Economy

Special Report

Highlights Our quantitative US election model suggests Trump has a 44% chance of re-election. This presents a risk to our formal subjective view that he has a 35% chance. We are sticking with our subjective odds for now, as Trump is beset with a reviving COVID-19 outbreak, a recession, social unrest, and execution risks for the next round of fiscal stimulus. But we may increase his chances in August if his circumstances improve. In the worst case, the devastated economy will lead to a landslide in which Trump even loses Iowa. But peak political polarization makes that unlikely and suggests that the race will tighten from here. Uncertainty and volatility will rise from here through November and possibly beyond. Feature The BCA Geopolitical Strategy presidential election model was first introduced to our readers in November 2019 in order to predict and quantify the Electoral College vote outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. The election model is a state-by-state model that uses both economic and political variables in order to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. We favored predicting the Electoral College vote over the popular vote since the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College. There have been five cases in history where the popular vote did not determine the outcome and two in recent history (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). The college imposes a significant (and deliberate) constraint on popularity and mass movements. Our sample size includes nine elections over the period 1984-2016, across 50 states, netting 450 observations. One of our four explanatory variables, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, was suspended indefinitely amid the COVID-19 crisis. Hence we needed a replacement variable that could capture a similar impact on the predicted outcome, and one that was readily available on a state-by-state basis. Enter our replacement variable: 1. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index. The state leading index in our previous election model was an estimate of the six-month growth rate in the state coincident index. Therefore the state coincident index is the natural replacement variable as it will essentially proxy the state leading index, albeit without the forward-looking element. The coincident index for each state combines four of the state’s indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (US city average). We applied several transformations to the data to obtain meaningful results in the modeling process. Transformations included three-month, six-month, and twelve-month changes in the state coincident indexes. Ultimately we decided to use the three-month change of the state coincident index in our updated Version 2 (V2) election model. As before, we took a weighted average of the three-month change of all the monthly state coincident indexes in the presidential term preceding the election. Later months are weighted heavier than earlier months. A significant difference from the first version of our model is that, unlike the state leading indexes, the state coincident indexes do not have leading properties that give a forward-looking “view” on what the economic environment will look like going into Q1 of the post-election year. We acknowledge that past, current, and future economic conditions are likely to weigh on voters’ minds when casting their vote, but we also note the difficulties in accurately weighting one expectation more than another. We assume that prevailing economic conditions matter most to voters (as people’s assessment of their current situation inevitably affects their future expectations, and vice versa), and this bolsters our rationale in using a 3-month change of the state coincident index. Our final calculation of three-month changes to the state coincident indexes occurs in September of the election year, given that most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election, as we have previously shown. The October data release will arrive too late in November for inclusion in the election forecast anyway. Our remaining explanatory variables for V2 of our model update: 2. The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. Same as our original model. 3. A “time for change” variable – a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Same as our original model. 4. The range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. Our original model used the level of approval. Our V2 model excludes the average approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year as it was found to be statistically insignificant at widely accepted significance levels (1%, 5% and 10%) when estimated with the state coincident index (as opposed to the state leading index), no matter the transformation applied to that index. This does not mean we exclude Trump’s approval data from our modeling process. Instead, we include the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. This was the only transformed variation in presidential job approval rating data that showed statistical significance when combined with the variables above. For V2 of our model, the range is computed as the maximum monthly average of various job approval polls less the minimum monthly average of such polls throughout a president’s term. Despite Trump’s job approval being low relative to previous presidents, he has maintained consistency. Hence the range of Trump’s job approval is fairly tight relative to previous presidents and should not be ignored in affecting the election outcome. Upside Risk To Trump’s Re-Election Odds? Chart 1 below depicts our revised prediction of November’s presidential election. Chart 1Trump Is Slated To Lose Re-election With 259 Electoral College Votes As it stands, Trump is slated to lose the election with 259 Electoral College votes (45 less than his 2016 victory). This is just ten votes shy of our previous prediction in March this year, but several swing states that were narrowly in Trump’s camp in March are now far less likely to go his way. Our previous prediction, which of course did not account for COVID-19’s economic shock, had Trump tied with the presumptive democrat nominee at the time. But the latest results still point to a tight race come November. Our updated quantitative model gives Trump a 44% chance of winning. The collapse of the state economies is overwhelming Trump’s re-election bid. Poor economic conditions hardly ever favor a sitting president up for reelection. But note that the three-month change in the state indexes will be the first to register the economic rebound this summer and fall (should it continue). This would improve Trump’s probability of victory. Under our V2 model, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are no longer toss-up states. Rather, Florida is the only toss-up state, with a 52% probability of staying with the incumbent party. Minor negative changes to the state indexes could result in more toss-up states, even throwing traditionally red states into toss-up territory. States that are expected to turn from Republican in 2016 to Democratic in 2020 are Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – the entire “Blue Wall” that delivered Trump his surprise victory four years ago. On the whole, the model gives Trump a 44% chance of retaining the White House. Do we uncritically accept these results? No. As with all of our analysis, we provide a qualitative judgment in addition to our quantitative indicators and models. In general the findings make sense. We agree that Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina remain in Trump’s camp at present, if narrowly. Our qualitative estimate, since March, has given Trump a 35% chance of winning, in keeping with the historical win rate of incumbent parties when recessions occurred during the election year (Table 1). Online political betting markets have recently converged to this view (Chart 2). Thus our quant model suggests that the risk to our view, and the new consensus, is a Trump comeback. Table 1Recessions Weigh On Incumbent Win Rates Chart 2A Democratic Victory Is The New Consensus We will not formally upgrade Trump’s odds until we are convinced that his freefall has been reversed. We are concerned about the rise in deaths from COVID-19 in key swing states, including Florida, Arizona, and Texas and the potential for another major economic setback. We also would want to see Trump get the next round of fiscal stimulus passed in order to turn more optimistic on his chances. Therefore we will stick to our 35% odds and will reassess in late August when the Republican and Democratic party conventions are held. Model Performs Well In Back Tests Our V2 model performs well during in-sample back testing when comparing actual Electoral College vote outcomes for each election since 1984. On balance, V2 correctly predicts all election outcomes over our sample period (Chart 3). Chart 3Our Model Predicts All Election Outcomes In Our Sample … The same can be said of V2 during out-of-sample back testing, correctly predicting election outcomes from 2000 - 2016 (Chart 4). Chart 4… And During Out-Of-Sample Back Testing As mentioned, we cannot ignore the impact that Trump’s job approval may have on his re-election. Since no other transformation of Trump’s approval data test significantly in our V2 model, what if we transform the state coincident index by a longer frequency? What would the predicted outcome be? Trump would maintain his current level of predicted Electoral College votes of 259. The major change is that the state of Florida would no longer be a toss-up. Instead New Hampshire would become the only toss-up, with Trump having only a 45% chance of winning it. Transforming the state coincident index by a longer frequency is more favorable for Trump. Florida moves out of toss-up territory and New Hampshire moves in. But no change in Electoral College votes are recorded as neither party flips a state in this scenario. What if we were to exclude Trump’s approval range as a variable entirely – how would Trump fare? This “barebones” or economic-focused variation is the least favorable for Trump, allocating just 180 Electoral College votes. Arizona and – surprisingly – Iowa would become toss-up states with probabilities of Trump victory at 47% and 49%, respectively (Table 2). Table 2The Economy Is Weighing Down On Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election It should be noted that models including Trump’s approval range as an explanatory variable exhibited higher over/under estimation during the sample period when compared to models that excluded Trump’s approval range entirely. Despite larger errors in some election years, these models also predicted two elections with almost no error (1988 and 2004), and one election with zero error (2008). These results suggest that Trump’s job approval should not be ignored. Peak Polarization Chart 5Peak Polarization An interesting takeaway from our V1 model was that it produced a new measure of American political polarization, a phenomenon widely observed by scholars. The model showed that many states would be won or lost with extreme certainty (0% or 100%), i.e. that they are not even competitive. We take this finding as an indication of polarization, in which group loyalty overcomes all other variables. Results of in-sample predictions from our V2 model corroborate this finding (Chart 5). They are virtually the same as in V1, except that they show a higher degree of polarization in 2020, which now matches the previous peak in 2012. This is intuitive and corroborates other evidence that US polarization is reaching or exceeding recent highs. Polarization may or may not rise higher in the next election cycle, but we suspect that we are witnessing peak polarization from a historical point of view. Over five to ten years, polarization should fall. Generational change in the US will produce more domestic policy consensus, while geopolitical struggle with China will unify the nation against a common enemy for the first time since the cold war. Expect uncertainty and market volatility ahead of the election and in the aftermath. Thus the US may continue to export political instability to the rest of the world in the near-term. But eventually it will find an internal equilibrium and external sources of instability will become the bigger geopolitical risk for investors. So What? Our V2 US presidential election model predicts Trump will lose the November reelection, only amassing 259 Electoral College votes. The model implies that Trump has an overall probability of 44% in taking the White House. Florida is the only toss-up state in the latest prediction, with a 52% probability of staying with the incumbent party. Florida accounts for 29 Electoral College votes. Should the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin switch back to Republican, Trump would score an additional 46 Electoral College votes. But if Trump has Florida then he only needs to win one of these three states to win the election. Should the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin switch back to Republican, Trump would score an additional 46 Electoral College votes which would hand him the win in November. Conversely, the Democrats are expected to win in November with 279 Electoral College votes. As it stands, the Democrats have a 55% chance of victory. For now, we will maintain our subjective 35/65 odds. But the model shows that the risk is to the upside for Trump and that the race will likely tighten from here. We will likely increase his odds in late August if the renewed virus outbreak in Sunbelt swing states gets under control and Congress passes another major stimulus bill by August 10, as we expect. These findings reinforce our long-held view that the election will come down to narrow margins in the swing states. The deluge of bad news for Trump makes it less likely that the election will be narrow. But the fundamentals, as captured in our V2 model, suggest that Florida, at minimum, will still be an extremely tight race. Thus we would reiterate that this election may feature contested results, vote recounts, and Supreme Court interventions, like the year 2000. Investors should prepare for uncertainty and market volatility to rise between now and November 3, and possibly beyond.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious about how our V2 election model differs from our V1 model. We discuss the salient differences herein. Chart A1Our Updated Model Offers Reduced Error 1. The modeling method remains the same Firstly, our V1 model was based off a probit regression, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party wins all Electoral College votes in a given state, or 0 = incumbent party does not win any Electoral College votes in this state.1 The probit regression allows us to assign probabilities of the incumbent party winning each state, given that the inverse of the probability is modeled as a linear combination of the model’s predictors. This modeling technique is maintained in V2 of our model. 2. Variable replacement In V1 of our model, we relied on the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index as an economic variable. In V2, due to the state leading index being discontinued, we adopt the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index. V1 of our model also used the average approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. Since this transformation of job approval data proved statistically insignificant, we tested and included the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. The approval range variable showed statistical significance at 5% and 10% levels. 3. Predicted error Assessing the predicted error by each election outcome shows that our V2 model, on balance, trends well with our V1 model (Chart A1), and offers reduced error, on balance, post the 2000 election. Our V2 model also has a lower absolute error when compared to our V1 model. Note, and as we pointed out earlier, our V2 model suffers from some large errors mid-way through the sample period but V2’s predictability improves notably over time. Comparing the error of our V2 model with alternative models that we highlighted in Table A1 also shows just how closely they trend together, despite offering some differing results pertaining to Electoral College votes and toss-up states. Table A1Variations Of Our Model Offer Similar Classified Predicted Outcomes Our V2 model has a lower predicted error in the 2012 and 2016 election than an alternative V2 in which the state coincident indicator is transformed by a six-month change (Chart A2). This warrants our decision in choosing V2 as our preferred model. Chart A2Three-Month Change In State Coincident Indicators Reduces Model Error Chart A3Including Trump’s Approval Data Improves The Model’s Robustness Our V2 model versus the “barebones” V2 model (which excludes the approval range variable and thus can be seen as a purely economic model) has higher predicted error in the elections of 1992 and 1996, but lower error from 2000 onwards (Chart A3). Whilst our V2 model does have a higher absolute error in contrast to the “barebones” model, we believe minimizing a model’s error while still including an element of Trump’s approval data provides us with the most robust election model. Model Diagnostics Regression diagnostics for V2 of our model and other variations that we highlighted in Table A1 above, but do not use, show that our updated model correctly classifies predicted outcomes at a rate of 88.21%. The “barebones” model classifies predicted outcomes marginally better, but we take confidence in the fact that predicted error in our V2 model trends lower as we move further into our sample period, and in the lead up to the 2020 election, bolstering our preferred model choice. The V2 model, if we apply a six-month change to the coincident indicator, classifies predicted outcomes the lowest at 87.43%. Summary Our V2 model shows areas of improved robustness when compared to V1. We keep to the same modeling technique as we did in V1 of our model, a probit regression. We replaced the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index with the Coincident Index and through statistical testing. We opted to drop the average approval level of the incumbent president in July and replace it with the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. With mostly lower error for election outcomes from 2000-2016, and lower absolute error and higher correctly classified outcomes, V2 is an adequate model in predicting the upcoming presidential election. Footnotes 1 Two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not have a “winner takes all” distribution of Electoral College votes. Instead they give two Electoral College votes to the winner of the statewide election, plus additional Electoral College votes to the winner within each congressional district. Maine has two congressional districts, Nebraska has three. Nebraska’s second district voted for President Obama in 2008 while Maine’s second district voted for President Trump in 2016.

Feature Over the last several years when I travelled to Europe, I would meet with Ms. Mea, an outspoken client of the Emerging Markets Strategy service. We have published our conversations with Ms. Mea in the past and this semi-annual series has complemented our regular reports. She has challenged our views and convictions, serving as a voice for many other clients. In addition, these conversations have highlighted nuances of our analysis, for her and to the benefit of our readers. With travel restrictions in force, this time we had to resort to an online meeting with Ms. Mea. Below are the key parts of our conversation from earlier this week. Ms. Mea: Let’s begin with your main thesis, which over the past several years has been as follows: China’s growth drives EM business cycles and financial markets overall. Indeed, as long as China’s growth dithers, EM growth and asset prices languish. However, since the pandemic started China has stimulated aggressively and there are clear signs that the economy is recovering. The latest surge in Chinese share prices confirms that a robust recovery is underway. Why do you not think China’s economy is on the upswing? Answer: True, we believe China’s business cycle is instrumental to EM economies’ growth and balance of payments. We upgraded our outlook for Chinese growth in our May 28 report as the National People’s Congress set the objective for monetary policy in 2020 to significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth as well as both private and public credit have accelerated since April and will continue to increase (Chart I-1). Domestic orders have also surged though export orders are still languishing (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating Chart I-2China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones     That said, financial markets, including the ones leveraged to China, have run ahead of fundamentals and a pullback is overdue. We have been waiting for such a setback to turn more positive on EM risk assets and currencies. Further, the snapback in business activity following the lockdown should not be confused with an economic expansion. As economies around the world reopened, business activity was bound to improve. Were any asset markets priced to reflect months or a whole year of closures? Even at the nadir of the global equity selloff in late March, we do not think risk assets were priced for extended lockdowns. The Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the nearterm outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. In our view, the rally in global stocks and commodities has been much stronger than is warranted by the near-term economic conditions in a majority of economies around the world. In short, we have not been surprised at all by the economic data that has emerged since economies have reopened, but we have been perplexed by the markets’ response to these data. Even in China, which is ahead of all other countries in regards to the reopening and normalization of business activity, the level and thrust of economic activity remains worrisome. Specifically: China's manufacturing PMI new orders and the backlog of orders sub-components remain below the neutral 50 line (Chart I-3). The imports subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI has shown signs of peaking below the 50 line, portending a risk to industrial metals prices (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 Chart I-4A Yellow Flag For Commodities   Marginal propensity to spend for both enterprises and households continues to trend lower (Chart I-5). These gauge the willingness of consumers and companies to spend and, hence, reflect the multiplier effect of the stimulus. These indicators contend that the multiplier so far remains low/weak. Finally, with the exception of new economy stocks (such as Ali-Baba and Tencent) that have been exceptionally strong worldwide, Chinese share prices leveraged to capital expenditure and consumer discretionary spending had not been particularly strong before last week, as illustrated in Chart I-6.  Chart I-5Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart I-6Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones In a nutshell, the Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the near-term outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. As to EM risk assets, the key risk to our stance is a FOMO-driven rally buoyed by the “visible hand” of governments. Ms. Mea: What is your interpretation of the latest policy push in China for higher share prices? Is it also a part of the “visible hand” of government? Don’t you think this could create another strong multi-month run like it did in early 2015? Answer: Yes, this is one of many instances of the “visible hand” of governments around the world. It is not clear why Beijing is boosting investor sentiment and explicitly promoting higher share prices given how badly similar efforts in 2015 ultimately ended. At the moment, we can only speculate that one or several of the following reasons are behind this move: Beijing is preparing for an escalation in the US-China geopolitical confrontation ahead of the US presidential elections. This latter is highly probable in our opinion.1 To limit the impact of this confrontation on their economy, they want to ensure that the stock market remains in an uptrend. The same can be said for the US authorities. Apparently, the “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Robust equity markets will become a prominent feature of the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. In the long run, however, this is a very negative phenomenon for the world because the two of the largest and most prominent stock markets could increasingly be driven by the “visible hand” of their governments rather than by fundamentals. As a result, equity markets could regularly send wrong price signals and will no longer serve as an efficient mechanism of capital allocation. Chart I-7Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Beijing has been luring foreign investors to buy onshore stocks and bonds and this strategy has become more vital in expectation of an escalation in the US-China confrontation. Chart I-7 shows that net inflows into onshore stocks and bonds have been surging. The more US investors buy into mainland markets, the more these investors will exercise pressure on the current and future US administrations to go soft on China. Like those US companies relying on Chinese demand, large US investment funds will have a notable exposure to Chinese financial markets and will accordingly lobby the White House and Congress to take a less adversarial stance toward China. This will reduce the maneuvering room of US politicians in this geopolitical confrontation. Finally, it is also possible that these latest media reports encouraging a bull market in China were not initiated by leaders in Beijing but were in fact spurred by mid-level bureaucrats. If that is the case, a full-blown mania akin to the one in 2015 will not be repeated and the latest frenzy surrounding Chinese stocks could end up being the final surge before a correction sets in. In brief, Chinese stocks, like other bourses worldwide, are in a FOMO-driven mania that might last for a while. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we reiterate our overweight stance on Chinese equities within the EM benchmark. Also, we have a strong conviction with respect to the merits of a long Chinese/short Korean stocks trade. Both these positions were initiated on June 18 before the latest surge in Chinese stocks. The “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Ms. Mea: What will it take for you to go long EM risk assets and currencies in absolute terms? Answer: EM equities, credit markets and currencies are driven by three, or more recently four, factors. We need to witness or foresee an imminent improvement in three out of four of these to go outright long. These factors include: (1) China’s business cycle and its impact on EM via global trade; (2) each individual EM country’s domestic fundamentals (inflation/deflation, balance of payments, return on capital, domestic economic cycles, monetary and fiscal policies, health of the banking system, domestic politics, etc.); (3) global risk-on and risk-off cycles that drive portfolio flows into EM. The direction of the S&P500 is an important trendsetter for these risk-on and risk-off cycles; (4) swings in geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. The first element – China’s impact on EM – is becoming positive. There could be a minor setback in mainland business cycles in the near term, but this should be used as a buying opportunity. As to structural problems in China like credit/money and property bubbles as well as the misallocation of capital, ongoing money and credit growth acceleration will fill in holes and kick the can down the road. That said, those structural problems will become even more challenging in the years to come. In short, Beijing is making credit, money and property bubbles even bigger. The second factor – domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – remain downbeat. The COVID-19 outbreak has been out of control in a number of EM economies (Chart I-8). In addition, outside of China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in DM economies. Critically, the monetary transmission mechanism has been broken in several developing economies. In particular, central banks’ rate cuts have not translated to lower lending rates in real terms (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies Chart I-9Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   The basis is two-fold: First, banks saddled with non-performing loans are reluctant to bring down their lending rates and lend more; and second, the considerable decline in EM inflation has pushed up real lending rates (Chart I-9). The third variable driving EM financial markets – the S&P 500 – remains at risk of a material setback. If the S&P drops more than 10 or 15%, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets will also sell off markedly. Finally, there is the fourth aspect of the EM view – geopolitics – which could be critical in the coming months. The US-China confrontation will likely heighten leading up to the US elections. This will likely involve North and South Korea and Taiwan. Chart I-10EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies Chinese investable stocks as well as Korean and Taiwanese equities altogether make up 65% of the MSCI EM benchmark. Hence, a flareup in geopolitical tensions will weigh on these three bourses. Outside these markets, EM share prices and currencies have already rolled over (Chart I-10). In sum, out of the four factors listed above only the Chinese business cycle warrants an upgrade on overall EM. The other three drivers of the EM view are still negative. This keeps us on the sidelines for now. Importantly, we have been gradually moving our investment strategy from bearish to neutral on EM. Specifically, we: Took profits on the long EM currencies volatility trade on March 5. Took large profits on the long gold / short oil and copper trade on March 11. Booked gains on the short position in EM stocks on March 19. Recommended receiving long-term (10-year) swap rates (or buying local currency bonds while hedging the exchange rate risk) in many EMs on April 23. Upgraded EM sovereign credit from underweight and booked profits on our short EM corporate and sovereign credit / long US investment grade bonds strategy on June 4. The only asset class where we have not yet closed our shorts is EM currencies. In fact, we now recommend shifting our short in EM currencies (BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, PHP and IDR) from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: What is the rationale behind switching your short positions in EM currencies against the US dollar to short positions versus the Swiss franc, the euro and Japanese yen? Wouldn’t the selloff in global stocks drive the greenback higher? Answer: We have been bullish on the US dollar since 2011, consistent with our negative view on EM and commodities prices and recommendation of favoring the S&P 500 versus EM. What is making us question this strategy are the following, in order of importance: First, the Federal Reserve is monetizing US public and some private debt. The amount of US dollars is surging. Meanwhile, the pace of broad money supply growth is much more timid in the euro area, Switzerland and Japan. Broad money growth is 23% in the US, 9% in the euro area, 2.5% in Switzerland, 5% in Japan and 11% in China. This will reduce investors’ willingness to hold dollars as a store of value, incentivizing them to switch to other DM currencies. Second, the pandemic is out of control in the US and this will damage its near-term growth outlook. More fiscal stimulus and more debt monetization will be required to revive the economy. Third, the Fed will not hike interest rates even if inflation rises well above their 2% target in the next several years. This implies that the Fed will prefer to be behind the inflation curve in the years to come, which is bearish for the greenback. Finally, the yen and the euro as well as EM currencies are cheaper than the US dollar (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap Chart I-12EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap     The broad trade-weighted US dollar has yet to break down as per the top panel of Chart I-13, but we are becoming nervous about it. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: That is interesting. Has there ever been an episode where the US dollar depreciated while the S&P 500 sold off? Answer: Yes, it occurred in late 2007 and H1 2008. The 2007-08 bear market in global stocks can be split into two periods. During the initial phase of that bear market, the US dollar depreciated substantially despite the drawdowns in global equity and credit markets (Chart I-14, top and middle panels). Chart I-13Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market   EM stocks performed in line with DM ones during the first phase (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The economic backdrop was characterized by the US recession and US banks tightening credit. In fact, EM growth was still robust during that phase even though the US economy was shrinking. Remarkably, commodities prices were surging – oil reached $140 per a barrel and copper $4 per ton in June 2008. The second phase of that bear market commenced in autumn of 2008 when Lehman went bust. The orderly bear market in global stocks gave way to an acute phase – a crash in all global risk assets. Business activity collapsed worldwide and the US dollar surged. In the current cycle, the order will likely be the reverse of the 2007-08 bear market. March 2020 witnessed a crash in global risk assets and the global economy plunged similar to the second phase of the 2007-08 bear market while the US dollar surged. The second stage of this recession could resemble the first phase of the 2007-08 bear market. There will be neither worldwide lockdowns nor a crash in business activity. However, the level of activity might struggle to recover as rapidly as markets have priced in or there might be relapses in economic conditions in certain parts of the world. This is especially true for the US and other countries where the pandemic has not been effectively contained. On the whole, the second downleg in the S&P 500 and global stocks will be less dramatic but could last for a while and still be meaningful (more than 10-15%). Critically, unlike the March 2020 selloff, the greenback will likely struggle during this episode for the reasons we outlined above. Ms. Mea: What about overweighting EM equities and credit versus their DM peers? Will EM equities, credit and currencies underperform their DM peers in the potential selloff that you expect? Wouldn’t USD weakness help EM risk assets to outperform even in a broad risk selloff? Answer: Yes, we can see a scenario where EM stocks and credit markets perform in line or better than their DM peers in a potential selloff. The key is the dollar’s dynamics. If the dollar rebounds, EM stocks and credit markets will underperform their DM counterparts. If the dollar weakens during this selloff, EM stocks and credit will likely perform in line with or better than their DM peers. In sum, a technical breakdown in the broad trade-weighted dollar and a breakout in the emerging Asian currency index – both shown in Chart I-13 – would lead us to upgrade our EM allocation in both global equity and credit portfolios. For now, we are only switching our shorts in EM currencies from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Ms. Mea: What are some of your other current observations on financial markets? Answer: The breadth and thrust of this global equity rally has already peaked and is weakening. It is just a matter of time before a narrowing breadth translates into lower aggregate stock indexes for both EM and DM equities as illustrated by our advance-decline lines in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over Chart I-16Cyclicals And High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Consistently, there has already been a decoupling between various sectors and industries. The rally has been solely focused on tech and new economy stocks. Equity prices in China and Taiwan have been surging while the rest of the EM equity index has been languishing. In the DM equity space, global industrials, US high-beta stocks and micro caps have already rolled over (Chart I-16). Further, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency index is flashing red for EM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-17A Red Flag For EM Equities? Chart I-18Long Gold / Short Stocks Finally, EM share prices have outperformed DM stocks since late May mostly due to the sharp rally in Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Hence, the breadth of EM equity outperformance has been subdued. Ms. Mea: To wrap up our conversation, I want to ask you what is your strongest conviction trade for the coming months? Answer: Our strongest conviction trade is long gold / short global or EM stocks (Chart I-18). This trade will do well regardless of the direction of global share prices, the US dollar, and bond yields. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Watch Out For A Second Wave (Of US-China Frictions)," dated June 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Please note that I will be hosting a webcast on Friday July 17 and that the webcast will replace next week’s report. Highlights Go tactically short stocks versus bonds. But express it as short DAX versus the US 10-year T-bond, given the greater scope for compression in US bond yields than in German bond yields. Target a profit of 10 percent but apply a stop-loss if stock versus bond outperformance continues for another 10 percent. There is now a strong incentive for short-term investing and a strong disincentive for long-term investing, forcing formerly long-term investors to think and behave like traders. Don’t obsess with the Covid-19 mortality rate. Focus instead on the morbidity, or hospitalization, rate. Covid-19 is unlikely to kill you, but it can make you ill and, in some unlucky cases, permanently ill. Feature Chart of the WeekA Sell Signal For Stocks To Bonds Financial markets have reached an absurdity. It is now more rewarding to be a short-term trader who holds investments for just three months than it is to be a long-term investor who buys and holds them for ten years. And just to be clear, we are comparing cumulative returns over the entire holding period of three months versus one that is forty times longer at ten years. The case for buying and holding most mainstream investments has collapsed. Investors seeking attractive long-term returns can no longer rely on mainstream bond and stock markets. Nowadays, the long-term investment story is about sectors and themes, and we will continue to tell this story in our regular reports. However, this week we will focus on the implications of short-termism in the mainstream markets. Short-Term Returns Now Beat Long-Term Returns Through the past year, anybody who has bought the German 10-year bund, with the intention of holding it until it redeems in 2029 is guaranteed a deeply negative return. Yet there have been many three-month periods in which the bund has generated a high single-digit return (Chart I-2). Chart I-23-Month Returns Now Beat 10-Year Returns! Likewise, anybody who owns the US 10-year T-bond has made almost as much money in the first three months of this year as they mathematically can by holding it for ten years! By extension, the same principle also applies to mainstream stock markets which are priced for feeble long-term returns – yet can rally by 20-30 percent in the space of a few weeks. It is now more rewarding to be a short-term trader who holds investments for three months than it is to be a long-term investor who buys and holds them for ten years. Admittedly, these are nominal returns, and the long-term real returns could be boosted by deflation. Nevertheless, the economy would have to experience Great Depression levels of deflation to make the long-term real returns genuinely attractive. Yet it wasn’t always like this. Until recent years, the cumulative returns available from long-term investing were many multiples of those available from short-term investing – as they should be (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). But today, the incentive structure is back-to-front. There is a strong disincentive for long-term investing and a strong incentive for short-term investing, forcing formerly long-term investors to think and behave like traders. Albeit traders that must get their timing right. Chart I-3Today, There Is A Strong Disincentive For Long-Term Investing... Chart I-4...And A Strong Incentive For Short-Term Investing Unfortunately, when everybody behaves like traders there are worrying implications for financial market liquidity and stability. Short-Termism Destroys Market Liquidity We have been brought up to believe that agreement and consensus create peace and harmony, whereas disagreement and opposition create conflict and discord. Hence, it is natural to think that agreement and consensus also create calm and stability in the financial markets. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. A calm and stable market requires disagreement. Disagreement is the source of market liquidity and stability. Meaning, the ability to convert stocks into cash, or cash into stocks, quickly and in volume without destabilising the stock price. For an investor to convert a large amount of stocks into cash without destabilising the price, a mirror-image investor must be willing to take the opposite position. It follows that market liquidity comes from a disagreement about the attractiveness of the investment at a given price. As an aside, we often read comments such as ‘investors are moving out of stocks into cash’, or vice-versa. Such comments are nonsensical. If one investor is selling stocks, then a mirror-image investor must be buying stocks. The stocks cannot just vanish into thin air! A market which loses its variation of investment horizons loses its liquidity and stability. If institutional investors are selling, then a mirror-image investor must be buying. The mirror-image buyer could be less savvy retail investors, in which case we might interpret the institutional selling as a sell signal. Or the mirror-image buyer could be ‘smart money’ hedge funds, in which case we might interpret the institutional selling as a buy signal. It follows that unless we know the identity of both the seller and the buyer, the ‘flows’ information is useless. The much more useful information is the variation of investment horizons in the market. This is because a market which possesses a variation of investment horizons also possesses the disagreement required for liquidity and stability. Conversely, a market which lacks this variation of investment horizons could soon run out of liquidity and undergo a change in trend. Investors with different time horizons disagree about the attractiveness of an investment at a given price because they interpret the same facts and information differently. For example, a day-trader will interpret an outsized rally as a ‘momentum’ buy signal, whereas a value investor will interpret the same information as a ‘loss of value’ sell signal. Therefore, the market possesses liquidity and stability when its participants possess a variation of investment horizons. For example, both a 1-day horizon and a 3-month (65 business days) horizon. The corollary is that the market’s liquidity and stability disappear when its participants no longer possess this healthy variation in horizons. In technical terms, this occurs when the market’s fractal structure collapses. In the above example, it would be signalled by the 65-day fractal dimension collapsing to its lower limit (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Fractal Structure Has Collapsed All of which brings us to our tactical stock-to-bond sell signal. A Sell Signal For Stocks To Bonds Since 2015, a collapsed 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has reliably presaged a change in trend, implying either a sell or buy signal based on the direction of the preceding trend. The two most recent occurrences happened this year on January 2, a sell signal, and March 9, a buy signal (Chart of the Week). A collapsed 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has reliably presaged a change in trend. The 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed once again, reinforced by a similar observation in the US stock-to-bond ratio. This suggests that the recent 40 percent rally in stocks versus bonds is approaching exhaustion and is susceptible to a tactical reversal (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The 40 Percent Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds May Be Near Exhaustion Hence, go tactically short stocks versus bonds. But express it as short DAX versus the US 10-year T-bond, given the greater scope for compression in US bond yields than in German bond yields. Target a profit of 10 percent but apply a stop-loss if the outperformance continues for another 10 percent. One caveat is that bullish fundamentals can swamp fragile fractal structures. Hence, the strong outperformance of stocks versus bonds would persist if, for example, a breakthrough treatment or vaccine suddenly emerged for Covid-19. On the other hand, it is worth noting that US hospitalizations for the disease are rising once again, even if deaths, so far, are not (Chart I-7). Nevertheless, we reiterate that the Covid-19 morbidity (severe illness) rate is much more important than the mortality rate, for two reasons. Chart I-7US Hospitalizations For Covid-19 Are Rising Again First, it is morbidity rather than mortality that swamps the finite and limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity in healthcare systems. Second, the evidence now suggests that many recovered Covid-19 victims suffer long-term damage to their lungs and/or other vital organs such as kidneys, the liver, and the brain. This is the case even for apparently mild cases of the disease that do not require hospitalization. Therefore, don’t obsess with the Covid-19 mortality rate. Focus instead on the morbidity, or hospitalization, rate. The threat from Covid-19 is not that it will kill you. It almost certainly won’t. The threat is that it will make you ill and, in some unlucky cases, permanently ill. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, this weeks recommended trade is short DAX versus 10-year T-bond, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent. Chart I-8GBP/RUB In other trades, long GBP/RUB is within a whisker of its 3 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent 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  

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, I will present our view on China’s economic recovery, geopolitical risks, and implications on financial markets in two live webcasts. The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, July 15 at 10:00AM EDT (English) and at 9:00PM EDT (Mandarin). Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights China’s economic recovery continues through June, but the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009. The intensity of the PBoC’s monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to stay on the easing course and keep liquidity conditions ample. Bank lending to the corporate sector should increase further in H2. Chinese stocks rallied through last week’s enactment of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government. The existing US sanctions should have limited impact on Hong Kong and mainland China’s economies and financial markets. We remain positive on Chinese stocks despite the recent rallies in China’s equity markets. Feature June’s official and Caixin manufacturing PMIs indicate that China’s economic recovery continues at a steady rate, with the production side of the economy picking up slightly faster than the demand side. The drag on China’s economic recovery from lackluster demand growth should be temporary. Unlike in 2015 when policy uncertainties hindered the recovery in both economic activity and stock prices, the Chinese government has been determined to support its economy and job market in the current cycle. The massive stimulus implemented since March has tremendously boosted activities in China’s construction sector. While households and the corporate sector remain reluctant to spend and to invest, their marginal propensity to spend usually catches up with credit growth with about a 6-9-month lag (Chart 1). The sharp pickup in credit growth should meaningfully support China’s economic rebound, while a better global growth outlook in H2 should also provide some modest tailwinds. On June 30, the PBoC announced a 0.25 percentage point cut to its relending rates for small and rural enterprises and to its general rediscount rate. While the scale of rate cuts in H2 will unlikely match that of Q1, China’s monetary and fiscal policy support will remain in place through the rest of the year. Chinese investable and domestic equities were some of the best performers among global asset classes in June, whereas they were the third-worst the month prior (Chart 2). In the first week of July, both Chinese investable and domestic stocks rallied even further. As we noted in our last week’s report,1 China’s stronger economic outlook, less uncertainty related to its domestic COVID-19 containment, and policy support should provide more room for Chinese stocks to trend upwards. Last week’s passing of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, in our view, should have limited impact on investors’ sentiment for now. Chart 1China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months Chart 2Chinese Equities Are Taking Flight   Tables 1 and 2 present key developments in China’s economic and financial market performance in the past month, and we highlight several of these developments below: Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China’s June official manufacturing PMI ticked up to 50.9 from 50.6 in the previous month. The Caixin manufacturing PMI came in at 51.2, beating the expectation of 50.5 and compared to 50.7 in May. Both suggest that China’s manufacturing sector continues to expand, however the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009 (Chart 3). Although the import and export subcomponents have fared better in June from the low levels in April and May, their readings in June were still below the 50 boom-bust line (Chart 4). Headwinds remain strong for global trade as the US and many of emerging economies are still struggling with the pandemic. Even without re-imposing lockdowns, the resurge in the number of new cases in the US may result in a drag on consumption and global trade. The IMF projects a 12% contraction in global trade in 2020. While the external demand may improve in H2, positive contribution to China's GDP growth from the net exports will be limited this year. Chart 3Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Chart 4Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted   The employment situation in the manufacturing sector has worsened since May, and has returned to contraction following a brief improvement in March and April (Chart 5). An estimated 8.7 million new graduates in 2020,2 a historical high number, will hit the job market in July and August. As such, China’s labor market will likely remain under significant pressure. Even though employment usually lags economic recoveries, depressed expectations on the job market will refrain policymakers from prematurely withdrawing stimulus measures. Small and micro enterprises are an important part of China’s private sector, which provides 80% of jobs in China. The manufacturing PMI of small enterprises fell below the 50 boom-bust line in June, reflecting a persistent weakness in this part of China’s economy. The recent relending and rediscount rate cuts suggest that the PBoC is committed to stay on the easing course. The intensity of monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to keep liquidity conditions ample and encourage banks to accelerate lending to the corporate sector. The contraction in Chinese producer prices deepened to -3.7% (year-over-year) in May. However, we think PPI deflation is likely to bottom in Q3. Both the purchasing and producer price subcomponents of the manufacturing PMI ticked up sharply in June, while the drawdown in industrial product inventory relative to new orders has accelerated (Chart 6). The ongoing accommodative policy should provide powerful tailwinds to both economic activity and the PPI in H2. The improvement in the PPI will help to boost industrial profits growth, which turned positive in May (year-over-year) for the first time this year. We expect year-to-date industrial profits to end the calendar year with a modest positive growth rate.  Chart 5Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Chart 6PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom   China’s property market indicators have notably trended up in May, with year-over-year growth in housing demand normalizing to its pre-pandemic level (Chart 7A & Chart 7B). As the demand in housing rebounded faster than the supply, housing prices have correspondingly turned the corner in May after trending down for 6 consecutive months. Chart 7AHousing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Chart 7BStrong Rebound In Property Investments   Chart 7B shows that housing investments and land purchases have also recovered to near their pre-pandemic levels. Financing restrictions for property developers that were put in place since 2018 have been loosened in H1, which helped to boost real estate investments. We expect the property sector financing conditions to remain accommodative through the rest of this year. Moreover, there is a possibility that the PBoC will lower the 5-year MLF (medium lending facility) rate in Q3. As downward pressures on China's labor market and household income growth intensify, the government is likely to lower the mortgage rate to ease payment constraints on households. Chart 8Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Despite the passing of China’s new and controversial national security law for Hong Kong on June 30 and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, stock prices in both China’s onshore and offshore markets rallied (Chart 8). While we agree the US may impose further and more concrete sanctions on China during the months leading up to the November US presidential election, our preliminary assessment points to a limited economic cost on China from the existing US sanctions. The removal of Hong Kong’s special trade status will subject Hong Kong’s export goods to the same tariffs the US levies on Chinese exports. But the raised tariffs will barely make a dent in Hong Kong or mainland China’s export status quo. Hong Kong’s economy consists mainly of the financial, logistical and services sectors. The manufacturing sector only accounts for 1% of its overall economy. Chart 9 shows that Hong Kong’s exports to the US only accounted for around 1% of its total exports and 1.3% of its GDP in 2019. More importantly, of the $5 billion goods Hong Kong exports to the US, only 10% is actually produced in Hong Kong. Most of Hong Kong's exports to the US are goods produced in China that are re-exported through Hong Kong, which are already subject to the same tariffs as the goods China exports to the US directly.3 On the other hand, US exports to Hong Kong accounts for 2% of its total exports, with a trade surplus of about $30 billion in the past two years (Chart 9, bottom panel). The US trade surplus with Hong Kong has drastically reduced since the US-China trade war broke out in 2018, suggesting that the US has already imposed restrictions on its export goods to mainland China through Hong Kong. Moreover, the large trade surplus with Hong Kong as well as China’s commitment to the Phase One trade deal may be part of the reason President Trump is unwilling to impose more substantial sanctions on China right now. The US senate and house have also passed a bill which, if signed and implemented by President Trump, will allow the US government to levy any foreign financial institutions for knowingly conducting business with individuals who are involved in jeopardizing Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chinese banks with operations in the US will be mostly exposed to such sanctions. However, Chinese banks are largely domestic-focused with very low reliance on foreign-currency funding (Chart 10). Hence, the direct impact of a deteriorating operating environment in the US will be limited on Chinese banks. Chart 9Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Chart 10Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Upgrading Chinese Stocks To Overweight," dated July 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 iiMediaReport, Analysis report on current situation and development trend of Chinese employment entrepreneurship market in 2020. 3 Please see Nicholas Lardy, “Trump’s latest move on Hong Kong is bluster”. Peterson Institute For International Economies, dated June 1, 2020.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, US Investment Strategy will take the first of two summer breaks next week, so there will be no publication on July 13th. We will return on July 20th with the latest installment of our Big Bank Beige Book, reviewing the five largest banks’ second quarter earnings calls. Best regards, Doug Peta   Highlights Bottom-up S&P 500 earnings expectations for 2021 are probably high: I/B/E/S expectations incorporating periods six or seven quarters away are little more than extrapolations and investors shouldn’t get hung up on them. The higher corporate income tax rates that would follow a Democratic sweep are a bigger concern. Policymakers have decisively won the early rounds of their bout with the pandemic’s economic effects, … : Transfer payments pushed April and May personal income well above its February level, and households have accordingly stayed current on their rent and other financial obligations. … and they will win the fight provided Congress doesn’t tire, … : Volatility may rise amidst the back and forth of negotiations, but Republican Senators cannot risk allowing aid to elapse three months before the election. … but what’s good for the economy in the long run may come at the expense of active managers’ performance: Value investors can’t catch a break, and all stock pickers will have to contend with a policy backdrop that challenges their established modus operandi.   Feature We have not traveled any farther for work than the kitchen table in three and a half months. Renewing our expiring passport could take a year, and the clock is ticking on our ability to fly domestically on a driver’s license from the persona non grata state of New York. Unless the administration or the electorate has a change of heart, the REAL ID rules may prevent us from seeing a client in person until well into 2021. At least the construction at LaGuardia may be finished by then. Even if we’re not seeing clients face to face, however, communication continues. Several topics have come up repeatedly in virtual discussions and we devote this week’s report to examining them. Our overriding impression is that global investors have been surprised by risk assets’ resilience and are skeptical that it can be sustained. We share the surprise and some measure of the skepticism, though we are more constructive than most BCA clients because of our conviction that policymakers can bridge the economic gap created by the pandemic and the commercially restrictive measures undertaken to combat it. Yes, Estimates Are Too High (But It’s Mainly An Election Story) Q: Consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates for next year are in line with actual 2019 earnings, yet 2019 was the tenth full year of an expansion and we’re likely to begin 2021 with an unemployment rate close to 10%. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture? We agree that consensus estimates for 2021 S&P 500 earnings are too high. It seems unlikely on its face that 2021 earnings, currently estimated at $163, will match 2018 ($162) and 2019 ($163) when the public health and economic backdrops are so uncertain. An additional 14% of EPS growth in 2022 seems like a pipe dream. We put very little stock in consensus estimates more than two quarters into the future, however, because analysts put very little effort into producing them. They focus on the current quarter and the following quarter; estimates beyond that range are nothing more than simple extrapolation. Investors familiar with sell-side analysts’ processes presumably don’t look beyond near two-quarter estimates themselves. We therefore doubt that the equity market is hanging on stated 2021 estimates and will be at risk when they are eventually revised down. We simply conclude that the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter earnings multiple of 24 is somewhat more elevated than it appears to the naked eye. Stocks are not cheap, and investors have probably gotten somewhat complacent. Equities have little margin for safety now and are therefore vulnerable to a near-term decline. Valuation is a notoriously poor timing tool, however, and we are content to remain neutral on equities over the tactical zero-to-three-month timeframe. A much stronger case against the earnings outlook for 2021 and beyond comes from the president’s flagging re-election prospects. Our Geopolitical Strategy service continues to estimate Joe Biden’s probability of winning the election at 65%. The virtual betting market PredictIt places Biden’s odds at 62%, and has had him as the favorite since May 30th. It is too simplistic to say that a Democratic president, backed by majorities in both houses of Congress,1 would be bad for the economy, but a Biden victory would introduce two profit headwinds. First, reversing half of the decline in the top marginal corporate tax rate, as the Biden campaign has proposed, would directly strike at the earnings stream available to common shareholders. Precisely quantifying that drop is not easy. S&P 500 constituents’ effective tax rates vary widely, with only a small proportion paying the statutory rate, and they do not disclose the federal component of their tax bill. We make the simple back-of-the-envelope assumption that the maximum net earnings impact of the cut in the top marginal rate from 35% to 21%, beginning in 2018, was 21.5%, as .79 (1-.21) is 21.5% greater than .65 (1-.35). Similarly, the maximum net earnings impact of hiking the top marginal rate to 28% from 21%, beginning in 2021, would be -9%, as .72 (1-.28) is nearly 9% less than .79 (1-.21). Equities seem to be ignoring the negative profit margin consequences of an increasingly likely Democratic sweep. Chart 1The Tax Cut Materially Boosted Median S&P 500 Earnings The change in effective tax rates before and after the 2018 tax cuts was about half of our maximum ballpark estimate. In the two years before the rate cut, excluding 4Q17 and its myriad one-time adjustments, the median effective tax rate for S&P 500 constituents was around 28%; in the two subsequent years, excluding 1Q18, the median rate has hovered near 20% (Chart 1). The change suggests that the tax cuts have boosted median S&P 500 earnings by about 11%.2 In addition to raising taxes, a Biden administration would be considerably more friendly to labor than the Trump administration. A soft labor market in which full employment is at least a few years away argues against broad wage gains, but companies that have benefitted from a complaisant National Labor Relations Board for the last four years could face a rude awakening. If Biden wins, we wager that McDonald’s workers will be unionized before next summer,3 a scenario that McDonald’s stock clearly does not anticipate (Chart 2). Chart 2For McDonald's, A Biden Win Means An NLRB Reversal Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would weigh on earnings via higher corporate income tax rates and revived advocacy for labor at executive branch departments like the NLRB. Considering these incremental drags, it is unlikely that S&P 500 earnings will match their 2019 levels in 2021. Policymakers Versus The Virus: The Fight So Far Chart 3D.C. Is Keeping Households Afloat ... Q: Your constructive cyclical take depends on policymakers’ ability to offset the pandemic’s economic consequences. How do the data say that’s going so far? The data say that it’s going swimmingly. Thanks to generous transfer payments from the federal government, personal income in April and May comfortably surpassed February’s pre-pandemic peak (Chart 3). Households have not spent much of their windfall (Chart 4), choosing instead to squirrel it away, driving the savings rate to 32% in April and 23% in May. The mountain of savings will make it easy for households to service their debt (Chart 5), which they have been paying down. Chart 4... And They're Saving The Money, ... Chart 5... Much To Their Creditors' Relief The apartment REITs will not likely disclose June rent collection data before their earnings calls, but the National Multifamily Housing Council rent tracker shows that June collections have built on May’s month-over-month improvement. Through June 27th, June collections are tracking ahead of April and May collections and are barely off of last year’s pace (Table 1). Table 1Apartment Tenants Are Paying Their Rent Table 2Consumer Borrowers Are Making Their Payments TransUnion’s monthly consumer loan delinquency data for May reinforce the conclusion that policymakers are achieving their goal of preventing a default spiral. Auto loan delinquencies rose sharply in May, but delinquencies in all other personal loan categories fell on a month-over-month basis (Table 2). Mortgage delinquencies are below their year-ago level, while credit cards and other personal loans have risen only slightly from a low base. Auto loan delinquencies are up appreciably from May 2019, but TransUnion’s data show that the true rot is concentrated in loans made by independent lenders. Their 60-day delinquencies rose to 7.2% in May from 4.5% in April, while bank (0.62%) and credit union delinquencies (0.51%) eased slightly in May. Bottom Line: Extremely generous income assistance has helped households amass formidable cash reserves. The aid has allowed households to pay their rent and service their debt, shielding landlords, banks and many specialty lenders from pressure. Policymakers Versus The Virus: Going The Distance Q: What might cause the Fed to waver in its resolution to help the economy battle the virus? Will the Senate block future stimulus efforts? Nothing will cause the Fed to waver in its resolution to shield the economy from the virus; investors can take Chair Powell’s pledge to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to the bank. Capitol Hill’s commitment is much less certain and public posturing during Senate negotiations could stoke market volatility. Elected officials reliably respond to career incentives, however, and those incentives will keep recalcitrant Senate Republicans from blocking another round of fiscal largesse. Investors need not worry that Republicans in the Senate will pull the rug out from under the economy and markets – doing so would wreck their own political fortunes. The Republicans’ election prospects have been sliding for a month. Four months is an eternity in a campaign, and they have ample time to reverse their fortunes. But if Republican Senators were to obstruct the passage of the next aid bill, they would be signing their own death warrant. They simply cannot cut off ailing households’ lifeline, or strip municipalities of essential services, as the campaign enters the homestretch. Any individual Senator would be imperiling his/her own quest for influence, and the party’s majority status and relevance, if s/he were to cast one of the votes that blocked a new spending round, and it would be folly to do so over a minor matter like principle. Policymakers Versus Active Managers Q: If valuations no longer matter, how do we show our clients that we’re adding value? It chagrined us to acknowledge on a call last week that equity valuations have been greatly deemphasized in our base case scenario. That scenario calls for overweighting equities in balanced portfolios over a twelve-month timeframe on the view that the flood of emergency stimulus will linger in the system long after it’s needed, stoking aggregate demand and pushing up the prices of cyclically exposed assets. Provided that policymakers succeed in limiting defaults and bankruptcies, thus preventing a pernicious chain reaction from taking hold, we are willing to overlook elevated valuations. Massive accommodation makes active managers' jobs harder because there's no telling who's swimming naked when policymakers won't let the tide go out. Those valuations are supported arithmetically by discount rates which appear as if they will remain very low for an extended period as long as investors don’t become nervous and demand a higher equity risk premium, diluting the impact of nominally lower interest rates. Our base case is that they won’t, but there is no doubt that equity investors’ margin of safety is quite thin. We cannot use the term margin of safety without thinking of Benjamin Graham, and it gives us a pang to think that his disciples may face another few years of wandering in the wilderness. Value investing is predicated on making distinctions between individual companies, as is security analysis more generally. A rising tide lifts all boats, however, and the massive stimulus efforts that have been unleashed in all the major economies (Chart 6) have the effect of obliterating differences between companies. That potentially limits the value that skilled active managers can add to an investment portfolio via a focus on traditional bottom-up metrics. Chart 6All Together Now Our solution is to try to focus on the varying impact top-down factors will have on different companies and sub-industry groups. We are overweight the SIFI banks because we view them as the biggest beneficiary of policymakers’ attempt to suppress defaults and their rock-bottom valuations stand in sharp contrast with the rest of the market. We echo our fixed income strategists’ recommendations to buy the bonds the Fed is buying. We also think that positioning portfolios for regulatory changes that might ensue in 2021 and beyond could be a rich source of alpha if a blue wave really is poised to strike the US on the first Tuesday in November.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Our geopolitical team expects the Democrats to take the Senate if they win the White House. PredictIt markets imply that Democrats have a 61% probability of winning a Senate majority. 2After-tax earnings before the tax cut were 72 cents on the dollar (1-28%) = .72. After the tax cut, they rose to 80 cents (1-20%) = .80. 80 is 11.11% greater than 72. 3Please see the NLRB/McDonald’s discussion on pp.7-9 of the February 3, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 3: The Public-Approval Contest,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.