Equities

Highlights The helicopter drops are over, … : The economic impact payments and supplemental unemployment insurance benefits may have stopped, but their full impact has yet to be felt.  … but fiscal and monetary policy will continue to support demand, … : US households are sitting on more than $2 trillion of excess pandemic savings. If they were to spend just half of their stash over the next two or three years, the economy would gain a steady tailwind.  … and the macro backdrop will remain equity-friendly, … : Monetary policy will be less accommodative going forward but it will remain solidly supportive of markets and the economy across all of 2022.  … so investors should stick around for one last round: Equities and spread product outperform when monetary policy is easy. As long as COVID-19 doesn’t spring a nasty surprise, the expansion will continue and risk assets will once again generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Feature BCA editors’ annual sit-down with Mr. and Ms. X provides a welcome opportunity to gather our thoughts for the coming year and review how this year’s calls panned out. Looking back to this time last year,1 our risk-friendly recommendations performed well as the rationale behind them proved to be sound. Financial markets thrived in the wake of monetary and fiscal policy measures intended to err on the side of providing too much accommodation. The policy efforts were massive, and their support for markets and the economy has yet to be fully exhausted; indeed, their lengthy half-life is a key pillar of our sanguine 2022 outlook. Unlike last December, investors cannot look forward to peak accommodation in the year ahead; the peak is behind us and monetary and fiscal stimulus will be throttled back. The Fed is currently deliberating how much to accelerate its taper timetable, with an eye toward gaining the flexibility to hike rates sooner than previously planned. The hawkish turn foreshadowed by Chair Powell two weeks ago in Congressional testimony unsettled markets somewhat, but it is important to note that monetary policy settings are merely on track to become less accommodative – they are nowhere near crossing the line to restrictive and will not approach it anytime soon. Investors can be certain that markets will enjoy ample policy support across all of 2022 and we expect that equities will still be in a bull market when Mr. and Ms. X return to discuss the outlook for 2023. We are on board with the BCA consensus as detailed in the Bank Credit Analyst’s 2022 outlook.2 Early indications suggest that the Omicron variant will not be enough of a threat to provoke a negative growth surprise and we expect that the pandemic will recede in importance as the year unfolds. As it fades, supply chains should become less snarled, easing the near-term pressures that have been pushing prices higher. We expect that markets are overestimating inflation in the near term and that growth will be robust in the US and other developed economies. Despite the dialing back of some accommodation, monetary policy will remain easy, supporting economic activity and market valuations. We foresee another year of solidly positive excess returns for risk assets. The Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders You wouldn’t necessarily know it to talk with investors, much less consumer confidence survey respondents, but aggregate demand is surging and ought to remain robust going forward. Households are in fantastic shape. Although their net worth growth slowed in the third quarter, its 13% annualized seven-quarter (1Q20 through 3Q21) pace is within a whisker of all-time highs (Chart 1). They have accumulated $2.3 trillion of excess savings since the pandemic began and have plenty of capacity to borrow to augment their spending power. Just about anyone who wants a job can have one: the ratio of job openings to unemployed workers is making new highs (Chart 2) and the share of people in the labor force filing initial jobless claims is approaching the all-time lows set before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 1The Wealth Effect Will Support Consumption​​​​​​ Chart 2More Jobs Than People Without Them ...​​​​​​ Businesses are on a solid financial footing, as well. Debt as a share of net worth is near the lower end of its typical range since the high yield bond market got going in the late ‘80s (Chart 4). Borrowing costs are scraping all-time lows (Chart 5) and profit margins are wide (Chart 6). Banks and fixed income asset managers are falling all over themselves to lend to businesses and will continue to do so while default rates remain low. Chart 3... And Almost No Layoffs​​​​​​ Chart 4Corporations Have Less Debt And More Equity, ...​​​​​​ Chart 5... But Debt Has Never Cost Less ...​​​​​​ Chart 6... And Profit Margins Are Wide​​​​​​ Financial conditions will remain highly accommodative despite the Fed’s and other major developed world central banks’ moves to make them less easy at the margin. Below-equilibrium policy rates will continue to encourage financed purchases of homes, autos and other durable goods and entice investment via low hurdle rates. If sovereign bond yields rise modestly in 2022 in line with our high-conviction base case, governments won’t feel any pressure to tighten the fiscal screws. That may nourish modern monetary theory fantasies to the ultimate detriment of public finances, but it should ensure that all three engines of domestic demand – households, businesses and government – will hum in 2022. Omicron has reminded everyone that the pandemic is not over, but the shadow it casts on public health and economic activity is set to shrink. Booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine apparently provide effective protection, and Omicron’s mutations will not allow it to evade Merck’s and Pfizer’s soon-to-be-approved antiviral pills. The availability of pills to treat those who contract COVID could possibly be a game-changer in terms of neutralizing its global threat. Distributing shelf-stable pills is vastly simpler than delivering vaccines that need to be transported at temperatures below -70 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earnings Bar Has Been Set Very Low Our constructive view would not translate into risk friendly investment strategy if asset prices already discounted it or were expecting something even better. Just as the economy is on a better path than consumers seem to perceive and investors believe can persist, S&P 500 earnings per share are poised to grow over the next four quarters by more than the bottom-up analyst consensus expects. As compared to the simple annualized run rate of last quarter’s earnings ($215.76, or $53.89 times 4), the analyst consensus is calling for effectively no growth ($215.87) over the four quarters through 3Q22. That is a surprising prediction based on two sets of empirical evidence. First, earnings typically rise outside of recessions (Chart 7). Second, analysts have consistently forecast that forward four-quarter earnings would top the run rate of the last reported quarter’s earnings for four decades (Chart 8). This year, though, analysts have repeatedly called for quarter-over-quarter declines in earnings (Table 1), only to have reported numbers shred their estimates by jaw-dropping margins, just as they have in all six full quarters since COVID-19 arrived (Chart 9). We interpret the phase shift in the magnitude of earnings beats as evidence that companies have surprised themselves by how much they’ve been able to increase efficiency and/or cut costs during the pandemic. Our interactions with the investment community suggest that it has also been surprised but views the gains as one-off events that are unlikely to continue. Chart 7Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Chart 8This Has Been An Odd Time To Expect 40-Year Lows In Earnings Growth Table 1Grim Expectations Expectations of sequentially declining earnings would fit if the economy were flirting with falling below stall speed, as it regularly did during the sluggish post-GFC expansion. But they are completely at odds with the Bloomberg economist consensus that GDP will grow at a 5% real annualized rate this quarter and 3.9% in calendar 2022 (Table 2). Over time, S&P 500 revenue growth should converge with nominal GDP growth, so the current expectations for around 10% and 7% annualized nominal GDP growth in 4Q21 and 2022, respectively, are a decent starting point for estimating S&P 500 revenue growth over those periods. While we expect that S&P 500 profit margins have peaked, we do not foresee a sharp decline in 2022, and operating leverage should ensure that high single-digit revenue growth will translate into healthy earnings gains. ​​​​​​ Table 2Above-Trend Growth Ahead​​​​​​ Bottom Line: The S&P 500 should have no trouble topping consensus estimates that foresee next to no growth in earnings over the next four quarters. There is ample room for corporate earnings to surprise to the upside. Our Major Disagreement With Markets Differences of opinion make markets and our biggest one pertains to the future direction of interest rates. We think the widespread conviction that the Fed will be unwilling or unable to raise the fed funds above 2%, if that, lest it crush financial markets and the real economy is way off base. The majority of investors seem to have taken the decade between the crisis and the pandemic as evidence that rates will remain very low for very long. Many of them must be buying the longer end of the Treasury curve in anticipation that an expedited liftoff date is the first step on the path to the next recession (Chart 10). Chart 10The Bond Market Sees Ice, Not Fire The risk asset selloff that ensued in December 2018 after the FOMC marched the fed funds rate up to 2.5% looms large in the markets’ minds and feeds the widespread view that an ambitious program of rate hikes will pull the rug out from under financial assets and the economy. Many investors have also been conditioned by the post-crisis decade to assume that inflation cannot exceed 2% for a sustained period. The market view is rooted in honest-to-goodness evidence, but we think it is of little relevance now, given the way the massive pandemic fiscal stimulus programs have altered the backdrop. In the space of thirteen months from March 2020 through March 2021, Congress passed bills injecting over $5 trillion of aid – 25% of a year’s GDP – into the economy. The Herculean effort contrasted sharply with the skittish disbursement of less than 5% of GDP on the Bush and Obama administrations’ watch from 2008 through 2010. The aftermath of the crisis demonstrated that even multiple rounds of QE do not by themselves trigger inflation, especially if demoralized households and businesses are disinclined to borrow money to consume or invest, and chastened banks are subjected to regulatory strictures forcing them to maintain sizable new capital buffers and discouraging them from making any but plain-vanilla loans to highly rated borrowers. The Bernanke Fed’s three rounds of QE presumably tamped down interest rates, but the cash that bought the Treasury and agency securities barely tiptoed into the wider world before the primary dealer banks sent it right back to the Fed as excess reserves. With banks hiding their QE money under the mattress, the money supply didn’t expand in any notable way after the crisis. Thanks to Congress’ series of 2020-21 helicopter drops, the money supply has been growing at rates that would make the late Paul Volcker’s head spin (Chart 11). Inflation is fiendishly more complicated than Milton Friedman’s always-and-everywhere dictum suggests, but there’s now a whole lot of money chasing a limited amount of goods, services and assets. We expect that a receding pandemic will allow greater quantities of goods and services to be produced, and that securities underwriters and their clients are hard at work ramping up asset supply, but inflation has far more of a chance to gain traction now than it did in the decade before the pandemic. Chart 11Bringing "Always And Everywhere" Back Into Vogue? We therefore think the lower-for-longer and lower-for-ever crowd will find itself offsides at some point in the next few years. We do not think it will get its comeuppance in 2022, however, as we see long yields rising only modestly, with the 10-year Treasury yield ending next year at 2-2.25%. Though we expect the fed funds rate will end the upcoming hiking cycle well north of 2%, bringing about the end of the bull markets in equities and credit, and quite possibly inducing the next recession, we do not think markets will abandon their new-normal rates view by the end of next year. This story will be continued, likely with a greater sense of urgency, in our 2023 outlook. Investment Recommendations Consistent with the foregoing, we make the following recommendations for 2022: Overweight equities in multi-asset portfolios. Although they are not cheap, and may experience a turbulent ride in 2022 as inflation concerns wax and wane, COVID-19 infections periodically surge and the Fed tries to adjust its messaging and actions on the fly, stocks should continue to generate sizable positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors within equity portfolios. If we’re right to be constructive on the global economy, Energy, Industrials, Materials and Financials are better positioned to benefit than Health Care, Staples and Utilities. Overweight small-cap equities versus large-cap equities. The S&P 600 SmallCap Index has greater exposure to our cyclicals-over-defensives call and our US Equity Strategy colleagues highlight that its constituents are cheaper than the S&P 500’s and are projected to have better earnings growth. Adding small-cap exposure to equity portfolios aligns with our constructive view on the economy and markets. Underweight fixed income in multi-asset portfolios. Underweight Treasuries within bond portfolios. Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Though we do not expect the bond market to see things entirely our way next year, we think the long end of the yield curve will shift out somewhat. We therefore have little appetite for duration and Treasuries and expect spread product will outperform Treasuries and high-yield corporate bonds will outperform investment-grade corporates. Consider hybrid alternatives to traditional fixed income securities. When we roll out our multi-asset ETF portfolio next month, it will include a hybrid bucket of income-generating assets to help multi-asset investors seeking income find low-beta destinations with a fighting chance of generating positive real total returns.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the December 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy Report, "2021 Key Views: It’s The Policy, Stupid." 2     Please see the December 2021 Bank Credit Analyst, "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?"

Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1.  How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2.    Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend   Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4.    How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive.  This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5.    Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6.    How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7.    Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

The S&P 500 return is becoming concentrated once again. Over the past three months, the combined return from the 257 S&P stocks that rallied was 316 index points, 62 (20%) of which came from only two tickers: MSFT and AAPL. As a group, FAANG-like stocks represent high-quality defensive Growth due to their sheer size, liquidity, predictable and growing cash flows, and sound balance sheets.  High-quality growth stocks outperform in an environment of slowing growth and falling 10-year US Treasury yield as it justifies the valuations premium FAANGs command (see Charts 1 & 2). Further, FAANGs also provide downside protection during times of heightened risk aversion (please see here).  However, the BCA house view remains that US Treasury rates will rise over the course of 2022, and that economic growth will remain above trend. In this scenario, Growth will underperform Value, and Small caps will outperform Large caps. Bottom Line: We recommend staying away from FAANG-like stocks in 2022, and funneling funds into the other 495 S&P 500 stocks. ​​​​​ ​​​​

Highlights Indian stocks need more time to digest and consolidate the significant gains from earlier this year. However, the country’s medium and long-term growth outlook remains positive. Indian firms’ profit margins will likely settle at a higher level than usual. That will also put a floor on its equity multiples. With an imminent topline recovery, the main driver of Indian stocks next year will be profits, in contrast with multiple expansions during the last year and a half. India is beginning a cyclical expansion with a cheap rupee. Stay neutral Indian stocks in an EM equity basket for now. Investors should overweight India in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Feature Chart 1Indian Stocks Are Overbought We tactically downgraded Indian stocks from overweight to neutral in EM and emerging Asian equity portfolios in early October this year. This call has worked out well so far as India’s absolute and relative share prices seem to have peaked. The primary reason for our tactical “neutral” call on Indian equities was this market’s vertical rise earlier this year, both in absolute and relative terms. Similar spikes – in terms of magnitude and duration back in 2007 and in 2014 – were followed by a period of underperformance (Chart 1). Yet, we recommended downgrading to only a neutral allocation. The reason is that the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, and the profit expansion cycle has further to run. That forbade us from turning too bearish on this bourse. A neutral stance on India also makes sense for the next several months as this bourse digests and consolidates its previous gains. In this report, we detail the various nuances of our analysis. Meanwhile, the Indian currency is cheap versus the greenback and will likely be one of the best performing currencies in the EM world over the next year. A positive currency outlook also makes Indian government bonds attractive for foreign investors, as Indian bonds also offer a high yield amid a benign domestic inflation backdrop. Dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios should stay overweight India. Equity Multiple Compression Ahead? Chart 2India's Profit Margin Expansion Has Led To Its Equity Re-Rating An upshot to the steep equity rally earlier this year has been India’s stretched valuations. That made many investors question the sustainability of the outperformance. A pertinent question, therefore, is how overvalued have Indian stocks become? And how much multiple compression can investors expect in this bourse? Before we answer this question, it’s useful to understand what drove the cyclical re-rating of Indian markets in the first place. The solid black line in Chart 2 shows the gross profit margins of all Indian listed non-financial firms. They have risen substantially since spring 2020 to reach decade-high levels. Margin expansions of this magnitude are indicative of material efficiency gains; and are usually rewarded with an equity re-rating. This is indeed what happened since spring 2020: stock multiples rose following the expanding margins. The same can be said if we only consider the major non-financial corporations’ EBITDA margins (Chart 2, bottom panel). If one looks at the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE) instead, we see a very similar thing: the CAPE ratio has also risen in line with rising profit margins (Chart 3). Chart 3Profit Margins Have A Bearing On Equity Valuations Charts 2 and 3 show that the positive correlations between profit margins and stock multiples held steady over past several cycles. Hence, it will be reasonable to expect that should Indian firms hold on to wide margins, they will not suffer a significant de-rating going forward. Can Margins Stay Wide? Chart 4Indian Firms' Borrowing Costs Will Likely Stay Low Before we delve into the question of whether margins can stay wide, we need to understand what caused such a margin expansion in the first place. That cause is cost cutting: wage bills have gone down as businesses slashed employees. Data from Oxford economics show that there had been 9% fewer workers in India as of September 2021 compared to March 2020, just before the pandemic. Interest expense has also gone down – both relative to sales and profits (Chart 4) – as interest rates were cut aggressively. In our view, the latest rollover in profit margins will likely be temporary and limited. It is probably due to hiring back of some employees. Beyond a near-term limited drop in margins, the more relevant question to ask is, can Indian corporations maintain high margins? Our bias is that, to a large extent, they can. The main reason is that firms’ costs are slated to stay under control: Chart 5Indian Companies Do Not Face Any Wage Pressures Wage expectations are low. Going forward, as millions of new job seekers and workers temporarily discouraged by the pandemic enter the job market, wages have little chance of much of an increase. The top panel of Chart 5 shows salary expectations from an industrial survey by RBI. Both the assessment for the current quarter and expectations for the next quarter have been a net negative for a while. Rural wages are also similarly timid (Chart 5, bottom panel). Notably, companies’ hiring back of employees is slow. It seems they prefer to substitute labor by capital by investing in new machines and equipment. This will boost productivity and cap wages. Overall, high productivity growth will keep companies’ profit margins wide and excess labor will suppress wages. Higher margins and low inflation are bullish for the stock market. Critically, headline inflation is within the central bank target bands, and our model shows that it will likely remain as such (Chart 6, top panel). Core inflation is also likely to stay flattish (Chart 6, bottom panel). This means the odds are that the central bank will not raise rates anytime soon. Flattish inflation and policy rates mean firms’ borrowing costs, in both nominal and real terms, are slated to stay approximately as low as they are now. Low real borrowing costs are usually a tailwind for stocks (Chart 7). Chart 7Low Borrowing Costs Are Bullish For Stocks     All put together, Indian companies will likely see their costs largely under control. That, in turn, should keep profit margins wider than usual. Wide profit margins should limit multiple compression. Can The Topline Rise Further? Wider margins will boost total profits if and once the topline (revenues) recovers. So, the next question is, how much topline recovery is in the cards? Chart 8Indian Economy Is In A Rapid Expansion Mode There are already signs that sales will likely accelerate in the months to come: PMI indexes for both the manufacturing and services sectors have recovered strongly since the Delta variant-induced lockdowns in spring. They are now hovering around a very high level of close to 60. This indicates that the economy is in a rapid expansion mode (Chart 8). The Industrial Outlook survey (conducted by the RBI) shows that the order books for the September quarter was already at a decade-high level. The expectation for the next few quarters is even more elevated – indicating strong momentum (Chart 9, top panel). In other surveys, such as the PMI and Business Expectation survey (from Dun & Bradstreet), we see similar strong order books (Chart 9, bottom panel). While orders are strong, inventory of finished goods is low. Not surprisingly, businesses are expecting very high-capacity utilization in the next few quarters (Chart 10, top two panels). Chart 9Firms' Order Books Are Quite Robust Chart 10Low Inventories Mean Stronger Economic Activity Ahead They are expecting to hire more people. Companies also believe consumer demand will revive which will enable wider profit margins. In sum, firms are optimistic about accelerating economic activity (Chart 10, bottom two panels). Chart 11A Positive Bank Credit Impulse Is Bullish For Industrial Activity This, in turn, is encouraging them to make capital investments. Finally, the commercial banks’ credit impulse has also turned positive. Rising bank credit impulses usually signal stronger industrial production (Chart 11). To summarize, chances are that firms’ top lines are set to rise materially. Coupled with high margins, this will translate into strong profit acceleration in the next several quarters. Put differently, over the past year and a half, Indian firms witnessed rising margins. Going forward, they will likely see rising profits. Higher profits, in turn, will propel Indian share prices cyclically beyond any short-term consolidation. A Sustainable Expansion? In a notable departure from most developed countries, India’s recovery from the pandemic-induced recession has been more capex-led, rather than consumption-led (Chart 12). One reason for that is the Indian government did not supplement the lost household incomes during the lockdowns nearly as much as developed countries did. That, in turn, kept household demand low. And it also contributed to keeping inflation in check – even though India’s supply side was also paralyzed due to strict lockdown measures. On the other hand, firms’ profits soared owing to rigorous cost-cutting. Higher profits in turn have encouraged firms to expand their production capacity. Companies are ramping up capital spending as they expect sales to accelerate in the future (Chart 13). Chart 12A Capex-Led Recovery Will Prolong The Economic Expansion Chart 13Strong Profits Are Encouraging Firms To Ramp Up Capital Spending Notably, the combination of curtailed household demand and robust capital expenditure has set India’s inflation dynamics apart from many other countries in Latin America and EMEA. While India’s inflation remains largely contained, countries in those regions are witnessing accelerating inflation.  Also, over a cyclical horizon, a capex-led expansion is very crucial for India as this will determine the duration and magnitude of the cycle. Strong investment expenditures do not only boost firms’ competitiveness and profitability, but they also help keep inflationary pressures at bay. Lower inflation for a longer period means the central bank need not raise rates as soon and/or as much as otherwise would be the case. That in turn allows the economic and profit expansion to continue for longer. An extended period of expansion is also positive for multiples as investors extrapolate profit growth over many years ahead. India’s current dynamics are a case in point. Given the country is facing no imminent interest rate hikes, stock multiples can stay higher for longer. This is because multiple de-rating commences only after meaningful rate hikes have already been accorded (Chart 14). Since that is quite far off, valuations are not facing any immediate and considerable headwinds. Finally, India is beginning the new cycle with a rather inexpensive currency. Chart 15 shows that the rupee is currently cheaper by about 10% than what would be its “fair value” vis-à-vis the US dollar. The fair value has been derived from a regression analysis of the exchange rate on the relative manufacturing producer prices of India and the US. Chart 14It Takes Several Rate Hikes Before It Hurts Stock Multiples Chart 15India's Cyclical Expansion Has A Tailwind From Cheap Currency   Investment Conclusions Equities: Given the vertical rise earlier this year, Indian stocks would likely need a few more months to digest previous gains and consolidate. Hence, even though the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, we recommend that dedicated EM and Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines and wait for a better entry point. Currency and Bonds: The rupee is cheap and could be one of the best performers within the EM world over a cyclical horizon. Indian government bonds also offer a good value with a rather high yield (6.4% for 10-year securities) amid a benign inflation outlook. A positive rupee outlook also makes Indian bonds more appealing for foreign investors. Investors should stay overweight India in an EM local currency bond portfolio. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes

Highlights As investors’ hunt for yield continues, REITs emerge as an attractive asset class. Characterized by an attractive risk-adjusted return (comparable to public equities), and high dividend yields, REITs can add value to investors’ portfolios. The macro backdrop is supportive: Moderate levels of inflation and rising rates have historically been positive for REITs’ performance. Valuations, albeit currently looking frothy, are reflective of a recovery that was broad-based and swift. REITs’ risk premium is attractive, currently 540 basis points. Fundamentals remain supportive of a positive outlook on REITs. Even though cap rates (which historically have moved in lockstep with interest rates) could rise given our macro outlook, the cap-rate spread remains close to its historical average. The pandemic has accelerated some existing trends in the real-estate sector and established new ones. Those will create opportunities for investors. For example, the decline of retail and rise of e-commerce, working from home, and migration away from city centers are observable patterns with investable opportunities. Accordingly, the Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service upgraded the Real Estate sector to Overweight in its July 2021 Quarterly Outlook. In the near-term – given current elevated levels of inflation – we prefer REITs with short-term leases (such as self-storage and residential REITs) over those with long-term leases (such as retail and office) since the former can adjust rents more quickly. Structurally, we favor sectors supported by the growth of the digital economy. The post-pandemic environment should be positive for sectors such as data centers and industrial REITs. Feature In today’s environment of accommodative monetary policy, low interest rates, unattractive valuations and poor return prospects for income-generating assets, investors have been forced to dial up their risk appetite. Real estate stands out as a particularly attractive alternative. The Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service turned positive on real estate in July given the favorable macro backdrop in which: Inflation – while likely to come down from current elevated levels – will be higher in future than in recent decades; There is tight supply in some segments of commercial real estate (CRE); Rental growth is accelerating. This Special Report focuses on REITs, which are the simplest way for most investors to get liquid exposure to the real estate market.  The report is structured as follows. We first look at the broad US REITs market (mainly equity REITs) and analyze its historical risk-return characteristics, fundamentals, and valuations. We then assess how REITs fared in previous environments of rising rates and inflation. In the second section, we analyze various sectors of the REITs market, identifying likely losers and winners from our base-case expectations for inflation and growth, and based on our views of how long-term demand for real estate will shift following the pandemic. While we have concerns about potential weaknesses in some segments of commercial real estate (e.g., retail), we highlight opportunities in more technology-driven segments of CRE. Introduction The REITs market in the US as of Q3 2021 has a market value of close to $1.5 trillion. The bulk of this is equity REITs – trusts that own and operate income-producing assets and earn income mostly through rents. The remaining are mortgage REITs which lend money directly to real-estate owners or indirectly by purchasing mortgages or securitized securities such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and earn income on those investments. While technically considered equities, the business model of mortgage REITs makes them more like bonds than equities. The composition of the REITs market has changed over the years. While the traditional retail and residential segments dominated the market in the first years of the millennium, structural changes have shifted the balance towards segments such as infrastructure, data centers and industrial (Chart 1). The pandemic accelerated trends that were already in play: For example, the rise of e-commerce, digitalization of services, increased teleworking, and reshoring of manufacturing and supply chains. These have had adverse effects on traditional real estate segments such as retail. Historical Risk And Return, Valuations, Fundamentals & Correlations Since 1973, US all-equity1 REITs have outperformed both public equities and fixed-income assets (both government bonds and investment-grade corporate bonds) on an absolute basis, providing investors with an 11.9% annualized return versus 10.8%, 6.8%, and 7.6% respectively. On a risk-adjusted basis however, REITs’ performance was equal to that of their public equity counterparts, but lower than fixed-income assets because of REITs’ higher volatility. The negative skewness and excess kurtosis also indicate a high probability of large negative returns.  Mortgage REITs (split between Home Financing and Commercial Financing), on the other hand, have returned only 5.2% on an annualized basis, while racking up annualized volatility 3.5 percentage points higher than their all-equity counterparts (Table 1). Table 1Historical Risk-Return Characteristics In order to generate the sort of yields investors expect, mortgage REITs resort to leverage (about 6-8 times) which increases volatility (Chart 2). For example, REITs focusing on residential/home financing buy low credit-risk securities (with almost zero default risk), add leverage, and hedge changes in interest rates via derivatives. Mortgage REITs focusing on commercial financing use less leverage, but take on additional credit and default risk embedded in their underlying assets. Both types of REITs remain highly exposed to the economic cycle and financial conditions. Despite disappointing returns (mainly stemming from narrowing net interest spreads), mortgage REIT investors have been entranced by the high dividend yields. These have averaged 11.3% over the past four decades and are still close to 8% today, much higher than the yields of their all-equity counterparts and other assets (Chart 3). Chart 2Mortgage REITs Are Volatile... Chart 3...And Have High Dividend Yields   Table 2Attractive Dividend Yields Across Sectors Dividend yields for all-equity REITs are also attractive in today’s low-yielding investment environment, even though they are at all-time lows – currently they average 2.9%, 150 basis points higher than for public equities. In fact, all REIT sectors and subsectors (with the exception of the lodging/resorts sector) currently have dividend yields higher than those of public equities (Table 2). Even though REITs are considered equities, analyzing them requires different indicators. Whereas equity investors rely on multiples such as price-to-earnings (P/E) or price-to-book (P/B), for REITs price-to-funds from operations (P/FFO) is a more important valuation tool. FFO is favored over earnings since it adds back depreciation and amortization expenses, and adds to net income any gains (or subtracts any losses) from sales of underlying assets. REITs traded at a steady 17x FFO between the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the start of the pandemic. FFO fell by 30% in the first two quarters of 2020 compared to Q4 2019, pushing the P/FFO multiple to 24.7 – an all-time high.  But FFO as of Q3 2021 has inched back above its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). The risk premium for REITs (calculated as the FFO yield minus the real 10-year treasury yield) – currently at 5.4% – remains higher than the pre-GFC bottom of 3.5%. (Chart 5). Chart 4Valuations Reflect A Swift Recovery Chart 5REITs Risk Premium Is Still Elevated     With the exception of the lodging/resorts sector, REITs’ FFO as of Q3 2021 is higher than one year ago. The occupancy rate for major sectors of the REITs market is starting to rise. Overall net operating income (NOI) for Q3 2021 was 4.5% higher than its pre-pandemic (Q4 2019) level (Chart 6). Chart 6Occupancy Rates Are Rising Again This however is the result of a large year-on-year increase in inorganic or non-same-store net operating income (NOI) – income from assets owned for less than 12 months (either recently acquired or developed) (Chart 7). M&A activity has been increasing, and amounted to almost $47 billion over the past four quarters – driven by activity in the infrastructure, self-storage, and free-standing2 segments (Chart 8). Chart 8...As M&A Activity Rose Chart 9REITs Have Low Leverage...   The real-estate sector has historically been seen as risky due to its high leverage, but leverage has been on the decline. Over the past decade, REITs’ reliance on equity capital has increased, with the equity/assets ratio rising from 32% in 2008 to 43% in 2021. The ratio of debt to book assets stands at around 49%, much lower than the 58% during the GFC (Chart 9). REITs have also extended the average maturity of their debt from 5 years in 2008 to over 7.5 years today. The fall in interest rates over the past two decades has benefited equity REITs: As rates fell, so did the interest they paid on their debt. Liquidity ratios also improved, with REITs’ coverage ratio (earnings relative to interest expense) at 6x, cash levels and undrawn lines of credit relative to interest expense close to 2x and 7x, respectively (Chart 10).  In summary, REITs are an attractive asset class, since leverage is lower, earnings continue to rise, and cap rates – while declining – remain high compared to the risk-free rate. REITs, however, remain highly correlated to public equities: The current 3-year rolling correlation between REITs and public equities is above its historical average of 0.57 (Chart 11). This high correlation undermines the diversification benefit of REITs to investors’ portfolios. Moreover, investors should note that the correlation between REITs and direct real estate (DRE) has averaged only 0.1 over the past four decades. Even when DRE is lagged to account for its appraisal-based methodology, correlation does not rise. Chart 10...And Ample Liquidity Buffers Chart 11REITs Remain Highly Correlated To Equities In a previous Special Report we showed however that, while both direct and indirect real estate exposure can add value to investors’ portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis, direct real estate should be favored given its low correlation to other financial assets (such as equities and bonds) as well as the illiquidity premium that investors with no need for immediate liquidity can harvest. The Macro Outlook Our base case is that interest rates will inch higher over the next 12 months and that inflation will moderate but remain higher than during the past decade. How would such an environment affect the outlook for real estate – and REITs in particular? Interest rates and cap rates tend move in lockstep (with the exception of a divergence from mid-2003 until the GFC). This implies that rising rates could lead to higher cap rates, and thus lower property values (Chart 12, panel 1). The current cap-rate spread (the difference between the cap rate and the 10-year Treasury yield) is close to its long-term average of 365 basis points. This should help mitigate downward pressure on property values and act as a buffer when rates rise (Chart 12, panel 2). As long as rising rates are reflective of strengthening economic growth – and we expect US growth to remain above trend for the next two years at least (Chart 13) – and do not hurt the health of corporate tenants or increase defaults, demand for real estate should rise. Chart 12Interest Rates And Cap Rates Tend To Move In Lockstep Chart 13Above-Trend Growth Should Bolster Demand For Real Estate Historically, rising rates coincided with strong performance from REITs. On average, REITs returned 25.4% during episodes of rising interest rates, even higher than the return from equities of 24.5%. However, that figure is distorted by some outliers:  REITs returned over 100% between 1976 and 1980, and in 2003-2007 (Table 3). The median return of REITS was only 7.1% versus 22.5% for equities. Excluding those two periods lowers REITs’ mean return to 9.4%. Valuation data begins only in 2000, but we can see that REITs were attractively valued in 2003, trading at about 9x P/FFO. By the peak of the market in Q1 2007, they were trading at more than 17x P/FFO. Table 3REITs Fared Well In Previous Periods Of Rising Interest Rates REITs however fared poorly in periods of rising inflation. In a Special Report published in mid-2019, we showed that REITs were a poor hedge against very high inflation and that, much like equities, once the economy overheats and inflation rises sharply (which we define as CPI above 3.3%), REITs produced negative excess returns over cash (Chart 14 and Table 4). For investors able to be more granular in REIT allocations, drilling down to sub-categories of the market might be beneficial, particularly given the low correlation between REIT sectors (Chart 15). Table 4REITs Are Not A Good Inflation Hedge (II) Chart 15Low Correlation Between REIT Sectors The real estate market is diverse. Each sector is driven by different dynamics, reacts differently to the business cycle and changes in consumer behavior, and therefore has different return characteristics. Annual returns by sector have ranged from 4% to 19% since 1994 (Table 5). Moreover, sectors do not react in the same way to rising interest rates or inflation. Properties with short-term leases, such as hotels, storage, and apartments, can reprice and adjust rents as prices rise. On the other hand, those on the other end of the lease spectrum, e.g., retail and healthcare, have less flexibility to do so (Diagram 1). REITs with shorter-term leases (an equally-weighted basket of lodging, self-storage, and residential) outperfomed those with longer-term leases (an equally-weighted basket of healthcare, industrial, retail, and office) during periods of rising interest rates (Chart 16). Table 5REIT Sector Historical Returns Diagram 1Short-Term Leases Outperform...   Chart 16...During Periods Of Rising Interest Rates Bottom Line: The REITs market has recovered after the slump early in the pandemic. Current multiples appear expensive. However, they may just reflect a recovery that has been broad-based and swift. Cap rates historically have moved in lockstep with rising rates. If rates rise, as we expect, cap rates are likely to rise in tandem, putting downward pressure on property prices. The cap rate spread however remains close to its historical average and this should act as a buffer when rates rise. Moderate levels of inflation and rising rates are usually a positive for REITs’ performance. However, just like equities, once inflation rises too high (historically above 3.3%), REITs’ returns fall. We prefer REITs with short-term leases compared to those with long-term leases, as the former can reprice and adjust rental pricing more quickly. The Post-Covid Environment The pandemic has accelerated some existing trends in the real-estate sector and established new ones. Some sectors will struggle in this new environment, while others will flourish. In this section, we describe the likely post-pandemic world and how it will impact various segments of the real-estate market. We also assess where there are opportunities that investors can capitalize on.   Retail The “death of retail” is not a new phenomenon. As technological advances led to the rise of e-commerce, consumer spending shifted from in-store to online. Over the past two decades, non-store retail sales in the US have grown at an annualized 9.5%, compared to 3.1% for in-store sales. E-commerce has risen to almost 14% of total retail sales (Chart 17). This shift is reflected in the halving of the weight of retail REITs in the REITs index over the past decade. The composition of the sector has also changed and is no longer dominated by regional malls and shopping centers but by free-standing properties: These include restaurants, theaters, fitness centers, pharmacies, etc.  (Chart 18). Chart 17The Rise Of E-Commerce... Chart 18...Had An Adverse Impact On The Retail Sector   The headwinds facing the sector – particularly shopping centers –  have not abated. The size of vacant shopping center space has increased to 220 million square feet, approximately 11% of total retail space available: This is close to its post-GFC high. Private multi-retail capex continues to decline and is below its post-GFC low (Chart 19). Retail REITs’ occupancy rate is among the lowest among CRE: 94% as of Q3 2021, although it is higher than during the past two recessions. Funds from operations (FFO) and net operating income (NOI) have been declining over the past few years, with the exception of free-standing properties which saw low but positive growth (Chart 20). Chart 19Plenty Of Vacant Inventory In Shopping Centers... Chart 20...But There Could Be Opportunities In Free-Standing Properties   The pandemic exacerbated some other underlying trends and threats. Smaller in-store retailers have shifted to an online presence, aided by companies like Shopify, which saw the numbers of merchants on its platform grow from 1.07 to 1.75 million in 2020. Consumers are also likely to favor shopping in smaller-scale, local shops as they find convenience in stores close to home. Additionally, given the positive correlation between household density and retail space, as households migrate from city centers to the suburbs there will be less need for retail space within city centers. Bottom Line: We recommend investors underweight the retail sector within their broad real estate exposure. The structural headwinds are not likely to disappear. Within retail, we would favor free-standing properties over shopping centers and regional malls.   Office There has long been a close link between office demand and employment. As the labor market tightens, demand for offices increases and rents tend to rise (Chart 21). Investors in office REITs have earned 9.6% annualized returns, 90 basis points annualized below the overall return of the all-equity REITs index, over the past two decades. The sector is currently flush with supply. Estimates show that almost 18% (close to 800 million square feet) of total office space is vacant, yet capex has continued to increase over the past decade (Chart 22). Chart 21The Pandemic Has Changed Office Demand Dynamics Chart 22...Leaving The Sector With Empty Space   The pandemic, however, might be the catalyst for change. After social restrictions were imposed and offices shut down, the BLS estimates that in May 2020 as many as 35-40% of US employees were telecommuting, strictly because of the pandemic (Chart 23). Since then, as restrictions were lifted and vaccination rates rose, this number has come down to 12%,3 as more employees returned to some sort of pre-pandemic normalcy. The US Household Pulse survey (published by the US Census Bureau), however, shows close to 40% of employees working at home as of the end of September (Chart 24). Chart 25Mobility Data Showing No Full Return To Offices The true number of employees who telework likely lies in between the BLS’s 15% and the Census Bureau’s 40%. A study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman estimated, based on job characteristics,4 that 37% of jobs in the US can be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). Whether employees will favor a work-from-home versus a return-to-office environment is still unclear. Most surveys show a 50-50 split. High-frequency data such as the Google Mobility Trends show that the number of people going to their workplace has not yet returned to normal (Chart 25). It is likely however that office utilization rates will not return to pre-pandemic levels. This might incentivize firms to search either for offices with flexible leases or co-shared space. Chart 26Are Employers Leaving City Centers With Their Employees? Companies face the choice of downsizing and so reducing business costs, or keeping the same premises which would allow for lower office density and enable social distancing between employees who return to the office. Estimates by CBRE suggest that office demand will not fall by as much as the reduction in the time employees will be in the office. CBRE argues that, while the average US employee is likely to spend 24% less time in an office, demand for office space will fall by only 9%. This calculation factors in more space per employee to allow for social distancing and collaborative working. Additionally, as more employees move away from inner cities, employers could move with them. This trend is reflected in suburban office prices which have risen by 15.1% since the beginning of 2020, compared to those in central business districts (CBD) which have risen by a mere 0.2% (Chart 26). Bottom Line: Investors in office space should be wary of corporates which are unwilling to return to offices operating at full capacity, and instead focus on single-tenant assets with long-term leases.   Healthcare Chart 27Like Equities, Healthcare REITs Are A Defensive Play REITs within this sector are focused on hospitals, senior and nursing homes, and laboratories. Since 1994, healthcare REITs have returned 10.7% annualized, with 21.1% annual volatility. These numbers, however, mask the underlying reality. Healthcare, being a defensive sector, outperformed the broad REITs market only during the dot-com recession and the GFC. In the short-lived pandemic-driven recession in 2020, healthcare REITs underperformed the broad index by 15%. On the other hand, during bull markets, particularly post the GFC, healthcare REITs significantly underperformed the broad market (Chart 27). The sector also has a high dividend yield, which has averaged 6.7% over the past 25 years, 160 basis points higher than the broad index’s historic average (Chart 28). In a Special Report published last year, we explained the structural reasons for our longstanding overweight position on Healthcare equities. We expect demand for healthcare services to continue to rise as life expectancy increases, populations age, and retiring baby boomers spend their accumulated wealth (mainly on healthcare) (Chart 29). Chart 28Healthcare REITs Have High Dividend Yields Chart 29An Aging Population Will Support Demand For Healthcare Elder care facilities will play a major role in supporting the increasingly aging population over the coming years. The pandemic has emphasized the need for high-quality senior housing: In our previous report, we highlighted that lack of funding and mismanagement – particularly in for-profit nursing homes – were reasons why they had almost four times as many Covid infections as those run by the government or non-profits. Chart 30...Increasing Investment In Healthcare Facilities Chart 31Healthcare REITs' Fundamentals Are Recovering The private sectors has already began to step in to meet this demand: Healthcare private construction expenditure has risen over the past few years and is likely to rise further (Chart 30). Cap rates continue to inch lower, but still have a decent spread over 10-year Treasurys (Chart 31, panel 1). Fundamentals have also began to improve: FFO and NOI growth seem to have bottomed, after dipping into negative territory as a result of the pandemic (panels 2 & 3). The sector has been going through a phase of consolidation: There have been significant acquisitions over the past few quarters, particularly of distressed operators (panel 4). Bottom Line: There is a structural long-term case to favor REITs in this sector, particularly an aging population with ample savings to spend on healthcare. Federal support and oversight have helped bolster confidence (for both occupants of care homes and investors) during the pandemic, and are likely to continue.   Lodging/Resorts Chart 32Income Has Been The Only Source Of Return For Lodging REITs Chart 33The Travel Industry Has Not Yet Recovered Lodging REITs have been the worst performing sector over the past 27 years. Since 1994, they have returned only an annualized 4.1%, 640 basis points lower than the all-equity REITs index, with annual volatility 14 percentage points higher. They have steadily underperformed the market since 1997. Property prices within the sector have consistently declined, and income has been the only source of return (Chart 32). Lodging demand is closely linked to travel, which has been deeply impacted by the pandemic. The number of US domestic airline passengers is still only half that of the pre-pandemic period (Chart 33). With vaccines rolled out and most pandemic restrictions likely to be lifted eventually, the travel sector is set to rebound, albeit not equally across segments. Chart 34Personal Travel Likely To Recover Before Business Travel Chart 35The Hotel Industry's Recovery Personal and leisure travel is likely to return first: More people are now comfortable about going on vacation and want to make up for the “lost travel” of the past two years (Chart 34). Hotel occupancy rates, while still below 2019 levels, continue to rise, and revenue per available room (RevPAR) is close to 2019 levels (Chart 35). Business travel, on the other hand, might not recover as fast. The shift to remote working and videoconferencing is likely to push companies to review travel budgets. Business travel, which halved between 2019 and 2020, is forecast to return to its pre-pandemic level only in 2024/2025. This is likely to have a larger adverse impact on higher-end, major-city hotels. Chart 36The Pandemic's Effect On The Lodging Sector The industry has been facing other headwinds for the past few years. The threat from online lodging platforms, such as Airbnb, has put downward pressure on occupancy rates, which have been declining recently after having hovered around the mid-60% level over the past 30 years. Bottom Line: Real spending on hotels and motels remains 26% below trend (Chart 36). A revival in leisure travel, the easing of restrictions, and pent-up demand will support the sector in the short-term. However, domestic business travel and international tourism might be slow to recover. Investors in lodging and resorts should reduce exposure to major-city assets and focus instead on rural or resort-based getaways.   Residential Residential REITs are primarily focused on apartments, rather than single-family homes or manufactured (mobile) homes  – although the share of apartments has been declining over the past few years (Chart 37). Since 1994, residential REITs have outperformed the broad market by an annualized 1.8 percentage points. More recently, since the single-family homes segment was added to the sector (in December 2015), residential REITs have continued to outperform the broad market, driven by a 21.4% annualized return from the manufactured homes segment, 19.4% from single-family homes, and 12.3% from apartments. The sector’s outperformance should not come as a surprise. The housing sector has been undersupplied for decades: The ratio of annual housing starts to the total number of households is 1.2% –  0.7 percentage points below its pre-GFC average (Chart 38). This has pushed up prices, increasing unaffordability, particularly for first-time buyers (Chart 39). This increased the percentage of US housing inventory occupied by renters rather than owners (Chart 40). Chart 37Apartments Make Up The Majority Of Residential REITs Chart 38Housing Undersupply Is No New Issue...   Chart 39...Making Home Prices Unaffordable... Chart 40...Particularly For Young Adults   Chart 41The Pandemic Pushed Renters Outside Of Major Cities The pandemic, and its impact on shopping and work, has pushed city residents to the suburbs. This is reflected in the gap between the rental vacancy rate in large cities versus that in the suburbs (Chart 41). It is also noticeable in REITs’ performance: Ones dominated by suburban housing have outperformed those focused on city centers over the past year. Home prices, appreciating faster than rental growth, will remain a tailwind for residential REITs (Chart 42). Supply shortages will keep prices high. Fundamentals also remain supportive of a positive outlook on the sector: The cap rate on residential REITs is about 260 basis points over the 10-year Treasury yield, and both FFO and NOI growth seem to have troughed (Chart 43). Chart 42Rising Home Price Will Be A Tailwind For Residential REITs Bottom Line: Investors should favor the residential sector within the REITs market, favoring single-family homes and manufactured homes over apartments, and out-of-city over downtown properties. Chart 43Improving Fundamentals For The Residential Sector   Data Centers Data centers are facilities that provide space for customers’ servers and other network and computing equipment. Due to the high and complex technical set-up specifications, leases are usually longer (upwards of five years). Properties that support the digital economy have attracted a lot of demand over the past few years. New technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and autonomous vehicles will prove a tailwind over the coming years. Since data first became available (January 2016), data centers have outperformed the REITs benchmark by almost 60 percentage points (Chart 44). The pandemic has accelerated those trends, as social restrictions led offices, schools, and stores to close. This led to an increase in internet traffic and data creation. Estimates by OpenValut show that broadband usage increased by 51% in 2020 compared to 2019, partly due to remote learning and teleworking. Demand for data centers is expected to continue to grow. Fundamentals for the sector remain supportive: The cap rate – albeit now lower than post the GFC– is still near that of the broad benchmark (Chart 45, panel 1) and both NOI and FFO continue to grow (panels 2 & 3). Chart 44Sectors Supporting A Digitalized Economy Will Be Long-Term Outperfomers Chart 45...Supporting Fundamentals' Growth     Bottom Line: Internet traffic remains the primary driver of the performance of data-center REITs. The move towards a more digitalized economy is likely to prove a tailwind for the sector. This should also immunize the sector over the economic cycle as dependence on data increases structurally. A new normal in remote working and learning, as well as continued investment in new technologies, support an allocation to the sector.     Industrial Technological advances, particularly the rise of e-commerce, have also helped the industrial sector, increasing the need for logistics and fulfillment centers. Research by Prologis shows that e-commerce requires more than 3x the logistics space of brick-and-mortar sales. That is why investment in the sector has been rising over the past decade (Chart 46). Demand shows no signs of cooling: The occupancy rate of industrial REITs is at an all-time high, 4 percentage points higher than its 20-year average (Chart 47). Rental growth for industrial properties – particularly down the value chain closer to the end-consumer – has been robust due to the scarcity of permittable land. Chart 46Increased Demand For Warehouses Has Translated Into More CAPEX... Chart 47...And Pushed Up Occupancy Rates   The pandemic has also revealed how vulnerable current supply chains are and has accelerated a trend BCA Research has highlighted for years: The decline of globalization. Going forward, companies will move to reshore some of their production to gain greater control over supply chains (Chart 48). This will amplify the need for industrial space. Bottom Line: We expect the industrial sector to continue to outperform the broad REITs market, supported by continued investment in fulfillment and logistics centers. Fundamentals remain strong: Same-store NOI is growing at over 6% a year, and acquisitions have increased, with more than $5.5 billion over the past four quarters (Chart 49). The industrial sector has been one of the quickest to revive projects put on hold during the pandemic, with the development pipeline as of Q3 2021 34% higher than in Q4 2019. Chart 48The End Of Globalization, And Supply Chain Reshoring Will Increase The Need For Industrial Space Chart 49Increased M&A Activity In The Industrial Sector Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  All-equity REITs refer to equity REITs plus infrastructure and timberland REITs. 2  Free-standing REITs own stand-alone properties away from malls and are a subsector of the retail sector. 3 This does not include those whose telework was unrelated to the pandemic, such as those who worked entirely from home prior to the pandemic. 4 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020.

Dear Clients, Next week, in addition to sending you the China Macro And Market Review, we will be presenting our 2022 outlook on China at our last webcasts of the year “China 2021 Key Views: A Challenging Balancing Act”. The webcasts will be held Wednesday, December 15 at 10:00 am EDT (English) and Thursday, December 16 at 9:00 am HKT (Mandarin). Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Highlights China’s policymakers are balancing between staying the course with structural reforms and stabilizing the economy. This carefully calibrated approach means that Beijing will only initiate piecemeal policy easing in the near term. China will ramp up investment in the new economy, which is too small to fully offset the drag on the aggregate economy from weakening old economy sectors. In the next three to six months, the economy will deteriorate further, but Beijing will only press the stimulus accelerator harder if their pressure points are breached. A zero-tolerance policy towards COVID will be maintained for the foreseeable future. Uncertainties surrounding the Omicron variant will reinforce this approach. The common prosperity policy initiative will likely accelerate ahead of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (NCCCP) in the fall of 2022. While the plan will ultimately benefit income and consumption for the majority of Chinese households, the uncertainties surrounding impending tax reforms will curb demand for housing and luxury goods in the short term. We remain underweight Chinese stocks. Prices for onshore stocks will likely fall in the next three to six months when the market starts to price in lower-than-expected economic growth and disappointing stimulus. Selloffs in the first half of 2022 may present an opportunity to turn positive on onshore stocks in absolute terms. We will turn bullish on Chinese stocks relative to global equities only when credit expansion overshoots weakness in the economy, which has a low likelihood. We continue to favor onshore stocks versus offshore within a Chinese equity portfolio. Tensions between the US and China may intensify leading up to the political events next year. Chinese offshore stocks, highly concentrated in internet companies, still face the risks of being caught in both geopolitical crossfires and domestic regulatory pressures. Feature China’s economy slowed significantly in 2H21, with the extent of policy tightening and magnitude of the decline in growth much larger than global investors expected. As we forecasted in our last year’s Key Views report, 2021 marked the beginning of a new era in which policymakers would switch gears from building a "moderately prosperous society" to becoming a "great modern socialist nation”.The pivot means that officials would tolerate slower economic growth, implement tougher financial and industry regulations, and accelerate structural reforms. On the cusp of 2022, we are cautious about the willingness of China’s top leadership to initiate large-scale policy easing. Even though policy tone has shifted to a more pro-growth bias, authorities are still trying to replace old economic drivers with the new economy sectors. Furthermore, they are struggling to maintain a delicate balance between boosting short-term growth and maintaining long-term reforms goals. As a result, their policies are sending mixed signals. As seen in 2018 and 2019, the policymakers’ reluctance to activate a full-scale stimulus does not bode well for global commodity prices. Chinese onshore stocks underperformed their global counterparts during the 2018-19 period.  Chinese stocks will face nontrivial headwinds in the coming months and warrant a cautious stance until more stimulus is introduced and the macro picture begins to meaningfully improve. The main themes in our outlook for 2022 are discussed below. Key View #1: Balancing Between The Old And New Economies Despite a recent pro-growth bias in the policy tone, the speed of easing has been incremental and the magnitude piecemeal. Moreover, authorities are telegraphing policy support in new economy sectors (such as high tech and clean energy), while only somewhat loosening restrictions in old economy sectors (mainly property and infrastructure).  Chart 1Current Easing Path Is Looking A Lot Like In 2018/19 China’s policy framework has shifted since late 2017 as we noted in previous reports. The top leadership is more determined to stay the course with reforms and tolerate slower growth in the old economy. Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator highlights policymakers’ carefully calibrated policy actions to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth; these actions are consistent with 2018/19 and starkly contrast with policy frameworks in 2012 and 2015. Monetary conditions have meaningfully eased, but the rebound in money supply and credit growth has lagged and is muted due to heightened regulatory oversight (Chart 1).  Investors should keep low expectations about the policymakers’ willingness to boost growth in old economy sectors. The easing of restrictions in property sector – from prompting banks to resume lending to qualified homebuyers and developers, to allowing funding for developers to acquire distressed real estate assets – are steps to alleviate an escalating risk of widespread bankruptcies among real estate developers. However, regulators have not changed the direction of their structural policies. Funding constraints placed on both developers and banks since last August remain intact. Banks still need to meet the “two red lines” that set the upper limit on the portion of their lending to the property sector, while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. Maintaining these binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years. The recent easing may reduce the intensity of funding constraints, but the banks will be extremely cautious to extend lending to a broad range of developers. Aggressive crackdowns on property market speculation in the past 12 months has fundamentally shifted both developers’ and consumers’ expectations for future home prices. Growth in home sales and new projects dropped to their 2015 lows, while current real estate inventories are comparable to 2015 highs (Chart 2). Therefore, unless regulators are willing to initiate more aggressive policy boosts, such as cutting mortgage rates and/or providing government funds to monetize inventory excesses in the housing market, the current easing measures probably will not revive sentiment in the property market. Thus, odds are that the property market downtrend will extend through 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 2Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015 Chart 3Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Market Chart 4Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending We expect some modest increase in infrastructure spending next year from the meager 0.7% growth in 2021, but we are skeptical that policymakers will allow any substantial rebound. Shadow banking activity and infrastructure project approval, two key indicators we monitor for signs of a meaningful easing in infrastructure spending, show little improvement (Chart 4). Our outlook for infrastructure investment is based on the following: Since 2017 policymakers have assumed a much more hawkish approach toward reducing investment in the capital-intensive and unproductive old economic sectors. Next year’s 20th NCCCP will not fundamentally change this policy setting. The 19th NCCCP in late 2017 deviated from the past; infrastructure investment growth downshifted following the event, whereas significant spending boosts had followed previous NCCCPs (Chart 5). Beijing adhered to its structural downshift in infrastructure spending even during the 2018/19 US-China trade war and after last year’s pandemic-induced economic contraction. Chart 5Infrastructure Investment Shifted To A Lower Gear Following The 19th NCCCP Secondly, government spending since 2017 has tilted towards social welfare over building “bridges to nowhere”, a meaningful change from the past and in keeping with President Xi Jinping’s political priorities (Chart 6). The trend will likely continue next year because local governments need to maintain large social welfare budgets to counter the economic impact of the prolonged domestic battle against COVID. Local government revenues, on the other hand, will be reduced due to slumping land sales. Thirdly, there has been strong policy guidance by the central government to shift investment to the new economy sectors and away from traditional infrastructure projects. The PBoC in early November launched the carbon emission reduction facility (CERF) to offer low interest loans to financial institutions that help firms cut carbon emissions. China’s new economy sectors have experienced rapid growth in recent years, but in the short-term, infrastructure spending in those sectors will not fully offset a reduction in traditional infrastructure (Chart 7). The combined spending in tech infrastructure (including information transmission such as 5G technology and services) and green energy stood at RMB1.6 trillion last year, compared with the RMB19 trillion investment in traditional infrastructure and RMB14 trillion in the real estate sector. Bottom Line: Beijing will continue to push for investment in new economy sectors since the leadership is determined to reduce dependency on unproductive segments of the economy. Even as the economy slows, they will be reluctant to ramp up leverage and channel capital to the old economy sectors. Unfortunately, the small size of the new economy’s sectors versus the old economy will inhibit their ability to stabilize and accelerate economic growth via these policies. Key View #2: The Pressure Points We do not think Beijing will allow the economy to freefall past the “point of no return”.  The economy still needs to grow by 4.5-5.0% per annum between 2021 and 2035 to achieve the target of doubling GDP by 2035 (Chart 8A and 8B). Chart 8AThe Structural Downshift In Chinese Growth Will Continue… Chart 8B...But A 5%+/- Rate Of Growth Will Keep China Well On Track Of Doubling Its GDP By 2035 Investors should watch the following pressure points to assess whether China’s leaders will feel the urgency to turn policy to outright reflationary: A collapse in onshore financial market prices. China’s economic fundamentals will weaken further in the next three to six months and the risks to Chinese equity prices are on the downside. However, the odds are still low that the onshore equity, bond and currency markets will plunge as in 2015. Onshore stocks are cheaper than during the height of their 2015 boom-bust cycle, margin trading remains well below its 2015 level and economic fundamentals are stronger (Chart 9). Selloffs by global investors in China’s offshore equity and high-yield bond markets have not triggered much panic in the onshore markets and, therefore, will not drive Beijing to change its macro policy (Chart 10). Chart 9Valuations In Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extreme As In 2015 Chart 10Onshore Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Chart 11China/US Growth Rates In 2022 Will Be Uncomfortably Close, Based On IMF Forecasts Narrowing growth differentials between China and the US. In the IMF’s October World Economic Outlook, economic growth in 2022 for China and the US is projected at 5.6% and 5.2%, respectively. The forecast suggests that next year the growth differential between the two largest economies will be narrowed to less than one percentage point, rarely seen in China’s post-reform history (Chart 11). Notably, the most recent Bloomberg consensus estimate for the 2022 US real GDP growth is much lower at 3.9%, whereas China is expected to grow by 5.3% and in line with the IMF forecast. We do not suggest that Beijing will make its policy decisions based on these growth projections. Rather, we expect that if China’s growth in 1H22 falls behind that in the US, Chinese policymakers will feel an urgency to stimulate the economy and show a better economic scorecard ahead of the all-important 20th NCCCP next fall.  Rising unemployment. Current data shows a mixed picture. Unemployment rates have been falling in all age groups (Chart 12). Demand for labor in urban areas, on the other hand, has been shrinking (Chart 13). The employment subindex in China’s service PMIs has also been dropping. Our view is that the resilient export/manufacturing sector has provided strong support to employment this year, while the labor supply in urban areas has been sluggish due to tighter travel restrictions and frequent regional lockdowns. The combination of strong manufacturing demand for labor and a lack of supply has reduced excesses in the labor market and the urgency to stimulate the economy (Chart 13, bottom panels). However, the picture could change if China’s exports start to slow into next year. Chart 12China's Unemployment Rate Is Falling... Chart 13...But Demand For Labor Is Also Falling Bottom Line: In the coming year, investors should watch for three pressure points that may trigger more forceful growth-supporting actions from policymakers: the onshore financial markets, economic growth differentials between the US and China, and labor market dynamics. Key View #3: The Exit Strategy Chart 14Service Sector Activities Have Been Restricted By Domestic Covid Cases And Frequent Lockdowns China will not completely lift its zero-tolerance policy toward COVID in the coming year. We will likely see tightened domestic preventive measures leading to the Beijing Olympics in February and the NCCCP in October. The zero-tolerance policy cannot be sustained in the long run; China’s stringent counter-COVID measures have created a stop-and-go pattern in China’s service sector, which has taken a toll on household consumption (Chart 14). As such, Chinese policymakers will face a trade-off between hefty economic costs from its current counter-COVID measures, and the potential social costs and risks if there is a dramatic increase in domestic COVID cases. China is estimated to have fully vaccinated more than 80% of its citizens and is close to launching its own mRNA vaccine next year to be used as a booster shot. However, the inoculation rate will likely matter less to Beijing’s decision to relax its draconian approach towards COVID given the emergence of the virulent Omicron variant. Recent statement by China's top respiratory experts suggests that China will return to normalcy if fatality rate of COVID-19 drops to around 0.1%, and when R0 (the virus reproduction ratio) sits between 1 and 1.5. A more important factor that could influence Beijing’s decision is the development and effectiveness of anti-viral drug treatments. Pfizer recently announced that its anti-viral oral drug Paxlovid can reduce the hospitalization and death rates by 89% if taken within three days of the onset of symptoms. The drug-maker has announced its intention to produce enough of the medication to treat 50 million people in 2022. China’s Tsinghua University has also developed an antibody combination drug that may reduce hospitalization and mortality by 78% and is expected to be approved by Chinese regulators within this year.  Beijing’s decision to abandon its zero-tolerance policy, therefore, will be based on the combined effectiveness of both vaccines and treatments. If clinical trials prove that the new antiviral drugs are effective in treating COVID patients, combined with China’s aggressive rollout of booster shots, then Beijing may incrementally relax its COVID containment measures by late 2022 or early 2023.  Bottom Line: China will not loosen its zero-tolerance policy until a combination of vaccines and treatments proves to be effective against COVID. Key View #4: Common Prosperity Will Gather Steam We expect the notion of common prosperity espoused by President Xi Jinping to gain momentum ahead of the 20th NCCCP. Beijing will likely roll out measures to support consumption, particularly for low-income households. At the same time, there is a high possibility that policymakers will introduce taxes on luxury goods and accelerate the legislative process on real estate taxes. Chart 15The Slump In Property Market Will Likely Be An Extended One The property market will remain in a limbo in 2022. In the near term, potential homebuyers will likely maintain their wait-and-see attitude before details of real estate taxes are disclosed. Home sales will remain in contraction despite improved mortgage lending conditions (Chart 15). Consumption taxes are expected to increase, targeting consumer discretionary and/or luxury goods. Chinese consumption of luxury goods benefited from government pro-growth measures last year, flush liquidity in the market and global travel restrictions. Meanwhile, growth in aggregate household income and consumption has been lackluster. President Xi Jinping’s common prosperity policy initiative is intended to narrow the income and wealth gap between the rich and poor. Moreover, empirical studies show that the marginal propensity to consume among lower- and middle-income groups, which account for more than 80% of China’s total population, is significantly higher than that of high-income groups. We expect more support for lower income groups as Beijing looks to stabilize the economy and narrow the wealth gap. Bottom Line: There is a high probability that policymakers will introduce taxes on the consumption of luxury goods and initiate the legislative process on real estate taxes in the next 12 months. Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks in both the onshore and offshore markets have cheapened relative to global equities. However, in absolute terms onshore stocks are not unduly cheap and offshore stocks are cheap for a reason (Chart 16). We remain defensive in our investment strategy for Chinese stocks in the next two quarters, given the headwinds facing the onshore and offshore markets. We do not rule out the possibility that China’s authorities will stimulate more forcefully in the next 12 months. However, for Chinese policymakers to ramp up leverage again, the near-term dynamics in the country’s economic cycle will have to significantly worsen. Chinese stocks will sell off in this scenario, but the selloff will provide investors with a good buying opportunity in the expectation of a more decisive stimulus (Chart 17). Chart 16Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap, While Offshore Stocks Are Cheap For A Reason Chart 17Selloff Risks Are High Before The Economy Stabilizes Chart 18A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? If the economy slows in an orderly and gradual manner, then there is a slim chance that policymakers will allow an overshoot in stimulus. The Politburo meeting on Monday sent a stronger pro-growth message, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate by 50bps, and regulators will likely allow a front-loading of local government special-purpose bonds in Q1 next year. However, based on the lessons learned in 2019, regulators can be quick to scale back policy support if they see there is a risk of overshooting in credit expansion (Chart 18). The measured stimulus during the 2018-2019 period did not bode well for Chinese stocks or global commodity prices (Chart 19A and 19B). Meanwhile, we do not think the recent selloff in offshore stocks provided good buying opportunities. In the next 6 to 12 months, any tactical rebound in Chinese investable stocks will present a good selling point. Chart 19AChina's Measured Stimulus In 2018-2019 Did Not Bode Well For Global Commodity Prices Chart 19BChinese Stocks Underperformed In 2018-2019 Investable stocks, highly concentrated in China’s internet companies, are caught in domestic regulatory clampdowns and geopolitical crossfires. We expect tensions between China and the US to intensify in 2022 in light of next fall’s 20th NCCCP in China and mid-term elections in the US. Furthermore, Didi Global’s decision to delist from the New York Stock Exchange last week highlights that both China and the US are unanimous in their efforts (although for different reasons) to remove Chinese firms from US bourses. Risks associated with future delisting of Chinese firms will continue to depress the valuations of Chinese technology stocks.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Economy: Chair Powell retired the term “transitory” last week, signaling that the Fed may take a harder line on inflation in the coming year: The Fed coined the transitory term to describe the current inflation backdrop, and publicly throwing in the towel on the idea allows the FOMC to open the door to a more hawkish approach in 2022. Markets: Financial markets continued their post-Thanksgiving gyrations, but the Omicron variant was a more meaningful driver than Fedspeak: Powell’s hints simply brought the Fed’s liftoff date closer to the markets' estimate. Omicron was the main force behind the fall in interest rates, as evidenced by the swoon in oil and pandemic-exposed equities. Strategy: Don’t fight the crowd in the near term, but position for a higher-than-expected terminal rate down the road: We expect rates will remain well behaved in 2022, but we do not share the seeming market conviction that rates will be permanently lower. Feature A US investor who called it a week the day before Thanksgiving may think twice about leaving his/her desk for even a day going forward. Stocks and other risk assets were hammered in the abbreviated Black Friday session on concerns about Omicron, COVID’s latest variant. The S&P 500 recovered much of its losses last Monday, only to be jolted again on Tuesday, as Fed Chair Powell testified before a Senate committee. Stocks duly surged on Wednesday, leaving the S&P off just over 1% from its pre-Thanksgiving close, until news that the Omicron variant had been discovered in California sparked a sharp intra-day reversal. They then came back very strong on Thursday – lather, rinse, repeat. The action was a reminder that volatility often picks up as a perceived inflection point nears. The VIX, which measures implied volatility on S&P 500 index options, spent the week ensconced above the 20 level that has mostly contained it since the financial crisis faded and effective COVID vaccines became widely available (Chart 1). Despite the recent gyrations, our base-case cyclical outlook, as described in last week’s report, remains in place. We expect US growth will come in well above trend for this quarter and all of 2022, monetary policy settings will likely remain easy for another two years, and the accumulated monetary and fiscal stimulus that’s already been injected into the economy will keep the expansion going at least through 2023. Chart 1An Eventful Stretch What The Chair Said Fed Chair Powell testified before the Senate and the House Tuesday and Wednesday last week, respectively. His comments on the pace of tapering, the economy’s progress in meeting the Fed’s inflation criteria for hiking rates, the way inflation might thwart employment gains and the word "transitory" captured the attention of investors and the financial media. On tapering: “At this point, the economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high. It is therefore appropriate in my view to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases, which we … announced at our November meeting, perhaps a few months sooner.” On the inflation criteria for hiking rates: “The test that we’ve articulated clearly has been met [.] … Inflation has run well above 2% for long enough now [given recent data releases].” On inflation as a threat to full employment: “What I am taking on board is it is going to take longer to get labor force participation back. … That means to get back to the kind of great labor market we had before the pandemic, we’re going to need a long expansion. To get that we’re going to need price stability, and in a sense, the risk of persistent high inflation is also a major risk to getting back to such a labor market.” On “transitory” inflation: Though some people interpreted it as short-lived, we used “transitory” to “mean that it won’t leave a permanent mark in the form of higher inflation. I think it’s probably a good time to retire that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.” How Powell’s Comments Might Shift Monetary Policy Table 1The Liftoff Checklist The taper timetable will be sped up. It seems clear that the FOMC will vote to accelerate the taper at its meeting ending December 15th. Given how carefully the Fed has telegraphed its asset purchase actions, Powell would not have raised the issue unless it were a done deal. Instead of ending in June upon the purchase of an additional $420 billion of Treasury and agency securities, as per the November FOMC meeting's guidance, this round of QE will end sometime sooner after buying somewhat less. While we do not think that the parameters of the taper matter all that much in themselves, Powell has stated that the FOMC will not begin hiking rates until it has stopped purchasing securities and accelerating the tapering pace will afford it the flexibility to bring the liftoff date forward if it so chooses. Chart 2Hikes May Not Wait For Full Employment The economic prerequisites for hiking rates are closer to being met. Our US Bond Strategy service has maintained a checklist of the three criteria the FOMC laid out as preconditions for hiking rates (Table 1). With consumer prices rising by more than the 2% target for several months, our bond colleagues checked the inflation boxes a while ago and noted that the full employment1 criterion would become the swing factor for rate hikes. Per the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections, it has been reasonable to assume that full employment would entail an unemployment rate at or below 4% (Chart 2, top panel), with the prime-age participation rate near its pre-pandemic level (Chart 2, middle panel), even if overall participation continues to lag (Chart 2, bottom panel). Powell’s Senate testimony indicated that the criterion has been relaxed, as his comments calling out too-high inflation as a threat to the labor market countered the Fed’s previously firm resolve to let the economy run hot until the economy achieved maximum employment. The bottom line is that Powell’s testimony has given the Fed some flexibility to raise rates sooner than the second half of next year if it sees fit. As Cleveland Fed president Loretta Mester, a 2022 FOMC voter, said after Powell wrapped up his appearances on Capitol Hill, “Making the taper faster is definitely buying insurance and optionality so that if inflation doesn’t move back down significantly next year we’re in a position to be able to hike if we have to. Right now, with the inflation data the way it is and with the job market as strong as it is, I do think we have to be in a position that if we need to raise rates a couple times next year, we’re able to do that.” The Fixed Income Market Reaction Chart 3What A Difference A Week Makes Ahead of Powell’s testimony, the overnight index swap curve took out almost an entire hike for the next twelve months, falling from 66 basis points ("bps") (two hikes and a 64% chance of a third) on Thanksgiving to 43 bps on Monday (one hike and a 72% chance of a second). The same went for the next twenty-four months, which fell from 140 bps to 117 bps, or five hikes and a 60% chance of a sixth to four hikes and a 68% chance of a fifth by Thanksgiving 2023. Rate hike odds regained some ground on Powell’s remarks, though the ultimate rebound was half-hearted – at press time, the probability of a third hike in the next twelve months stood at just 8% (Chart 3, top panel); only two hikes were priced in for the following twelve months, with an 80% chance of a third hike (Chart 3, middle panel); and the chances of getting the fed funds rate above 1.5% by November 2024 were judged to be slim (Chart 3, bottom panel). How can it be that a hawkish shift in Fed rhetoric would coincide with a decline in fed funds rate expectations? The bulk of the decline resulted from the emergence of the Omicron variant and the toll it might take on economic activity. If Omicron fears prove to be overstated, fed funds rate expectations likely will as well, but as we showed last week, market terminal rate expectations were in line with the FOMC’s guidance – they just foresaw a sooner liftoff date. Powell’s comments and the increased tapering pace suggest that the Fed’s expectations are moving closer to market expectations. The other aspect is the fact that markets were on board with the transitory inflation narrative. Sharply downward sloping inflation expectations curves indicated that fixed income markets agreed that high near-term inflation would not leave a lasting mark on longer-run inflation. Since Thanksgiving, the curves derived from TIPS (Chart 4) and CPI swap prices (Chart 5) have put a new spin on Operation Twist, with the front end shifting in while the back end has stood pat. Omicron aside, if retiring the transitory term means the Fed will be more vigilant about upward inflation pressures, it increases the probability they will turn out to be transitory, as the Fed will give them less of a chance to take root. Investment Implications In our view, adaptive expectations will keep long-end interest rates on a fairly tight leash over the next year. It seems that investors are unable to shake what they perceive to be the central lesson of the post-crisis era: rates will be permanently lower. That view rests on a conviction that inflation is kaput and the widely shared sense that the Fed can’t hike rates beyond 2% because it would be: a) too disruptive for a fundamentally fragile economy, b) too disruptive for financial markets weaned on ZIRP, and/or c) too disruptive for a prodigally indebted federal government. We don’t think those views will hold up over the next few years – encouraging inflation would seem to be the easiest way to wriggle out from c) – but we do not advise challenging them head-on in the near term. We also push back – rhetorically for now – on the view that long maturity Treasury yields are low, and the yield curve has flattened, because the Fed is on track to make a policy mistake by unnecessarily tightening into a recession. Monetary policy affects the economy with long and variable lags – our rule of thumb is somewhere from six to twelve months – and if the neutral fed funds rate is north of 2% (an admittedly out-of-fashion view), it appears as if it will take at least two years to get there. Under our rule-of-thumb lag, then, the economy will be subject to a tailwind from monetary accommodation at least until the middle or end of 2024. Given the additional consumption support from households' remaining $2.2 trillion of pandemic excess savings, we are confident that a recession is not on the horizon. We are therefore staying the course, overweighting equities and high yield while underweighting Treasuries, and remaining vigilant for threats to our base-case macro backdrop of strong growth and easy monetary policy.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      “Full employment” is a somewhat ambiguous concept that turns on estimates of the natural slack that results from structural frictions in the labor market, like geographic and skills mismatches.

Highlights Our theme for the year, “No Return To Normalcy,” is largely vindicated. Inflation is back! The geopolitical method still points to three long-term strategic themes: multipolarity, hypo-globalization, and populism. All are inflationary in today’s context. Our three key views for 2021 produced two hits and one miss: China sold off, oil prices held up, but the euro fell hard. Our view on Iran is still in flux. COVID-19 proved more relevant for investors than we believed, though we took some risk off the table before the Delta and Omicron variants emerged. Our biggest miss was long Korea / short Taiwan equities. Our geopolitical forecast was spot on but our trade recommendation collapsed. Our biggest hit was long India / short China equities. China’s historic confluence of internal and external risk drove investors to India, the most promising strategic EM play. Feature Every year we conduct a review of the past year’s geopolitical forecasts and investment recommendations. The intention is to hold ourselves to account, prepare for our annual outlook, and improve our analytical framework. Our three key views for 2021 were: 1.  China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk = bearish view of Chinese equities; 2.  The US pivot to Asia runs through Iran = neutral-to-bullish view of oil prices; 3.  Europe wins the US election = bullish view of the euro and European equities. The first view on China was a direct hit. The second view is in flux. The third view was initially right but then turned sour. A crude way of assessing these views would be to look at equity performance relative to long-term trends: China sold off, the UAE rallied, and Europe sold off (Chart 1). Chart 1Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss This is not the whole story. We modified our views over the course of the year as new information came to light. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar, with negative implications for the euro. In June we adjusted our position on Europe overall, arguing that European political risk had bottomed and would rise going forward. In August we adjusted our position on Iran, warning of an imminent crisis due to the Biden administration’s refusal to lift sanctions and Iran’s pursuit of “breakout” uranium enrichment capacity. We stayed bearish on China throughout the year. Going forward, given that a near-term crisis is necessary to determine whether Iran will stay on a diplomatic track, we would short UAE or Saudi equities. We would expect oil to remain volatile given upside risks from geopolitics but downside risks from the new Omicron variant and China’s slowdown. China’s slowdown was also a controlling factor for the Europe view. The energy crisis and showdown with Russia can also get worse before they get better. So we prefer US assets for now and will revisit this issue in our annual strategic outlook due in the coming weeks. Before we get to the worst (and best) calls of the year, we have a few words on our analytical framework in the context of this year’s signal developments. The Geopolitical Method: Lessons From 2021 As with any method rooted in practice, the geopolitical method has many flaws. But it has the advantage of being systematic, empirical, probabilistic, and non-partisan. How do we check ourselves on the thorny problem of partisanship? First, geopolitics requires practicing empathetic analysis, i.e. striving to understand and empathize with the interests of each nation and nation-state when analyzing their behavior. For example: China: China’s ruling party believes it is necessary to have an all-powerful leader to deal with the urgent systemic risks facing the country. We refrain from criticizing single-party rule or China’s human rights record. But we do see compelling evidence that the Communist Party’s shift from consensus rule to personal rule will have a negative impact on governance and relations with the West.1 China obviously rejects foreign diplomatic and military support for Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a renegade province, and hence the odds of a war in the Taiwan Strait are high over the long run. Russia: Russia is threatening its neighbors on multiple fronts not because it is an evil empire but because of its insecurity in the face of the US and NATO, and particularly its opposition to western defense cooperation with Ukraine. Its unproductive domestic economy and vulnerability to social unrest are additional reasons to expect aggression abroad. Second, we take very seriously any complaints of bias we receive from clients. Such complaints are rare, which is encouraging. But we treat all feedback as an opportunity to improve. At the same time, the need to draw clean-cut investment conclusions for all clients will always override the political sensitivities of any subset of clients. Geopolitics is based in the idea that politics is rooted in structural forces like geography and demography, i.e. forces that limit or constrain individual actors and only change at a glacial pace. Geopolitical analysts focus on measurable and material factors rather than ever-changing opinions and ideas. It is impossible for investors today to ignore the global political environment, so the important thing is to analyze it in a cold and clinical manner. To combine this method with global macroeconomic and investment research, one must assess whether and to what extent financial markets have already priced any given policy outcome. The result will be a geopolitically informed macro conclusion, which should yield better decisions about conserving and growing wealth. This is the ideal for which we aim, even though we often fall short. Over the years our method has produced three primary strategic themes: Great Power struggle (multipolarity); hypo-globalization; and domestic populism (Table 1). Table 1Our Major Themes Point To Persistent Inflation Risk The macro impact of these themes will vary with events but in general they point toward a reflationary and inflationary context. They involve a larger role of government in society, new constraints on supply, demand-side stimulus, and budget indiscipline. Bottom Line: Nation-states are mobilizing, which means they will run up against resource constraints. A Return To Normalcy? Or Not? As the year draws to a close, our annual theme is vindicated: “No Return To Normalcy.”  The term “normalcy” comes from President Warren G. Harding’s election campaign in 1920. It was an appeal to an American public that yearned to move on from World War I and the Spanish influenza pandemic. A hundred years later, in December 2020, the emergence of a vaccine for COVID-19 and the election of an orthodox American president (after the unorthodox President Trump) made it look as if 2021 would witness another such return to normalcy. We foresaw this narrative and rejected it. Primarily we rejected it on geopolitical grounds – global policy will not revert to the pre-Trump status quo. We also argued that the pandemic and the gargantuan fiscal relief designed to shield the economy would have lasting consequences. Specifically they would create a more inflationary context. Chart 2No Return To Normalcy In 2021 The most obvious sign that things have not returned to normal in 2021 is the “Misery Index,” the sum of unemployment and headline inflation. Misery Indexes skyrocketed during the crisis and today stand at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% in 2019, respectively (Chart 2). Unemployment rates are falling but inflation has surged to the highest levels since the 1990s. For investors to be concerned about inflation at the beginning of a new business cycle is unusual and requires explanation. It suggests that inflation will be a persistent problem going forward, as the unemployment rate falls beneath NAIRU and participation rates rise. While we expected inflation, we did not expect the political blowback to come so quickly. President Biden’s approval rating collapsed to 42.2% this fall. Approval of his handling of the economy fell even lower, to 39.6%, below President Trump’s rating at this stage. Consumer confidence has fallen by 15.1% since its post-election peak in June 2021. Republicans are automatically favored to win the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections – but if the economy does not improve they will also win the Senate. Despite Biden’s unpopularity, we argued that his $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill and his $1.75 trillion partisan social spending bill would pass Congress. So far this view is on track, with infrastructure signed into law and the Senate looking to vote on the social bill in December (or January). These bills illustrate the strategic themes listed above: the US is reviving public investments in civil and military sectors, reducing global dependencies, and expanding its social safety net. However, large new government spending when the output gap is virtually closed will tend to be inflationary. Russia and China also have high or rising misery indexes, which underscores that political and geopolitical risks will rise rather than fall over the coming 12 months. Unemployment rates are not always reliable in authoritarian states, so the Misery Index is if anything overly optimistic regarding social and economic conditions. China is not immune to social unrest but Russia is particularly at risk. Quality of life and public trust in government have both deteriorated. Inflation will make it worse. Russians remember inflation bitterly from the ruble crisis of 1998. President Putin is already ratcheting up tensions with the West to distract from domestic woes. While we were positioned for higher inflation in 2021, we were too dismissive of the global pandemic. We expected vaccination campaigns to move faster, especially in the US, and we underrated the Delta variant as a driver of financial markets, at least relative to politics. A close look at Treasury yields, oil prices, and airline stocks shows that the evolution of the pandemic marked the key inflection points in the market this year (Chart 3). Chart 3COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging Bottom Line: Tactically the market impact of the newly discovered Omicron variant of the virus should not be underrated. It is critical to find out if it is more harmful to younger people than Delta and other variants. Cyclically inflation will remain a persistent risk even if it abates somewhat in 2022. Worst Calls Of 2021 We now proceed to our main feature. As always we begin with the worst calls of the year: Chart 4Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea 1.  Long Korea / Short Taiwan. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. US-China conflict is a secular trend and contains elements of all our major themes: Great Power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism. Taiwan is the epicenter of this conflict and a war is likely over the long run. For 2021 we predicted a 5% chance of war but a 60% chance of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis,” i.e. a diplomatic crisis, and our contrarian short of Taiwanese equities was premised on this expectation. Investors are starting to respond to these self-evident geopolitical risks, judging by the TWD-USD exchange rate and the relative performance of Taiwanese equities, which have peaked and are lagging expectations based on global semiconductor stocks. But our choice of South Korean equities as the long end of the pair trade was very unfortunate and the trade is down by 22% (Chart 4). Korea is suffering from a long de-rating process in the face of China’s industrial slowdown and a downgrade to Korean tech sector earnings, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has highlighted. 2.  Short CNY Versus USD And EUR. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. This year we argued that President Biden would be just as hawkish on China as President Trump and would not remove tariffs or export controls. We also argued that the SEC would punish US-listed China stocks and that bilateral relations would not improve despite a likely Biden-Xi summit. These views proved correct. But our neutral view on the dollar and bullish view on the euro betrayed us and the trade has lost 4% so far. The euro collapsed amid its domestic energy crisis and China’s import slowdown (Chart 5). China’s exports boomed while the People’s Bank kept the currency strong to fend off inflation. Chart 5China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank Chart 6Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks 3.  Long Value Versus Growth. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. We have long favored value over growth stocks, expecting that our strategic themes would lead to more muscular fiscal spending, government intervention in the economy, and a return of inflation. In 2021 we bet that rising inflation expectations and higher bond yields would favor value over growth. This was only one aspect of our larger pro-cyclical view that tech-heavy US equities would underperform their global peers and emerging markets would outpace developed markets. These expectations came true during the first part of the year when exuberance over the “reflation trade” led to a big pop in value (Chart 6). By the second quarter we had pared back our pro-cyclical leanings but we maintained value over growth, ultimately at a loss of 3.75%. The reality nowadays is that value is a byword for low quality, as our colleagues Juan Correa-Ossa and Lucas Laskey have shown. Growth stocks continue to provide investors with innovation and robust earnings amid a lingering pandemic. 4.  Long Aerospace And Defense Stocks. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. We are perennially bullish on defense stocks given our strategic themes. We expected aerospace and defense stocks to recover as vaccines spread and travel revived. We successfully played the rebound in absolute terms. But the slow pace of vaccination and the emergence of the Delta variant dealt a blow to the sector relative to the broad market. And now comes Omicron. As for defense stocks specifically, investors are downplaying Great Power struggle and worried that government defense budgets will be flat or down. Significant saber-rattling is occurring as expected in the major hotspots – the Taiwan Strait, the Persian Gulf, and Russia’s periphery – but investors do not care about saber-rattling for the sake of saber-rattling. Geopolitical tensions went nowhere so far this year and hence defense stocks floundered relative to the broad market (Chart 7). Still we would be buyers at today’s cheap valuations as we see geopolitical risk rising on a secular basis and the odds of military action are non-negligible in all three of the hotspots just mentioned. 5.  Long Safe Havens. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. Measured geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty collapsed over the second half of 2020. By early 2021 we expected it to revive on US-China, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions. As such we expected safe-haven assets to catch a bid, especially having fallen as the global economy reopened. We stayed long gold (up 22.6% since inception, down 5.2% YTD) and at various times bought the Japanese yen and Swiss franc. Some of these trades generated positive returns but in general safe havens remained out of favor (Chart 8). As with defense stocks, we are still constructive on the yen and franc. Chart 7Market Ignored Saber-Rattling 6.  Long Developed Europe / Short Emerging Europe. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. Our pessimistic view of Russia’s relations with the West, and hence of Russian currency and equities, clashed with our positive outlook on oil and commodity prices this year. To play Russian risks we favored developed European equities over their emerging peers (mainly Russian stocks). But emerging Europe has outperformed by 5% since we initiated the trade and other variations on this theme had mixed results (Chart 9). Of course, geopolitical tensions are escalating in eastern Europe we go to press. Chart 8Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection​​​​​​ Chart 9Refrain From The Russia Rally We do not think investors can afford to ignore the US-Russia conflict, which has escalated over two decades. President Putin has not changed his strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The US is internally divided and distracted by a range of challenges, while it continues to lack close coordination with its European allies. Western responses to Russian aggression have failed to change Russia’s cost-benefit analysis. Thus we continue to expect market-negative surprises from Russia, whether that means a seizure of littoral territory in Ukraine, a militarization of the Belarussian border, more disruptive cyber attacks, or some other big surprise. Bottom Line: While our geopolitical forecasts generally hit the mark this year, global financial markets ignored most geopolitical risks other than China. The global recovery, inflation, and the pandemic, vaccines, variants, and social distancing remained the key dynamics. This threw many of our trades off track. However, we are sticking with some of our worst calls this year given the underlying geopolitical and economic forces motivating them beyond a 12-month time frame. Best Calls Of 2021 1.  Long India / Short China. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Our number one view for 2021 was that China would suffer a historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk that would be negative for equities. This view contrasted with our bullish view on India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had won another single-party majority in the 2019 elections and stood to benefit from the attempts of the US and other democracies to diversify away from China. We favored Indian stocks and local currency bonds – both trades saw a sharp run-up (Chart 10). Unfortunately, we took profits too soon, only netting 12% on the long India / short China equity trade. Some of our other India trades did not go so well. Going forward we expect a tactical reset given India’s tremendous performance this year. 2.  Booking Gains At Peak Biden. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. We closed several of our reflation trades in the first quarter, when exuberance over vaccines and the Democrat’s election sweep reached extreme levels (Chart 11). We captured a 24% gain on our materials trade and a 37% gain on energy stocks. We turned a 17% profit on our BCA Infrastructure Basket relative trade. We were prompted to close these trades by dangers over Taiwan and Ukraine that soon dissipated. But we also believed that markets were priced for perfection. By the second quarter we had taken some risk off the table, which served us well throughout the middle of the year when the Delta variant struck. While global energy and materials rose to new highs later in the year, the Fed and Omicron interrupted their run. Chart 10Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China 3.  Long Natural Gas On Russia Risks. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. All year we held the contrarian view that the new Nord Stream II pipeline linking Russia and Germany would become a major geopolitical flashpoint and that it was much less likely to go into operation than consensus held. Chart 11Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron​​​​​​ We also fully expected Russia to act aggressive in its periphery. In March we argued that while Russia probably would not re-invade Ukraine, long-term risk was substantial (and accordingly a new military standoff began in the fall) We also noted that Russia had other tools to coerce its neighbors. As a result we went long natural gas futures, following our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. While the trade returned 20%, we took profits before the European energy crisis really took off (Chart 12). 4.  The “Back To War” Trade. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. Cyber warfare is one of the ways that the Great Powers can compete without engaging in conventional war. We have long been bullish on cyber-security stocks. However, the pandemic created a unique tactical opportunity to initiate a pair trade of long traditional defense stocks / short cyber stocks that returned 10%. It was a geopolitical variation on the “back to work” trades that characterized the revival of economic activity after pandemic lockdowns. Cyber stocks will enjoy a tailwind as long as the pandemic persists and working from home remains a major trend. But over the cyclical time frame defense stocks should rebound relative to their cyber peers, just as physical geopolitical tensions should begin to take on renewed urgency with nations scrambling for territory and resources (Chart 13). Chart 12Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Chart 13The 'Back To War' Trade Chart 14Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge 5.  Long Rare Earth Metals. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We have long maintained that rare earth metals would catch a bid as US-China tensions rose. The pandemic stimulus galvanized a new capex cycle with a focus on strategic goals like supply chain resilience, military-industrial upgrades, and de-carbonization that will boost demand for rare earths. Our trade made a 9% gain, despite difficulties throughout the year arising from our homemade BCA Rare Earth Basket, which proved to be an idiosyncratic instrument. Going forward we will express our view via the benchmark MVIS Rare Earth Index (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Our successful trades hinged on broad geopolitical views: China’s confluence of internal and external risk, Biden’s reflationary agenda, persistent US-Russia conflict, and India’s attractiveness relative to other emerging markets. The change in 2022 is that Biden’s legislative agenda will be spent so the market will shift from American reflation to the Fed and global concerns. If China does not stabilize its economy, more bad news will hit China-related plays and global risk assets. Honorable Mentions: For Better And For Worse Short EM “Strongmen.” Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We shorted the currencies of Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines relative to benchmark EM currencies. Though we closed the trade too early, earning a paltry sum, the political analysis proved correct and the market ultimately responded in a major way (Chart 15). Upcoming elections for these countries in 2022-23 will ensure that their dysfunctional politics remain negative for investors, while other emerging market currencies continue to outperform. Chart 15Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders ¡Viva México! Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Mexico benefited from US stimulus, the USMCA trade deal, the West’s economic divorce from China, and the resumption of tourism, immigration, and remittances. In general Latin America stands aloof from the Great Power struggles afflicting emerging markets in Europe and East Asia. But Latin America’s perennial problem with domestic populism and political instability undermines US dollar returns. Mexico looks to be a notable exception. Chart 16¡Viva México! Mexico suffered the biggest opportunity cost from the West’s love affair with China over the past 40 years. Now it stands to gain from the US drive to relocate supply chains, onshore to North America, and diversify from China. Two of our Mexico trades were ill-timed this year, but favoring Mexico over other emerging markets, particularly Brazil, was fundamentally the right call (Chart 16). Bottom Line: Cyclically Mexico is an emerging market with a compelling story based on fundamentals. Tactically disfavor emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Investment Takeaways Our batting average this year was 65%. 2021 will be remembered as a transitional year in which the world tried but did not quite return to normal amid a lingering pandemic. Inflation reemerged as a major concern of consumers, governments, and central banks. Developed markets adopted proactive fiscal policy but global cyclicals faced crosswinds as China resumed its monetary, fiscal, and regulatory tightening campaign. Our bearish call on China was a direct hit. China’s political risks will persist ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Cyclically stay short CNY-USD and TWD-USD. Our worst market call was long Korean / short Taiwanese equities. But the world awoke to Taiwan risk and Taiwanese stocks peaked relative to global equities. Over the long run we think war is likely in the Taiwan Strait. Re-initiate long JPY-KRW as a strategic trade. Our best market call was long Indian / short Chinese equities. Tactically this trade will probably reverse but strategically we maintain the general thesis. The US and Iran failed to rejoin their nuclear deal this year as we originally expected. In August we adjusted our view to expect a short-term Persian Gulf crisis, which in turn will lead either to diplomacy or a new war path. Oil shocks and volatility should be expected over the next 12 months. Tactically go short UAE equities relative to global. European equities and the euro disappointed this year, even though we were right that Scotland would not secede from the UK, that Italian politics would not matter, and that Germany’s election would be an upset but not negative for markets. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar and in June we argued that European political risk had bottomed and would escalate going forward. We remain tactically negative on the euro, though we are cyclically constructive. We still prefer DM Europe over EM Europe due to Russian geopolitical risks. Re-initiate long CAD-RUB and long GBP-CZK as strategic trades. We are waiting for a tactical re-entry point for the following trades: long CHF-USD, CHF-GBP, GBP-EUR, short EM ‘Strongman’ currencies versus EM currencies, long US infrastructure stocks, long European industrials, and long Italian versus Spanish stocks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   While autocracy is agreed to be negative for governance indicators, the connection between regime type and economic growth is debatable. Suffice it to say that the determinants of total factor productivity, such as human capital, trade openness, and effectiveness of the legislature, are often difficult to sustain under autocratic or authoritarian regimes. On this point see United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review," Staff Working Paper 2 (2007). For further discussion, see Carl Henrik Knutsen, "A business case for democracy: regime type, growth, and growth volatility," Democratization 28 (2021), pp 1505-24; Ryan H. Murphy, "Governance and the dimensions of autocracy," Constitutional Political Economy 30 (2019), pp 131-48. For a skeptical view of the relationship, see Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, "Political Regimes and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:3 (1993), pp 51-69.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)