwind the imbalance. Bull markets become exhausted once so much capital is invested in them that there is no one left to keep buying, just as bear markets end when the urgency to sell dissipates. Sentiment can offer clues into remaining buying or selling power, and the day before the Grantham piece appeared, an experienced financial advisor with a stellar portfolio management record emailed that, “This is one of the few times in my career where I feel like the market is simple and the consensus is right. It almost always feels like there is something obviously bad on the horizon but this market feels like there is really good news on the horizon.” I have known him for over 30 years and can attest to his intelligence, diligence and savvy. His clients are in excellent hands and his constructive take may well be spot on. Indeed, we hope so, since it dovetails with ours, but his assurance gave us pause. For now, it doesn't seem to be universal, as it contrasted starkly with this musing from another trusted confidante (a family office CIO) as 2020 was winding down, “What can be said about work other than make certain we don’t mistake this bull market for brilliance.” Valuation is a notoriously lousy timing indicator and sentiment is a squishy concept that is hard to pin down. Both can remain stretched for a long period of time. An investor shouldn't bet against them unless s/he has a good reason for believing they are on the verge of reversing. Perhaps not having to run on the relative performance hamster wheel like most professional investors gives the family office CIO, who also has a great track record, a little broader perspective, but every investor could use a dose of humility. Skepticism is an essential component of successful investing as well, especially as stocks are making new highs. If you think it’s not windy … Investment Implications We respect Jeremy Grantham’s experience and formidable accomplishments and listen closely to any insights he’s willing to share. We acknowledge that there are many signs of froth across financial markets and that the Kindleberger red line of purchasing assets without regard to their intrinsic merit could be crossed in the not-too-distant future. We echo the sentiment that central bankers are not omnipotent and that easy monetary policy is not a magical elixir. We do, however, assert that the combination of extremely easy monetary policy and a new round of fiscal aid offers equities and spread product a supportive backdrop that should be expected to hold throughout the year provided that markets don’t get over their skis by bidding up asset prices too far. The bottom line is that market vulnerabilities are cropping up but we disagree with the view that they are about to bring an end to risk asset outperform-ance. We remain overweight equities and spread product while keeping an eye out for anything untoward. As we have been saying for several weeks, we are bullish, albeit vigilantly so. One of our roles is to worry for our clients, and we are scanning the horizon for signs of trouble even more thoroughly than normal. Until we see those signs, or until risk asset prices rise so much that they sour their risk-reward prospects, we will stick with our call. On the last point, we are in complete agreement with Grantham: The one reality that you can never change is that a higher-priced asset will produce a lower return than a lower-priced asset. You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can enjoy it now, or you can enjoy it steadily in the distant future, but not both – and the price we pay for having this market go higher and higher is a lower 10-year return from the peak.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.gmo.com/americas/research-library/waiting-for-the-last-dance/ Accessed January 5, 2021. Grantham is the octogenarian co-founder of Grantham, Mayo and van Otterloo (GMO), a value-oriented asset manager for institutional investors. 2 McDonald, Michael. "Grantham’s Bear Market Call Tests Patience of GMO Fund Investors," Bloomberg, November 24, 2020.

Highlights Further fiscal easing is likely in the US now that the Democrats are set to take control of the US Senate following Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia. With the end of the pandemic in sight, a growing chorus of commentators, including none other than Larry Summers, are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In the short term, the risk that economies will overheat due to excessive fiscal support is low. There is still too much labor market slack, the bulk of any stimulus checks will be saved, and the short-run Phillips curve remains quite flat. Looking beyond the next two years, fiscal policy could indeed turn out to be inflationary. Political populism is rising. Central banks, fearful of the zero lower-bound constraint on interest rates, want higher inflation. Falling interest rates have also made it easier for governments to run larger budget deficits. We estimate that the US can run a primary budget deficit that is more than 2% of GDP larger than at the start of 2019, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The “fiscal envelope” has increased significantly in other major economies as well. Ironically, in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth in GDP, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio permits larger budget deficits. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit more from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years once inflation begins to accelerate. A Race Against Time The past few weeks have seen a race between the virus, which continues to infect people at an alarming rate, and efforts to vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society. So far, the virus has the upper hand. Chart 1Tracking The Progress In Global Vaccination Rates The “UK strain” has become more prevalent around the world.1 By some estimates it is 70% more contagious than the original virus that emerged in Wuhan, China. Another, potentially even more dangerous strain, has surfaced in South Africa and has spread to South America. The early evidence suggests that the recently approved vaccines will be effective in fighting the UK strain. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to judge whether this is also true for the South African strain. Right now, only 0.2% of the world’s population has been inoculated, but that number will rise rapidly over the coming months (Chart 1). Assuming that existing vaccines are effective against the myriad virus strains, the infection rate should fall precipitously by the middle of the year.   Georgia Runoffs Will Lead To Even More Stimulus Governments eased fiscal policy significantly last year in response to the unfolding crisis (Chart 2). At the worst point of the pandemic in April, US real disposable income was up 14% year-over-year (Chart 3). Transfers to households fell sharply following the expiration of the CARES Act, but are set to rise again thanks to the recently completed stimulus deal. Chart 2Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis   The victory by both Democratic candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff races on Tuesday moves the political configuration in Washington even further towards fiscal easing. Having gained control of the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to use the “reconciliation process” to pass a budget that boosts spending on health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment. Granted, reconciliation requires that any extra spending be offset by additional revenue measures over a 10-year budgetary horizon. Thus, corporate taxes will probably rise. Nevertheless, the combination of more spending and higher corporate taxes will still produce a net boost to aggregate demand. This is partly because any revenue measures are likely to be backloaded. It is also because raising corporate taxes will not reduce investment by very much. The experience from the Trump tax cuts revealed that the main consequence of lowering corporate tax rates was to lower corporate tax receipts. The touted boost to corporate investment from lower taxes never materialized. In fact, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 4). Chart 3Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic   Chart 4No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment   For stock market investors, the prospect of higher taxes will take some of the bloom off the rose from additional fiscal stimulus. That said, the impact will vary considerably across equity sectors. Cyclical stocks such as industrials and materials will benefit from stimulus-induced economic growth. Banks will also gain because stronger growth will suppress loan losses, while leading to steeper yield curves, thus raising net interest margins in the process. Value stocks have more exposure to banks and deep cyclicals, and hence we remain positive on them. Small caps also have more exposure to these sectors, but are starting to look increasingly pricey. Stimulus: How Much Is Enough? Chart 5Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Fiscal stimulus helped avert the cascade of business failures that normally accompany recessions. Despite a tick up in bankruptcies among large companies shortly after the pandemic began, 16% fewer companies filed for bankruptcy in the first 11 months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Overall bankruptcy filings, which include personal bankruptcies, have fallen to a 35-year low according to Epiq AACER. The pipeline for bankruptcies also looks fairly narrow. Junk bond prices have been rebounding and consumer loan delinquency rates have been trending down (Table 1). Table 1Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Generous fiscal transfers have allowed households to accumulate plenty of savings, which should help propel future spending. Chart 6 shows that accumulated US household savings are about $1.5 trillion above their pre-pandemic trend. We estimate that the combination of increased savings, rising home prices, and a surging stock market pushed up household net worth by $8 trillion in Q4 alone, leaving it 11% above Q4 2019 levels. In comparison, household net worth fell by over 15% during the Great Recession. Chart 6Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Little Risk Of Near-Term Fiscal Overheat With the prospect of a vaccine-led economic recovery in sight, a growing chorus of commentators are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Larry Summers contended that President Trump’s attempt to increase the size of stimulus checks from $600 per person to $2000 was “a serious mistake” that risked overheating the economy. Summers argued for a more streamlined approach that prioritized aid to state and local governments and increased funding for Covid testing and vaccine deployment. Despite Larry’s admonition, we see little risk that loose fiscal policy will cause any major economy to overheat in the near term, even if the Senate does enact more stimulus. For one thing, recent stimulus proposals have emphasized direct transfers to households. Unlike most other types of spending, across-the-board stimulus checks will go mainly into savings. The New York Fed has estimated that less than 30% of the direct stimulus payments in the CARES Act were used for consumption, with 36% saved and 35% used to pay down debt. Consistent with past experience, households expect to spend only about one-third of the forthcoming stimulus checks according to CivicScience, a market research firm (Chart 7). Chart 7How Will Americans Spend Their Second Stimulus Check? Chart 8Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Moreover, there is still plenty of labor market slack. Chart 8 shows the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers remains well below pre-pandemic levels across the OECD. In a best-case scenario, it will take a couple more years for employment levels to return to normal. Long-term inflation expectations are also well anchored, implying that the short-run Phillips curve is quite flat. In simple English, this means that a temporary burst of stimulus is unlikely to trigger an inflationary price-wage spiral. Some decline in budget deficits is also likely after the pandemic ends. The Hutchins Center at Brookings expects the fiscal package passed by the US Congress in December to boost GDP by 7% in the first quarter. However, it expects the four-quarter moving average in the fiscal contribution to growth to turn negative in the third quarter, and stay that way right through 2022 (Chart 9). Likewise, in its most recent forecasts, the IMF projected a negative fiscal impulse in the major advanced economies in 2021-22 (Chart 10). Chart 9Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part I)   Chart 10Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part II) Long-Term Fiscal Picture Is More Inflationary Granted, a negative fiscal impulse simply means that the structural budget deficit is declining over time. In absolute terms, the IMF expects budget deficits to remain quite large by historic standards, even if they do come down from their pandemic peak. Remember, it is the level of the budget deficit that helps determine the level of demand throughout the economy. Economies overheat when the level of aggregate demand exceeds the level of aggregate supply. If private-sector demand recovers more quickly than budget deficits come down, overall demand will rise. As such, it is certainly possible that excessively easy fiscal policy will contribute to an inflationary overshoot once labor market slack has been fully absorbed in two-to-three years. Politically, such an overshoot seems quite plausible. Populism is rising both on the left and the right. It is noteworthy that the Republican candidates in Tuesday’s runoff Senate races supported President Trump’s call for boosting the size of stimulus checks. The same goes for Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio is widely considered an early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Economically, the case for bigger budget deficits has also become more appealing. Real interest rates are negative across the major economies. Low interest rates allow governments to take on more debt without having to make large interest payments. Indeed, the Japanese government today receives more interest than it pays by virtue of the fact that more than half of its debt was issued at negative rates. Persistent worries about the zero lower-bound constraint also encourage central banks to pursue policies that could fuel inflation, such as refraining from tightening monetary policy in response to looser fiscal policy. The current level of policy rates gives central banks almost no scope to cut rates in response to an adverse economic shock. If inflation were to rise, central banks would be able to bring real rates even further into negative territory should economic conditions warrant it. The Paradox Of Debt Sustainability When  r  Is Less Than  g One might think that today’s high debt-to-GDP ratios would force governments to slash deficits to keep debt from spiraling out of control. However, things are not so straightforward in a world of ultra-low interest rates. As Appendix A shows, the primary budget balance that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as: Where p is the primary budget balance (the difference between tax receipts and non-interest spending, expressed as a share of GDP), r is the real interest rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy. Notice that when r is less than g, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio corresponds to a larger primary budget deficit (i.e., a more negative p). In other words, by taking on more debt, governments would not only be able to raise spending or cut taxes, but they would also have enough money left over to pay the additional interest on the debt. And they could do all this without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Chart 11More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... What sort of funky magic allows this to happen? The answer is that even a small percentage increase in debt will correspond to a large increase in the absolute stock of debt when debt levels are elevated to begin with. If interest rates are low, most of the additional debt can go into financing a larger primary deficit instead of higher interest payments. One can see this point with a simple example. Suppose that initially, debt is 50, GDP is 100, and hence the debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. Let us also assume that the primary deficit is 1% of GDP, the interest rate is 2%, and GDP grows at 4%. Next year, debt will be 50+50*0.02+1=52 while GDP will be 100*1.04=104. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain 52/104=50%. Now rerun the same example but assume that debt is initially equal to 100, implying an initial debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. In that case, it is simple to verify that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall to 103/104≈99% the following year if the primary deficit remained at 1% of GDP. The primary deficit would have to rise to 2% of GDP to keep the debt-to-GDP stable – double what it was in the first example. The level of the US primary budget deficit that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from 0.8% of GDP at the start of 2019 to 3.1% today if one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of trend growth and the 10-year TIPs yield as a proxy for the real interest rate (Chart 11). A similar trend is visible abroad (Chart 12).   Chart 12... As Well As In Other Major Economies Investment Conclusions Thanks to the drop in interest rates, governments today have more scope to run larger budget deficits than they did in the past. This suggests that the sort of fiscal tightening that impeded the recovery following the Great Recession is unlikely to reoccur. The combination of above-trend growth and continued low rates will buoy equities in 2021. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit both from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years as unemployment approaches pre-pandemic levels and central banks begin to contemplate raising interest rates. A higher debt burden allows for a larger budget deficit when r is less than g, but requires a bigger budget surplus when r rises above g. If debt-saddled governments are unable or unwilling to tighten fiscal policy, they may end up applying political pressure on central banks to keep rates artificially low in order to suppress interest payments. As such, excessively easy monetary policy could trigger a bout of inflation. With that in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios, favor inflation protected-securities over nominal bonds, and hold other inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. Cryptocurrencies could potentially serve as an inflation hedge, but given the recent run up in bitcoin prices, we would avoid this area of the market for the time being. Appendix AThe Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  A number of SARS-CoV-2 variants are circulating globally. The WHO reported this week that the UK variant of Covid-19 has spread to 40 other countries. Initial research suggests that the UK strain is more transmissible, but is characterized by unchanged disease severity compared to the original virus. The South African strain is also believed to be more contagious and was detected in six other countries. Some have raised concerns about the high number of mutations found in the South African variant. Research is ongoing to determine the potential consequences of the emerging variants on the speed of transmission, disease severity, ability to evade detection, and the efficacy of current treatments and vaccines. Please see Antony Sguazzin, “South Africa Virus Strain More Transmissible, Not More Severe,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2021;  Gabriele Steinhauser, “The New Covid-19 Strain in South Africa: What We Know,” The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2021; “Weekly epidemiological update - 5 January 2021,” World Health Organization; and “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated January 3, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores