Equities

Highlights Last month we published a report on the US corporate margins, titled “Marginally Worse.” In the report, we concluded that margins are likely to contract next year, hobbled by a slowdown in top-line growth, falling productivity, a decline in corporate pricing power, and soaring costs of labor and materials. Q3-2021 – another stellar earnings season: Companies achieved superior earnings growth and expanded margins. However, many companies guided down for Q4-2021 and 2022 citing mounting challenges, such as higher costs of labor, shipping, and raw materials. As such, deciphering which sectors are best positioned to maintain profitability is of paramount importance. Framework for Sector Margin Scorecard: We introduce a framework to rank the S&P 500 sector based on the expected resilience of their margins. It is based on four factors that provide a uniform basis for comparison across all sectors, despite their inherent differences in cost structure, effects of input costs, and ability to manage prices. The four factors driving changes in operating margins are: Sell-side operating margins forecasts as a concise summary of bottom-up company trends Pent-up demand for the sector’s products proxied by the difference between annualized sales growth in 2020 and 2021 and long-term annualized sales growth Pricing power or ability to pass on costs to customers Degree of operating leverage or ability to spread costs when sales volume increases Sectors with most resilient margins: According to this scorecard, Financials, Healthcare, Energy, and Utilities are in the best position to preserve operating margins (Table 1). Table 1Sector Margins Scorecard Energy Sector - Upgrade to Overweight The medium-term supply/demand backdrop is highly supportive of the current crude oil prices, with a Brent price target of $81 and upside price risk due to inadequate capex. Margins are still below the pre-pandemic peak and the street expects them to increase by 7.74 percentage points over the next 12 months. High operating leverage converts growing demand from the global economic recovery into profitability. Financials – Overweight: O/W Banks, EW Insurance While sell-side analysts anticipate Financials margins will decline, we believe that margins may surprise on the upside: The sector has high operating leverage, is somewhat insulated from supply chain disruptions, sees green shoots in loan growth, and its pricing power is improving. Further, the BCA house view expects the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 2.0% - 2.25% by the end of 2022, supporting net interest margins. Healthcare - Overweight: O/W Medical Equipment and Services, EW Pharma In July we published a report on the Healthcare sector, titled “Checking The Pulse: Deep Dive Into The Health Care Sector” and upgraded it to Overweight. The Healthcare sector is one of the most resilient sectors profitability-wise as, being defensive in nature, its sales are unaffected by changes in economic demand. The street expects margins to expand by over 2% over the next 12 months. Further, there is still significant pent-up demand for the health care services, and specifically for the elective procedures – the most lucrative segment of the Healthcare Sector. Pricing power has recently picked up.    Feature Last month we published a report on US corporate profit margins, titled “Marginally Worse.” In that report, we took a close look at corporate margins by analyzing their key drivers. We have concluded that margins are likely to contract next year, driven by a slowdown in top-line growth, falling productivity, and a decline in corporate pricing power. The sales side of the margin equation will fail to offset upward cost pressures imposed by the tight labor market, soaring input prices and transportation costs, rising depreciation expense, and a potential increase in tax rates. We also developed a simple model that encapsulates all the moving parts (Chart 1). Our forecast, based on the model, reiterates that the path of least resistance for US corporate margins is lower. In this report, we will take a close look at the S&P 500 sectors to gauge their ability to grow earnings and preserve margins. We aim to rank them by their ability to maintain profitability. Q3-2021 Earnings Season: Stellar Results Operating sector margins are a focal point for investors in the current environment of soaring shipping costs, PPI readings unseen for the last forty years, and a wage-price spiral that may lead to prolonged periods of elevated inflation. While rising costs have been a concern for a while now, the Q3-2021 earnings season has surprised on the upside, with 81% of companies exceeding analyst earnings expectations. Earnings increased by 42% year-over-year and sales 17%. The two-year annualized growth rate (CAGR) for S&P 500 earnings is 14.6% and 5.7% for sales. The pandemic trough has been all but forgotten, and earnings are back to their trend (Chart 2). All sectors, except for Industrials and Consumer Discretionary, have earnings and sales that exceed pre-pandemic levels (Chart 3). Energy, Materials, and Tech enjoyed annualized eps growth over the past two years in excess of 20%. And of course, because of such robust earnings growth, most sectors have reached 2010 -2021 peak margins (Chart 4). And these are unprecedented high peaks: Most sectors’ margins are more than two standard deviations away from their five-year averages. From a statistical standpoint, Z-scores in this “zip code” indicate that the probability of even higher margins is minuscule (Chart 5). ​​​​​​​ How were companies able to achieve such stellar earnings growth and peak margins despite all the cost and supply chain disruption headwinds? The answer is strong sales growth, efficiency in managing suppliers, ability to pass on costs to customers by raising prices, and finally, high operating leverage. Here is what happened in the words of the companies: Home Depot: “Professional home improvement contractors have had huge backlogs of work to do, and impatient customers have in many cases been willing to pay up in order to get the goods needed despite supply chain problems.” Microsoft: "We do have good understanding of lead times required to meet the capacity and signals that we’re seeing. I think we do a good job managing that. It’s not to say we’re not impacted. Multiple suppliers are important to be able to manage through that, and I feel the team has done a very good job.” Union Pacific Corporation: "The Union Pacific team successfully navigated global supply chain disruptions, a major bridge outage, and additional weather events to produce strong quarterly revenue growth and financial results." Honeywell: "Our disciplined approach to productivity and pricing helped deliver a strong third quarter despite an uncertain global environment marked by supply chain constraints, increasing raw material inflation, and labor market challenges.” Coca-Cola: Our results through the first nine months of 2021," CEO Frank Harrison said, "reflect a strong balance of volume growth, price realization, and prudent expense management." However, there are also multiple cracks in the foundation, with companies such as Target and Amazon guiding lower both for Q4-2021 and 2022 citing higher costs of labor, shipping, and raw materials. As such, deciphering which sectors can maintain profitability is of paramount importance. Building A Sector Margin Scorecard So which sectors have the best ability to preserve or even expand margins over the next year? Forecasting profitability by sector is tricky, as every sector is different, and has disparate drivers of sales and costs, making cross-sectional comparisons challenging. However, we have an advantage – we are not aiming to predict a point estimate for each sector margin a year from now, but rather rank all sectors from best to worst in terms of their ability to maintain profitability. To do so, we have created a scorecard based on four factors that provide a uniform basis for comparison across all sectors, despite their inherent differences in cost structure, effects of input costs, and ability to manage prices. These factors also implicitly incorporate a potential mean reversion, i.e., high readings are unlikely to move even higher. Four factors capturing future changes in the profit margins are: Sell-side forecasts of operating margins over the next 12 months as a concise summary of bottom-up company trends Pent-up demand for the sector’s products proxied by the difference between 2019-2021 sales CAGR and long-term annualized sales growth Pricing power or ability to pass on costs to customers Degree of operating leverage or ability to spread costs when sales volume increases Factor 1: Expected Change In Operating Margins Over The Next 12 Months Top-down sector margin expectations for the next 12 months are an aggregation of the bottom-up company forecasts. Since the stock market is a market of stocks, this is an important summary of companies' trends which we incorporate into our ranking framework. In line with our view, sell-side analysts expect S&P 500 margins to contract by 1.2% over the next 12 months. Margin contraction is expected across the board with two notable exceptions: Energy and Healthcare. In the scorecard, we rank sectors based on the expected magnitude of the margin change, such that sectors with the least compression, or outright growth, are scoring better (Chart 6). Factor 2: Pent-up Demand For The Sector’s Products Most sectors have enjoyed a fantastic sales and earnings recovery this year (Chart 7), with sales exceeding pre-pandemic levels thanks to strong consumer demand. However, to gauge the level of pent-up demand for each sector, we compare 2020-2021 CAGR of sales growth with a long-term sales growth rate. We call this factor “sales growth differential.” Our thinking is that if recent sales growth is below a pre-pandemic normal, there is still demand left on the table. For example, the Consumer Discretionary sector is not yet back to the pre-pandemic “normal” pace of growth. Therefore, there is still strong demand for its products and services. This aligns well with what we were observing for months now. Fears of Covid-19 have resulted in a shift of spending from services to goods. As a result, demand for goods has overshot pre-pandemic levels, while demand for services is below its pre-pandemic trend and is enjoying a rebound (Chart 8). Chart 8There Is Still Pent-up Demand For Services In the scorecard, we assign a higher score to the sectors like Industrials and Consumer Discretionary expecting a more significant pickup in sales growth, and a lower score to the sectors with sales growth that exceeds the historical average on the concern that mean reversion may be in store: A strong bounce back in sales has already materialized, and demand has been pulled forward. Factor 3: Pricing Power Pricing Power is a proprietary BCA indicator based on the PPI and CPI indices for the 60 different industries. Industries are rolled up into sector indices and the market index.1 Sectors with higher pricing power can pass on their costs to their customers. However, at some point, they may no longer be able to raise prices as that will dampen demand for their products. As a result, after a series of price increases, companies’ pricing power wanes. Today, pricing power of companies in most sectors is already two-to-three standard deviations above the five-year average, suggesting that the probability of further gains is extremely low, i.e., one percent or less (Chart 9). The only exceptions are the Healthcare and Financial sectors whose pricing power has barely budged. What sectors do we prefer? Ones with a very high pricing power that is about to roll over or the ones whose pricing power is handicapped by outside political pressures and competitive headwinds? Since we believe that markets are driven by the second derivative, waning pricing power may have a detrimental effect on sector performance, while low and stable pricing power is already priced into expectations. To reflect this thinking, we penalize sectors whose pricing power is high relative to five years of history, expecting mean reversion. Factor 4: Degree Of Operating Leverage The degree of operating leverage (DOL), which gauges the company’s ability to spread its costs over sales, is largely determined by the cost of each marginal unit sold. This is a metric that assesses the cost structure of the sector in terms of fixed costs vs. variable costs. Sectors with higher fixed costs have higher operating leverage: It costs next to nothing to produce a marginal unit of sales, which leads to higher profitability as volume grows. We calculate DOL as the following: DOL= % Change in Operating Income/ % Change in Sales Percentage of change in operating income and sales is a five-year change to smooth out volatility and assess the longer-term relationship. Further, to obtain a comprehensive picture of the longer-term DOL, we calculate a median reading for each sector from 2010 to 2021. Median ignores extreme values and is better at capturing the “normal”. We also exclude negative and zero readings from our calculations to gauge DOL only when the companies are profitable (Chart 10). Bringing It All Together: Operating Margins Sector Scorecard We have ranked all 11 sectors along the four dimensions described above. As a result, we expect Financials, Healthcare, Energy, and Utilities to be in the best position to preserve operating margins (Table 1). Table 1Sector Margins Scorecard Energy Sector - Upgrade To An Overweight Energy profit margins are linked to underlying commodity prices. BCA Commodity and Energy strategists’ view is that the medium-term supply/demand backdrop is highly supportive of the current energy pricing dynamics and that the oil price is expected to stay high, at around its current level, for the next two years. They also note that upside price risk is increasing going forward, due to inadequate capex. Current operating margins remain well below the previous cyclical peak (Chart 11) and are expected to increase by 7.74 percentage points over the next 12 months. Although the price of oil has risen above the breakeven levels, energy companies are reluctant to invest in capex due to pressure from shareholder activists and newly found financial discipline. As a result, prices are likely to remain high until “high prices cure high prices”. In the meantime, energy producers are returning cash to shareholders – a unique bonus in the current world starved for yield. Chart 11The Street Expects the Energy Sector Margins To Expand. We concur... Oil demand is expected to stay robust on the back of the global economic recovery, especially with an increase in consumption by airlines that are resuming international travel. Case in point: ExxonMobil (XOM) “anticipates demand improvement in its downstream segment with a continued economic recovery.” Upgrade Energy from an Equal Weight to an Overweight Financials – Overweight: O/W Banks, EW Insurance 2021 was a blockbuster year for banks on the back of the booming M&A and IPO activity. However, to achieve sustainable profitability, they need to jumpstart the loan growth process. There are early signs that lending is likely to pick up next year (Chart 12). According to JPM: "The customers who typically contribute to credit card loan growth are starting to spend the savings built up from the pandemic at a faster clip, suggesting they could be getting closer to taking on debt again" Regional banks already see the green shoots. According to Key Bank:"We are pleased with the trajectory of our loan growth." Chart 12Early Signs Of Lending Picking Up  ​​​​​​​Insurance companies are faring worse than Banks. Higher costs of labor and materials result in higher replacement costs, and higher customer payouts. However, insurers succeed in incorporating these higher expenses into pricing. While sell-side analysts anticipate margins will decline, (Chart 13) we believe that they may surprise on the upside: High operating leverage, improving pricing power (Chart 14) and growing demand for loans will contribute to strong profitability. Further, BCA expects the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 2.0% - 2.25% by the end of 2022, supporting wider net interest margins. Chart 13While The Street Has Doubts About The Financial Sector Margins, We Are Constructive... Chart 14Pricing Power Is Improving Healthcare - Overweight: O/W Medical Equipment and Services, EW Pharma In July we published a report on the Healthcare sector, titled “Checking The Pulse: Deep Dive Into The Health Care Sector.” In this report, we upgraded the Healthcare sector to an overweight. Today, we reiterate the call. First, in a slowdown stage of the business cycle, Healthcare tends to outperform. Second, the Healthcare sector is one of the most resilient sectors profitability-wise as, being defensive by nature, its sales are unaffected by changes in economic demand. The street expects margins to expand by over 2% over the next 12 months (Chart 15). Further, there is still significant pent-up demand for health care services, and specifically for elective procedures – the most lucrative segment of the Healthcare market. Pricing power has recently picked up (Chart 16). Companies concur that life is getting better: According to JNJ:” many of the hospitals and other providers have to pay more for their input, and that's going to be reflected in the economics as we go forward. And of course, all that is reflected in how we price going forward”. Chart 15The Healthcare Margins Are Posed To Widen Chart 16After A Prolonged Decline, Healthcare Pricing Power Is Finally On The Rise Consumer Staples - Underweight Our sector margins scorecard has identified Consumer Staples as a sector most susceptible to a margin squeeze. Sell-side expects margins to contract by 2% (Chart 17). This is a sector that has low operating leverage which indicates that the marginal cost of producing each additional unit is high, and is particularly vulnerable to rising input costs. At the same time pricing power of the sector is likely to wane: companies were able to raise prices throughout 2021, and now pricing power is over four standard deviations above the five-year average (Chart 18). Raising prices in the environment when fiscal stimulus is in the rearview mirror, against a backdrop of negative real wage growth, will be challenging. Walmart surely knows its customers: It decided to “absorb higher costs and keep prices low for customers all across the business.” Operating Margins of Consumer Staples are likely to contract in 2022. Chart 17Consumer Staples Margins Are Expected To Plunge Chart 18Pricing Power Is Not Sustainable Investment Implications Our analysis indicates that companies in most sectors have reached their peak margins in Q3-2021. Looking ahead, there will be distinct profitability tracks, with some sectors expanding margins while others will experience margin compression. Sectors that have higher operating leverage, pent-up demand left over from the pandemic slowdown, and whose pricing power may still increase will fare best. Our scorecard screened all the 11 sectors based on these conditions, and Financials, Energy, Healthcare, and Utilities have the best shot at maintaining and even expanding their margins. We have been overweight Financials and Healthcare in our portfolios for a while now, and the expectation of resilient profitability only reinforces our conviction. We are upgrading Energy from neutral to an overweight on the back of the expected margin expansion and high oil price target. We are still underweight Utilities which we consider as a bond proxy, unlikely to outperform in a rising rates environment. Bottom Line In this report, we introduce a framework to rank the S&P 500 sectors based on the expected resilience of their margins. Factors we consider are operating leverage, pricing power, pent-up demand, and sell-side margin expectations. As a result of the analysis, we believe that Financials, Energy, Healthcare, and Utilities are posed for strong profitability in 2022.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Chart 19 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28 Chart 29 Chart 30 Footnotes 1     Pricing power is calculated by finding the difference between how much the industry has been able to increase prices and the change in the cost of the raw materials due to inflation.  For example, for airlines, pricing power would be measured as the difference in the airfare CPI and jet fuel inflation. The exact calculation is industry specific.  Industries are rolled up into sector indices and the market index.   Recommended Allocation

Dear Client, There will be no report next week as we will be working on our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will be published the following week. In the meantime, please keep an eye out for BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows.  While inflation will fall in the first half of next year as goods prices stabilize, an overheated labor market will cause inflation to re-accelerate into 2023. The Fed will be slow to respond to high inflation, implying that monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. This should help propel stocks to new highs. Chinese stimulus will offset much of the drag from a weaker domestic property market. The dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t bet against the greenback in the near term. Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon. A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging market stocks. The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. From Ice To Fire In past reports, we have contended that inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, would follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows.  We are currently near the top of those two steps. The pandemic ushered in a major re-allocation of spending from services to goods (Chart 1). US inflation should dip over the next 6-to-9 months as the demand for goods decelerates and supply-chain disruptions abate. Chart 1The Pandemic Caused A Major Shift In Spending From Services To Goods CHart 2Those With Low Paid Jobs Are Enjoying Stronger Wage Gains The respite from inflation will not last long, however. The labor market is heating up. So far, most of the wage growth has been at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 2). Wage growth will broaden over the course of 2022, setting the scene for a price-wage spiral in 2023. We doubt that either fiscal or monetary policy will tighten fast enough to prevent such a spiral from emerging. As a result, US inflation will surprise meaningfully on the upside. Our view has no shortage of detractors. In this week’s report, we address the main counterarguments in a Q&A format:   Q: What makes you think that service spending will rebound fast enough to offset the drag from weaker goods consumption? Chart 3Inventory Restocking Could Be A Source Of Growth Next Year A: There is still a lot of pent-up demand for goods. Try calling any auto dealership. You will hear the same thing: “We have nothing in stock now, but if you put in an order today, you might get a vehicle in 3-to-6 months.” Thus, durable goods sales are unlikely to weaken quickly. And with inventories near record low levels, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 3). Inventory restocking will support GDP growth. As for services, real spending in the US grew by 7.9% in the third quarter, an impressive feat considering that this coincided with the Delta-variant wave. Service growth will stay strong in the fourth quarter. The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped to a record high of 66.7 in October, up from 61.9 in September. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is tracking real PCE growth of 9.2% in Q4. Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator has hooked up (Chart 4). Q: Aren’t you worried that spending on services might stall next year? A: Not really. Chart 5 shows the percentage change in real spending for various types of services from January 2020 to September 2021, the last month of available data. The greatest decline in spending occurred in those sectors that were most directly affected by the pandemic. Notably, spending on movie theaters, amusement parks, and live entertainment in September was still down 46% on a seasonally-adjusted basis compared to last January. Hotel spending was down 22%. Spending on public transport was down 26%. Only spending on restaurants was back to normal. The number of Covid cases has once again started to trend higher in the US, so that path to normalization will take time (Chart 6). Nevertheless, with vaccination rates still edging up and new antiviral drugs set to hit the market, it is reasonable to assume that many of the hardest-hit service categories will recover next year.   Q: What about medical services? Some have speculated that the shift to telemedicine will require much lower spending down the road. A: It is true that spending on outpatient services in September was $43 billon below pre-pandemic levels. However, over two-fifths of that shortfall was in dental services, which are not amenable to telemedicine. Spending on dental services was down 16% from its January 2020 levels, compared to 6% for physician services. A more plausible theory is that many people are still worried about venturing to the doctor’s or dentist’s office. In addition, a lot of elective procedures were canceled or postponed due to the pandemic. Clearing that backlog will lift medical spending next year. Chart 7The Flow Of Savings Has Fallen Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels But The Stock Of Accumulated Savings Remains High In any case, the cost of a telemedicine appointment is typically no different from an in-person one. And, to the extent that telemedicine does become more widespread, this could encourage more people to seek medical assistance. Lastly, even if spending on certain services does not fully recover after the pandemic, this will probably simply result in a permanent increase in spending on goods. The only way that overall consumer spending will falter is if the savings rate rises, which seems unlikely to us. Q: Why do you say that? The savings rate has been very high throughout the pandemic. A: The savings rate did spike during the pandemic, but that was mainly because fewer services were available, and because households were getting transfer payments from the government. Now that these payments have ended, the savings rate has dropped to 7.5%, roughly where it was prior to the pandemic. There is good reason to think the savings rate will keep falling next year. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, most of which reside in bank deposits (Chart 7). As they run down those savings, consumption will rise in relation to income. The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 8). Banks are eager to make consumer loans (Chart 9). Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 10). As we discussed three weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Chart 8APost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 8BPost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare   Chart 9Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumer Loans Chart 10A Record Rise In Household Net Worth   Q: Household wealth could fall as the Fed starts tapering and eventually raising rates. Wouldn’t that cool the economy? A: The taper is a fait accompli, and markets are already pricing in rate hikes starting in the second half of next year. If the Fed were to signal its intention to raise rates more quickly than what has been priced in, then home prices and stocks could certainly weaken. We do not think the Fed will pivot in a more hawkish direction before the end of next year, however. The Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate is only 2.5%, a big step down from its estimate of 4.25% in 2012. The market’s view is broadly in line with the Fed’s (Chart 11).  Despite the upward move in realized inflation, long-term inflation expectations remain in check – expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey has increased from 2.3% in late 2019 to 2.9%, bringing it back to where it was between 2010 and 2015. The 5-year/ 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 12). Chart 11The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Yet A Concern For The Fed   Q: What about fiscal policy? Isn’t it set to tighten sharply next year? A: The US budget deficit will decline next year. However, this will happen against the backdrop of strong private demand growth. Moreover, budget deficits are likely to remain elevated in the post-pandemic period. This week, President Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law, containing $550 billion in new spending. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $1.5-to-$2 trillion social spending bill using the reconciliation process. All in all, the IMF foresees the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit averaging 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 13). Chart 14While Overall Consumption Has Recovered, Business Spending and Direct Government Expenditures Remain Below Trend   It should also be noted that government spending on goods and services has been quite weak over the past two years (Chart 14). The budget deficit surged because transfer payments exploded. Unlike direct government spending, which is set to accelerate over the next few years, households saved a large share of transfer payments. Thus, the fiscal multiplier will increase next year, even as the budget deficit shrinks.   Q: We have focused a lot on demand, but what about supply? There are over 4 million fewer Americans employed today than before the pandemic and yet the job openings rate is near a record high. Chart 15Despite A Notable Decline, There Are Still A Lot Of People Avoiding Work Because Of Worries About Contracting Or Transmitting Covid A: Some people who left the workforce will regain employment. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, there are still 2.5 million people not working because they are afraid of catching or transmitting the virus (Chart 15). That said, some workers may remain sidelined for a while longer. The very same survey also revealed that about 8 million of the 100 million workers currently subject to vaccine mandates say that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” In addition, about 3.6 million workers have retired since the start of the pandemic, about 1.2 million more than one would have expected based on pre-existing demographic trends. Most of these retirees will not work again. Lifestyle choices may keep others from seeking employment. Female labor participation has declined much more during the pandemic and than it did during the Great Recession (Chart 16). While many mothers will re-enter the labor force now that schools have reopened, some may simply choose to stay at home. The bottom line is that the pandemic has reduced labor supply at a time when labor demand remains very strong. This is likely to exacerbate the labor shortage.   Q: Any chance that higher productivity will offset some of the damage to the supply side of the economy from decreased labor participation? A: US labor productivity did increase sharply during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, that appears to have been largely driven by composition effects in which low-skilled, poorly-paid service workers lost their jobs. As these low-skilled workers have returned to the labor force, productivity growth has dropped. The absolute level of productivity declined by 5.0% at an annualized rate in the third quarter, leading to an 8.3% increase in labor costs. It is telling that productivity growth has been extremely weak outside the US (Chart 17). This gives weight to the view that the pandemic-induced changes in business practices have not contributed to higher productivity, at least so far. It is also noteworthy that a recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. Increased investment spending should eventually boost productivity. Core capital goods orders, which lead corporate capex, are up 18% since the start of the pandemic (Chart 18). However, the near-term impact of increased investment spending will be to boost aggregate demand, stoking inflation in the process. Chart 18US Capex Should Pick Up   Q: We have spoken a lot about the US, but the world’s second biggest economy, China, is facing a massive deflationary shock from the implosion of its real estate market. Could that deflationary impulse potentially cancel out the inflationary impulse from an overheated US economy? A: You are quite correct that inflation has risen the most in the US. While inflation has picked up in Europe, this mainly reflects base effects (Chart 19). Inflation in China has fallen since the start of the pandemic despite booming exports. There are striking demographic parallels between China today and Japan in the early 1990s. The bursting of Japan’s property bubble corresponded with a peak in the country’s working-age population (Chart 20). China’s working-age population has also peaked and is set to decline by more than 40% over the remainder of the century. Chart 19The US Stands Out As The Inflation Leader Chart 20Demographic Parallels Between China And Japan That said, there are important differences between the two nations. In 1990, Japan was a rich economy; output-per-hour was nearly 70% of US levels. China is still a middle-income economy; output-per-hour is only 20% of US levels (Chart 21). China has the ability to outgrow some of its problems in a way that Japan did not. In addition, Chinese policymakers have learned from some of Japan’s mistakes. They have been trying to curb the economy’s dependence on property development; real estate development investment has fallen from 12% of GDP in 2014 to less than 10% of GDP (Chart 22). China is still building too many new homes, but unlike Japan in the 1990s, the government is likely to pursue stimulus measures to compensate for a shrinking property sector. This should keep the economy from entering a deflationary slump. Chart 22Real Estate Investment Has Peaked In China   Q: Let’s bring this back to markets. What is the main investment takeaway from your view? A: The main takeaway is that investors should remain bullish on stocks and other risk assets for the next 12 months but be prepared to turn more cautious in 2023. The neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than generally assumed. This means that monetary policy is currently more accommodative than widely believed, which is good for stocks. Unfortunately, it also means that a policy error is likely: The Fed will keep rates too low for too long, causing the economy to overheat. Chart 23Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise This overheating will not be evident over the next six months. As we noted at the outset of this report, the US economy is currently at the top of the proverbial two steps in our projected “two steps up, one step down” trajectory for inflation. The cresting in durable goods inflation will provide a temporary respite from inflationary worries, even as the underlying long-term driver of higher inflation – an increasingly tight labor market – gains traction. Strong consumer demand and persistent labor shortages will incentivize companies to invest in new capacity and automate production. This will benefit industrial stocks and select tech names. Rising bond yields will also boost bank shares (Chart 23). A country’s current account balance is simply the difference between what it saves and what it invests. With savings on the downswing and investment on the upswing, the US will find it increasingly difficult to finance its burgeoning trade deficit. The US dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t necessarily bet against the greenback in the near term (Chart 24). Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon (Chart 25). Chart 25Long Dollar Is A Crowded Trade   Chart 26A Depreciating Dollar Next Year Should Help Non-US Equities A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging markets (Chart 26). The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Remain neutral on the US dollar. A breakout of the dollar would cause a shift in strategy. Russia’s conflict with the West is heating up now that Germany has delayed the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. As long as the focus remains on the pipeline, the crisis will dissipate sometime in the middle of next year. But there is an equal chance of a massive escalation of strategic tensions. Our GeoRisk Indicators will keep rising in Europe, negatively affecting investor risk appetite. Stick with DM Europe over EM Europe stocks. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia offer cyclical opportunities. Turkish and Brazilian equities will not be able to bounce back sustainably in the midst of chaotic election cycles and deep structural problems. Rallies are to be faded.  Feature We were struck this week by JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s claim that his business will “not swayed by geopolitical winds.”1  If he had said “political winds” we might have agreed. It is often the case that business executives need to turn up their collars against the ever-changing, noisy, and acrimonious political environment. However, we take issue with his specific formulation. Geopolitical winds cannot shrugged off so easily – or they are not truly geopolitical. Geopolitics is not primarily about individual world leaders or topical issues. It is primarily about things that are very hard and slow to change: geography, demography, economic structure, military and technological capabilities, and national interests. This is the importance of having a geopolitically informed approach to macroeconomics and financial markets: investment is about preserving and growing wealth over the long run despite the whirlwind of changes affecting politicians, parties, and local political tactics.  In this month’s GeoRisk Update we update our market-based, quantitative geopolitical risk indicators with a special focus on how financial markets are responding to the interplay of near-term and cyclical political risks with structural and tectonic pressures underlying a select group of economies and political systems. Is King Dollar Breaking Out? Chart 1King Dollar Breaking Out? Our first observation is that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out and rallying (Chart 1). This potential rally is observable in trade-weighted terms and especially relative to the euro, which has slumped sharply since November 5th. Our view on the dollar remains neutral but we are watching this rally closely. This year was supposed to be a year in which global growth recovered from the pandemic on the back of vaccination campaigns, leading the counter-cyclical dollar to drop off. The DXY bounce early in the year peaked on April 2nd but then began anew after hitting a major resistance level at 90. The United States is still the preponderant power within the international system. The USD remains the world’s leading currency by transactions and reserves. The pandemic, social unrest, and contested election of 2020 served as a “stress test” that the American system survived, whether judging by the innovation of vaccines, the restoration of order, or the preservation of the constitutional transfer of power. Meanwhile Europe faces several new hurdles that have weighed on the euro. These include the negative ramifications of the slowdown in Asia, energy supply shortages, a new wave of COVID-19 cases, and the partial reimposition of social restrictions. Moreover the Federal Reserve is likely to hike interest rates faster and higher than the European Central Bank over the coming years. Potential growth is higher in the US than Europe and the US growth is supercharged by fiscal stimulus whereas Europe’s stimulus is more limited. Of course, the US’s orgy of monetary and fiscal stimulus and ballooning trade deficits raise risks for the dollar. Global growth is expected to rotate to other parts of the world over the coming 12 months as vaccination spreads. There is still a chance that the dollar’s bounce is a counter-trend bounce and that the dollar will relapse next year. Hence our neutral view. Yet from a geopolitical perspective, the US population and economy are larger, more dynamic, more innovative, safer, and more secure than those of the European Union. The US still exhibits an ability to avoid the reckoning that is overdue from a macroeconomic perspective.  Russia-West Conflict Resumes In our third quarter outlook we argued that European geopolitical risk had hit a bottom, after coming off the sovereign debt crisis of 2010-15, and that geopolitical risk would begin to rise over the long term for this region. Our reasoning was that the markets had fully priced the Europeans’ decision to band together in the face of risks to the EU’s and EMU’s integrity. What markets would need to price going forward would be greater risks to Europe’s stability from a chaotic external environment that Europe lacked the willingness or ability to control: conflict with Russia, immigration, terrorism, and the slowdown in Asia. In particular we argued that Russia’s secular conflict with the West would resume. US-Russia relations would not improve despite presidential summits. The Nord Stream II pipeline would become a lightning rod for conflict, as its operation was more likely to be halted than the consensus held. (German regulators paused the approval process this week, raising the potential for certification to be delayed past the expected March-May months of 2022.) Most importantly we argued that the Russian strategy of political and military aggression in its near-abroad would continue since Russia would continue to feel threatened by domestic instability at home and Western attempts to improve economic integration and security coordination with former Soviet Union countries.  Chart 2Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further For this reason we recommended that investors eschew Russian equities despite a major rally in commodity prices. Any rally would be undercut by the slowing economy in Asia or geopolitical conflicts that frightened investors away from Russian companies, or both. Today the market is in the process of pricing the impact on Russian equities from commodity prices coming off the boil. But politics may also have something to do with the selloff in Russian equities (Chart 2). The selloff can continue given still-negative hard economic data from Asia and the escalation of tensions around Russia’s strategically sensitive borders: Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, and the Black Sea. The equity risk premium will remain elevated for eastern European markets as a result of the latest materialization of country risk and geopolitical risk – the long running trend of outperformance by developed Europe has been confirmed on a technical resistance level (Chart 3). Our mistake was closing our recommendation to buy European natural gas prices too early this year. Chart 3Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown In early 2021, our market-based geopolitical risk indicator for Russia slumped, implying that global investors expected a positive diplomatic “reset” between the US and Russia. We advised clients to ignore this signal and argued that Russian geopolitical risk would take back off again. We said the same thing when the indicator slumped again in the second half of the year and now it is clear the indicator will move sharply higher (Chart 4). The point is that geopolitics keeps interfering with investors’ desire to resuscitate Russian equities based on macro and fundamental factors: cheap valuations, commodity price rises, some local improvements in competitiveness, and the search for yield.   Chart 4Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russia may or may not stage a new military incursion into Ukraine – the odds are 50/50, given that Russia has invaded already and has the raw capability in place on Ukraine’s borders. The intention of an incursion would be to push Russian control across the entire southern border of Ukraine to Odessa, bringing a larger swathe of the Black Sea coast under Moscow’s control in pursuit of Russia’s historic quest for warm water ports. The limitations on Russia are obvious. It would undertake new military and fiscal burdens of occupation, push the US and EU closer together, provoke a stronger NATO defense alliance, and invite further economic sanctions. Yet similar tradeoffs did not prevent Russia from taking surprise military action in Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014. After the past 13 years the US and EU are still uncoordinated and indecisive. The US is still internally divided. With energy prices high, domestic political support low, and Russia’s long-term strategic situation bleak, Moscow may believe that the time is right to expand its buffer territory further into Ukraine. We cannot rule out such an outcome, now or over the next few years. If Russia attacks, global risk assets will suffer a meaningful pullback. It will not be a bear market unless the conflict spills out beyond Ukraine to affect major economies. We have not taken a second Ukraine invasion as our base case because Russia is focused primarily on getting the Nord Stream pipeline certified. A broader war would prevent that from happening. Military threats after Nord Stream is certified will be more worrisome.  A less belligerent but still aggressive move would be for Russia to militarize the Belarussian border amid the conflict with the EU over Belarus’s funneling of Middle Eastern migrants into the EU via Poland and Lithuania. A closer integration of Russia’s and Belarus’s economies and militaries would fit with Russia’s grand strategy, improve Russia’s military posture in eastern Europe, and escalate fears of eventual war in Poland and the Baltic states. The West would wring its hands and announce more sanctions but may not have a higher caliber response as such a move would not involve hostilities or the violation of mutual defense treaties. This outcome would be negative but also digested fairly quickly by financial markets. Our European GeoRisk Indicators (see Appendix) are likely to respond to the new Russia crisis, in keeping with our view that European geopolitical risk will rise in the 2020s: German risk has dropped off since the election but will now revive at least until Nord Stream II is certified. If Russia re-invades Ukraine it will rise, as it did in 2014.  French risk was already heating up due to the presidential election beginning April 10 (first round) but now may heat up more. Not that Russia poses a direct threat to France but more that broader regional insecurities would hurt sentiment. The election itself is not a major risk to investors, though terrorist attacks could tick up. President Macron has an incentive to be hawkish on a range of issues over the next half year. The UK is in the midst of the Russia conflict. Its defense cooperation with Ukraine and naval activity in the Black Sea, such as port calls in Georgia, have prompted Russia’s military threats – including a threat to bomb a Royal Navy vessel earlier this year. Not to mention ongoing complications around Brexit. The Russian situation is by far the most significant factor. Spain is at a further remove from Russia but its risks are rising due to domestic political polarization and the rising likelihood of a breakdown in the ruling government. Bottom Line: We still favor these countries’ equities to those of eastern Europe but our risk indicators will rise, suggesting that geopolitical incidents could cause a setback for some or all of these markets in absolute terms. A pickup in Asian growth would be beneficial for developed European assets so we are cyclically constructive. We remain neutral on the USD-EUR though a buying opportunity may present itself if and when the Nord Stream II pipeline is certified.  Korea: Nobody’s Heard From Kim In A While Chart 5Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Geopolitical risk has risen in South Korea due to COVID-19 and its aftershocks, including supply kinks, shortages, and policy tightening by the giant to the West (Chart 5). South Korea’s geopolitical risk indicator is still very high but not because of North Korea. Our Dear Leader Kim Jong Un has not been overly provocative, although he has restarted the cycle of provocations during the Biden administration. Yet South Korean geopolitical risk has skyrocketed. The problem is that investors have lost a lot of appetite for South Korea in a global environment in which demographics are languishing, globalization is retreating, a regional cold war is developing, and debt levels are high. Domestic politics have become more redistributive without accompanying reforms to improve competitiveness or reform corporate conglomerates. The revival of the South Korean conservatives ahead of elections in 2022 suggests political risk will remain elevated. Of course, North Korea could still move the dial. A massive provocation, say something on the scale of the surprise naval attack on the Chonan in the wake of the global financial crisis in spring of 2010, could push up the risk indicator higher and increase volatility for the Korean won and equities. Kim could take such an action to insist that President Biden pay heed to him, like President Trump did, or at least not ignore him, in a context in which Biden is doing just that due to far more pressing concerns. Biden would be forced to reestablish a credible threat.  Still, North Korea is not the major factor today. Not compared to the economic and financial instability in the region. At the same time, if global growth surprises pick up and the dollar does not break out, Korea will be a beneficiary. We have taken a constructive cyclical view, although our specific long Korea trade has not worked out this year. Korean equities depreciated by 11.2% in USD terms year-to-date, compared to 0.3% for the rest of EM. Structurally, Korea cannot overcome the negative demographic and economic factors mentioned above. Geopolitically it remains a “shrimp between two whales” and will fail to reconcile its economic interests with its defense alliance with the United States.   Australia: Wait On The Dollar Chart 6Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian geopolitical risk has not fallen back much from this year’s highs, according to our quant indicator (Chart 6). Global shortages and a miniature trade war were the culprits of this year’s spike. The advantage for Australia is that commodity prices and metals look to remain in high demand as the world economy fully mends. Various nations are implementing large public investment programs, especially re-gearing their energy sectors to focus more on renewables. The reassertion of the US security alliance is positive for Australia but geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis regardless.   Cyclically we would look positively toward Australian stocks. Yet they have risen by 4.3% in common currency terms this year so far, compared to the developed market-ex-US average of 11.0%. Moreover the Aussie’s latest moves confirm that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out which would be negative for this bourse. Structurally Australia will go through a painful economic transition but it will be motivated to do so by the new regional cold war and threats to national security. The US alliance is a geopolitical positive.   Turkey And Brazil The greenback’s rally could be sustainable not only because of the divergence of US from Asian and global growth but also because of the humiliating domestic political environment of most prominent emerging markets. Chart 7Emerging Market Bull Trap We booked gains our “short” trade of the currencies of EM “strongmen,” such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, earlier this year. But we noted that we still hold a negative view on these economies and currencies. This is especially true today as contentious elections approach in both countries in 2022 and 2023 respectively (Chart 7). Turkey is trapped into an inflation spiral of its own design, which enervates the economy, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. It is also trapped in a geopolitical stance in which it has repeatedly raised the stakes in simultaneous clashes with Russia, the US, Europe, Israel, the Arab states, Libya, and Iran. Russia’s maneuvers in the Black Sea are fundamentally threatening to Turkey, so while Erdogan has maintained a balance with Russia for several years, Russian aggression could upset that balance. Turkey has backed off from some recent confrontations with the West lately but there is not yet a trend of improvement. The COVID-19 crisis gave Erdogan a badly needed bump in polls, unlike other EM peers. But this simply reinforces the market’s overrating of his odds of being re-elected. In reality the odds of a contested election or an election upset are fairly high. New lows in the lira show that the market is reacting to the whole negative complex of issues around Turkey. But the full weight of the government’s mismanaging of economic policy to stay in power and stay geopolitically relevant has not yet been felt. The election is still 19 months away. A narrow outcome, for or against Erdogan and his party, would make things worse, not better. Brazil’s domestic political and geopolitical risks are more manageable than Turkey’s. But it faces a tumultuous election in which institutional flaws and failures will be on full display. Investors will try to front-run the election believing that former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will restore the good old days. But we discourage that approach. We see at least two massive hurdles for the market: first, Brazil has to pass its constitutional stress test; second, the next administration needs to be forced into difficult decisions to preserve growth and debt management. These will come at the expense of either growth or the currency, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. We still prefer Mexican stocks. Geopolitically, Turkey will struggle with Russia’s insecurity and aggression, Europe’s use of economic coercion, and Middle Eastern instability. Brazil does not have these external problems, although social stability will always be fragile. Investment Takeaways The dollar is acting as if it may break out in a major rally. Our view has been neutral but our generally reflationary perspective on the global economy is being challenged. Russia’s conflict with the West will escalate, not de-escalate, in the wake of Germany’s decision to delay the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. Russia has greater leverage now than usual because of energy shortages. A re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. But the pipeline is Russia’s immediate focus. Investors have seen conflict in Ukraine so they will be desensitized quickly unless the conflict spreads into new geographies or spills out to affect major economies. The same goes for trouble on Belarus’s borders. Stick with long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Opportunities may emerge to become more bullish on the euro and European equities if and when the Nord Stream II situation looks to be resolved and Asian risks to global growth are allayed. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia are cyclical beneficiaries. Whereas “strongman” regimes will remain volatile and the source of bull traps, especially Turkey.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  “JP Morgan chief becomes first Wall Street boss to visit during pandemic,” Financial Times, November 15, 2021, ft.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This augurs well for the US dollar but will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. EM markets are at risk in absolute terms and will continue to underperform their DM counterparts. From a global macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. Feature Chart 1DXY Breakout, EM FX Breakdown The US dollar is breaking out and EM currencies are breaking down (Chart 1). This will set in motion a number of responses in global financial markets. These include but are not limited to selloffs in EM equities, domestic bonds and EM credit markets and a setback in the commodity complex. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. Please refer to the end of this report for detailed investment recommendations. Why The Greenback Is Set To Strengthen Since early in the year, our investment strategy has been based on two macro themes: China’s slowdown and rising US inflation. We concluded early on that these dynamics are positive for the US dollar. Both macro themes have played out fairly well, yet until recently the broad trade-weighted US dollar’s advance has been hesitant. Odds are that the rally in the greenback is about to accelerate. Chart 2China's Slowdown = US Dollar Rally The fundamental case for the US dollar rally remains as follows: China’s slowdown will weigh more on emerging Asia, Japan, Europe, and/or commodity producing, developing and developed economies than it will on the US. The basis is that US exports to China make up only 0.7% of its GDP. The same ratio is much higher for the rest of the world. Hence, the US economy will outperform many advanced and emerging economies. Chart 2 illustrates that, historically, whenever China has slowed down, the US dollar has rallied. The mainland’s property construction is shrinking, and traditional infrastructure investment is also extremely weak (Chart 3). Beijing is easing its regulatory and macro policies but only by degrees. For now, policy support will be insufficient to reverse the business cycle downturn. In the meantime, the US economy is overheating. Specifically, all core type inflation measures have surged to well above 2% (Chart 4). Critically, nominal wages are rising at the fastest rate seen in the past 35 years (Chart 5). Chart 3China: Infrastructure Investment Is Very Weak Chart 4US Core Inflation Is Broad-Based And High Given that the employee quit rate is very high, employers will have to grant notable wage increases to both new and current employees. Thus, wage growth will accelerate further. Recent wage gains have not been offset by productivity growth. As a result, unit labor costs are rising (Chart 6). This will push businesses to raise their selling prices. So long as household income and consumption remain robust, businesses will likely succeed in raising their prices. In short, US inflation is acute and genuine, and, hence, it will persist unless the economy slows considerably. Chart 5US Nominal Wage Growth Is At Its Fastest In 35 Years Chart 6US Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Fast The rise in US inflation will initially be bullish for the US dollar. The reason is that fixed-income markets will move to price in higher Fed funds rates and the Fed will also acknowledge the need to hike rates given that core inflation is well above its target range. At some point in future, however, high inflation will start hurting the US dollar. This will happen when the Fed eschews rate hikes and falls behind the inflation curve. We believe we are still in a window where US bond yields could rise further. Rising US interest rates will support the dollar. Finally, the US economy, but not necessarily its equity and credit markets, is better positioned to handle central bank tightening than are other DM and EM economies. American consumers have substantially deleveraged and there are shortages in US housing and cars. Even as US borrowing costs rise, interest rate sensitive sectors like housing and autos will still do well because of pent-up demand. In particular, the US housing market is sensitive to long-term (30-year) mortgage rates and not the front end of curve. On the contrary, many EM and other DM economies and their housing sectors are sensitive to domestic short-term rates. In percentage terms, the rise in US mortgage rates will likely be smaller than those in DM and EM economies. In short, the US economy will not slow sharply in the response to rates while EM and other DM economies will. This augurs well for the dollar. The key US vulnerability from higher interest rates stems from its equity and credit markets, not the real economy. US equities and credit markets are very richly priced, so the rising cost of capital could trigger a major selloff. In turn, wealth effects and tightening financial conditions will pose a risk to the real economy. However, even in this case, the US dollar will initially appreciate because it always rallies during risk-off phases. The greenback’s depreciation will resume when the Fed turns dovish again. From a big picture macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. In this period of US dollar strength, EM financial markets will be hurt because foreign investors always flee EM when their currencies depreciate. Bottom Line: China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. Watch Out Commodity Prices Chart 7Reduced Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction The downturns in China’s property construction and traditional infrastructure spending are bad for raw material prices. The following points offer an explanation as to why commodity prices will relapse in spite of the fact that they have thus far resisted China’s slowdown. Although Chinese property sales and starts have been shrinking, floor area completed (construction work) has been very strong. However, the liquidity crunch that many real estate developers are experiencing will lead them to halt or cut back on their construction work (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will weigh on raw material prices (Chart 7, bottom panel). Taiwan’s new export orders PMI for the basic materials sector has dropped below 50, indicating plunging regional demand for raw materials (Chart 8). Ongoing weakness in Chinese demand is the culprit behind this drop. Due to electricity shortages, mainland production of industrial metals has plunged (Chart 9, top panel). Yet, the prices of these metals have recently corrected (Chart 9, bottom panel). Falling prices amid shrinking supply are a sign of major demand relapse. Chart 8Greater China: Orders For Basic Materials Are Already Shrinking Chart 9Base Metal Price Falling Despite Production Shutdowns In China   The Baltic Dry index – the price of shipping bulk commodities – has rolled over decisively. It has reasonable correlation with industrial metal prices. Oil is much less exposed than base metals to China’s property and infrastructure contraction. In the case of crude, the key risks are the US and China releasing their strategic reserves and the US dollar strength. Bottom Line: The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. Other Considerations Chart 10China's Onshore Stock-to_Bond Ratio Is Breaking Down There are a number of other considerations and indicators that lead us to maintain a negative stance on EM financial markets: China’s onshore stock-to-bond ratio has broken below its 200-day moving average (Chart 10). This signifies a deepening growth slump in China. EM equity underperformance has been broad-based. Both the market cap-weighted and equal-weighted EM equity indexes have been underperforming their respective DM indexes. Further, not only have TMT (technology, media and telecom) stocks been underperforming their DM peers, but non-TMT stocks have also lagged their counterparts substantially (Chart 11). Last but not least, EM TMT stocks remain at risk. First, share prices of Chinese internet companies will continue derating due to structurally lower profitability going forward as the government exercises more control over them. We have discussed this in previous reports. In addition, consumer spending online has slowed sharply while smartphone sales are plunging (Chart 12). Chart 11EM Equity Underperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 12China: Online Spending Is Very Weak Second, DRAM (memory chip) prices are deflating and the value of DRAM sales is shrinking (Chart 13). This is weighing on Korean semiconductor share prices like Samsung and SK Hynix. These stocks have a large market cap in the KOSPI index. Finally, demand for semiconductors produced by Taiwanese companies has been booming but it is presently showing signs of moderation (Chart 14). Chart 13Falling DRAM Prices Are Weighing On Korean Semi Stocks Chart 14Taiwanese Semiconductor Industry: Moderating Orders Importantly, geopolitical risks around Taiwan in general and TSMC in particularly are enormous. The latter is literally at the center of the US-China confrontation. The timing of a diplomatic or even military crisis is uncertain but our Geopolitical Strategy team expects geopolitical risks over Taiwan to escalate substantially. The recent summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping does not change this assessment.  Investment Recommendations Chart 15EM Credit Markets: Prepare For A Broad Selloff Continue underweighting EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Within the EM space, our overweights are Korea, Singapore, China (favoring A shares over investable stocks), Vietnam, Russia, central Europe and Mexico. Concerning EM equity sectors, we reiterate the short EM banks / long DM banks and short EM banks / long EM consumer staples positions. In line with our US dollar breakout thesis, we continue to recommend a short position in a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, COP, PEN, ZAR, TRY, THB, PHP and KRW. EM exchange rate depreciation is bad for EM domestic bonds. Currency weakness could lead central banks in Latin America to hike rates further. In brief, the risk-reward of EM local currency bonds is still unattractive. In this space, we recommend the following positions: bet on yield curve flattening in Mexico and Russia (pay 1-year/receive 10-year swap rates); pay Czech 10-year swap rates; receive Chinese and Malaysian 10-year swap rates. We reiterate our underweight in EM credit (both sovereign and corporate) markets versus US corporate credit, quality adjusted. As EM exchange rates depreciate, EM credit spreads will widen (Chart 15). Chinese high-yield corporate US dollar bonds are not yet a buy because the mainland property market’s travails are far from over, as was discussed in our recent Special Report. For a complete list of our recommendations across all asset classes and country strategy within each asset class, please see below or visit our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights On a 2-3 year horizon, stay overweight the US stock market, in absolute terms and relative to the non-US stock market… …and stay overweight the US dollar. A good model for the US stock market is the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by US profits. A good model for the non-US stock market is the 2-year T-bond price multiplied by non-US profits. A major long-term risk to the US stock market comes from the blockchain, which is set to return the ownership and control of our data and digital content back to us – from Facebook, Google, and the other tech behemoths that currently control, manipulate, and monetise it… …but this risk is only likely to manifest itself on a 5-10 year horizon. Fractal analysis: The Israeli shekel is overbought. Feature Chart of the WeekThe US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits Fears that inflation will stay stubbornly high have lit a fuse under short-dated bond yields. But further along the curve, longer-dated bonds have remained an oasis of relative calm. Indeed, the 30-year T-bond yield stands 50 bps lower today than it stood in March. Given that long-duration bonds underpin the valuation of long-duration stocks, the relative calm of the 30-year bond yield explains the relative calm of the stock market in the face of higher short-term bond yields. The corollary is that substantially higher 30-year yields would threaten that calm. Inflation Will Crash Back To Earth In 2022 The relative calm of the 30-year bond yield is telling central banks: go ahead and hike rates if you want. You’ll just have to slash them again and, on average, keep them lower than you would if you didn’t hike them so soon. Rate hikes work by choking aggregate demand, but aggregate demand doesn’t need choking. Aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend in the US, and remains far below its pre-pandemic trend in other major economies, such as the UK, Germany, and France. The pre-pandemic trend is important because it is our best estimate of potential supply. On this best estimate, aggregate demand is still below potential supply (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Sees That Aggregate Demand Is Fragile If aggregate demand is below potential supply, then what can explain the recent surge in inflation? The answer is the massive and unprecedented displacement of demand from services to goods, combined with modern manufacturing processes unable to meet even a 5 percent excess demand, let alone the 26 percent excess demand for durables recently experienced in the US (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Booming Demand For Goods Is Crashing Back To Earth While Services Remain In Shortfall Yet as we highlighted last week in The Global Demand Shortfall Of 2022, the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth while the demand for some services will remain structurally below the pre-pandemic trend. Combined with a tsunami of supply that will hit the global economy with a lag, inflation is also likely to crash back to earth by late 2022. The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits An important characteristic of any investment is its duration. If all an investment’s cashflows were converted into one ‘lump-sum’ cashflow, then the duration of the investment quantifies how far into the future that lump-sum cashflow would be. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in its price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Interestingly, the durations of the US stock market and the 30-year T-bond are very similar, at around 25 years. Therefore, all else being equal, the US stock market should track the 30-year T-bond price. Of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond has fixed cashflows, whereas the stock market has cashflows that track profits. Allowing for this key difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant connects current profits to the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead, thereby quantifying the structural growth of profits. But to the extent that the constant does not change, we can ignore it. Simplistic as this model appears, it does provide an excellent explanation for the US stock market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart of the Week and Chart I-4) – with deviations from the ‘fair-value’ giving a good gauge of the market’s over- or under-valuation. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits Looking ahead, there are three ways in which the structural bull market could end: If the overvaluation (deviation from fair-value) became so extreme that a substantial decline in price was required to re-converge with the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. If the 30-year T-bond price could no longer rise to counter a substantial decline in profits. If the constant that links current profits to future profits phase-shifted down, implying that the growth rate of US stock market profits had phase-shifted down – as happened for non-US stock market profits after the dot com bust (Chart I-5). Going through each of these, the US stock market’s current overvaluation of around 10 percent is not so extreme as to be a structural impediment. Chart I-5The Valuation Of The Non-US Stock Market Phase-Shifted Down Meanwhile, the 30-year T-bond yield has scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent counterweight to a decline in profits. Hence, this is not a structural impediment either, but will become one once the 30-year T-bond yield reaches 0.5 percent in the next deflationary shock. As for a phase-shift down in profit growth, this is a genuine long-term risk. The main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. The blockchain is set to return that ownership and control back to us, to the detriment of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths of the US stock market. However, this is a long-term risk, likely to manifest itself on a 5-10 year horizon. We conclude that on a 2-3 year horizon, investors should own the US stock market. The Non-US Stock Market = The 2-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Non-US Profits We can extend the preceding analysis to the non-US stock market, with two differences. First, the non-US stock market has a much shorter duration given its much lower exposure to growing cashflows. A higher weighting to financials – which underperform when long yields are falling – further lowers the effective duration to just 2 years (empirically). Second, and obviously, the non-US stock market depends on non-US profits (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Non-US Stock Market = The 2-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Non-US Profits It follows that the non-US stock market tracks: (The 2-year T-bond price) multiplied by (non-US profits) We can now decompose the post dot com performance of the US and non-US stock markets into their underlying structural components. The US stock market has received a massive tailwind: a 60 percent increase in the 30-year T-bond price plus a 200 percent increase in profits (Chart I-7). While the non-US stock market has received a lesser tailwind: a 10 percent increase in the 2-year T-bond price plus a 60 percent increase in profits (Chart I-8).2   Chart I-7The US Stock Market Has A Powerful Tailwind... Chart I-8...The Non-US Stock Market Has A Weak Tailwind Therefore, over the past two decades, the non-US stock market has been hampered by its low duration and by its profits that are fossilised, both metaphorically and literally. Metaphorically fossilised, because the non-US stock market is over-exposed to industries that are in structural decline such as financials and basic resources. And literally fossilised, because it is also over-exposed to the dying fossil fuel industry. Looking ahead, there are three ways that non-US stocks could outperform US stocks: If the relative valuation (deviation from respective fair-values) became extreme in favour of non-US stocks. If the 2-year T-bond price outperformed the 30-year T-bond price – effectively meaning that the 30-year T-bond price would have to fall far given that the 2-year T-bond is like cash. If non-US profits outperformed US profits. Going through each of these: both the US and non-US stock markets appear similarly overvalued versus their respective fair-values; the 30-year T-bond is unlikely to fall far given that it would destabilise the global financial system; and fossilised non-US profits are unlikely to outperform those in the US in the next few years. We conclude that on a 2-3 year horizon, investors should stay overweight the US stock market relative to the non-US stock market. One final consideration is the US dollar. Successive deflationary shocks – the 2008 GFC, the 2015 EM recession, and the 2020 pandemic – have taken the greenback to new highs as capital flows have flooded into US T-bonds (Chart I-9). It follows that the ultimate high in the dollar will coincide with the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield. Chart I-9Successive Deflationary Shocks Take The Dollar To New Highs Stay structurally overweight the US dollar. The Israeli Shekel Is Overbought In this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the strong recent rally in ILS/GBP has reached the point of maximum fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has signalled several previous reversals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Israeli Shekel Is Overbought On this basis, a recommended trade would be short ILS/GBP, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.2 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. 2 From January 1, 2005. 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 ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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  

Over the past few weeks, we have received numerous questions on the interplay between the S&P 500 earnings and the forward P/E multiple. The clients are asking how much earnings need to grow for the S&P 500 forward multiple to come down from the hefty 21.5x towards a historical average of 18x.  To answer this question, we have created a matrix that summarizes permutations of changes in the index price and earnings growth and their effects on the resulting forward multiple. If we assume that the price of the S&P 500 does not budge, and investors get a 0% return over the next 12 months, earnings will have to grow by about 30% over the next 12 months for the multiple to come down to 18x – hardly a realistic scenario. If the S&P 500 returns 5%, then 30% earnings growth will result in the 19.6x multiple.  The sell-side analysts currently expect a 10% earnings growth over the next twelve months: With no change in the price of the index, the resulting multiple will be 21.5x. If the S&P 500 returns 5%, the multiple will move to 23.2x. Bottom Line: Strong earnings growth does not justify elevated valuations, and re-rating is hardly in the cards.  

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).  

Highlights Despite strong economic activity throughout most of 2021, economic surprises have decreased considerably. This helped the US equity market outperform Europe. It also significantly contributed to the euro’s depreciation versus the dollar. Even though growth will slow in 2022, economic surprises should increase. Growth expectations are much lower than they were entering 2021, and some key headwinds will fade. This picture is not without risks. China’s credit slowdown and the US’s elevated inflation represent the greatest threats. Based on the outlook for economic surprises, the euro will stage a rebound next year and small-cap stocks are attractive. Feature Global economic activity has been exceptionally robust this year, boosted by the re-opening of the world economy, as well as by the considerable fiscal and monetary stimuli injected globally over the past 20 months. However, market participants also anticipated such a rebound; as a result, global economic surprises peaked in September 2020, and they are now in negative territory. Unanticipated developments have a substantial effect on market prices. Under this lens, the deterioration in economic surprises has had a strong impact on financial markets. It helps explain why the defensive US market has outperformed, why the dollar has been strong, and why bond yields have been flat since March 2021, even though inflation has risen, growth has been high by historical standards, and many major central banks have been eschewing their accommodative biases. Going forward, the evolution of economic surprises will remain crucial to market trends. While we anticipate global economic activity will decelerate in 2022, it will likely remain above trend and surprise to the upside, which will allow global economic surprises to recover. There are significant risks to this view, with large unanswered questions about the Chinese economy and the outlook for inflation in the US. In this context, despite near-term risks, we continue to expect EUR/USD to appreciate in 2022 and European small-cap stocks to outperform large-cap equities. Deteriorating Surprises Matter This year, the underperformance of global equities (both EM and Europe) relative to the US, the weakness in the euro, and the limited increase in yields have all caught investors off guard. At the beginning of 2021, investors were massively short the greenback and duration, while surveys showed a large preference for non-US equities. These views grew out of the expectation that global growth would be strong. Global growth turned out to be strong but began to disappoint expectations by the middle of the year. Expectations had become extremely lofty, suggesting that the bar had been set too high. Additionally, the tightening credit conditions in China and the growing supply constraints around the world caused growth to decelerate somewhat. The deterioration in short-term economic momentum and in surprises harmed European equities relative to the US. As Chart 1 highlights, the relative performance of European stocks is greatly affected by the earnings revision ratio of cyclicals stocks vis-à-vis defensive ones. This relationship reflects the greater pro-cyclicality of European equities compared to those of the US. Moreover, the earnings revision ratio of cyclical stocks relative to that of defensive equities mimics the fluctuations in economic surprises (Chart 1, bottom panel), as weaker-than-expected growth invites analysts to lower their relative earning expectations. The dynamics in the economic surprise index also weighed heavily on the FX market. The dollar is a highly counter-cyclical currency; therefore, it performs poorly when growth is not only increasing, but also doing so at a rate faster than anticipated. However, economic surprises did the exact opposite this year, which boosted the dollar’s appeal and pushed EUR/USD lower (Chart 2). While the strength in the dollar was accentuated by the increasingly aggressive pricing of Fed hikes in the OIS curve, relative interest rate expectations between the US and the Euro Area are also influenced by global economic activity because of the European economy’s greater cyclicality than that of the US. Chart 1Where Surprises Go, European Stocks Follow Chart 2Surprises Matter For The Dollar And The Euro Bottom Line: Global growth has been very strong in 2021, but it has begun to decelerate. Moreover, economic surprises are now in negative territory. The evolution of economic surprises this year was a key component of the strength in the dollar, the weakness of the euro, and the underperformance of European equities. Improving Surprises In 2022? We anticipate economic surprises to pick up in 2022. First, investors and analysts around the world rightfully expect a slowdown in global growth next year. This means that the bar for the economy to generate positive surprises is lower than it was in 2021. Second, we are already seeing signs that global economic surprises are trying to stabilize. A GDP-weighted aggregate of 48 countries is forming a trough at a low level, which historically precedes a pick-up in broader aggregate measures (Chart 3). Third, economic surprises move closely with the global PMI diffusion index. The diffusion index has fallen to levels historically associated with a rebound (Chart 4). Moreover, the share of countries whose Leading Economic Indicator is rising is still very depressed for a mid-cycle slowdown (Chart 4, bottom panel). As vaccination rates are improving around the world, including those in emerging markets, and as the global economy continues to re-open, we anticipate both the PMI and LEI diffusion indexes to improve next year, which will boost economic surprises. Chart 3A Budding Rebound? Chart 4The dispersion Of Growth Matters or Surprises Fourth, the global capex outlook remains very positive. Capex intentions in the US and in the Euro Area are highly elevated and cash flows are strengthening. Moreover, US and European credit standards are very loose (Chart 5). This combination suggests that companies have the desire and the wherewithal to increase their investments next year, especially as capacity constraints limit their ability to meet final demand. Additionally, companies around the world need to rebuild inventory levels, which are depressed relative to sales, while customer inventories are still woefully low (Chart 6). Chart 5Capex Tailwinds Chart 6Not Enough Inventories Chart 7Households Are Rich Fifth, households globally also have ample firepower to support their spending, despite some weakness in real income caused by rising inflation. As Chart 7 shows, household net worth in the US is up by 128% of GDP since December 2019. Additionally, the accumulated stocks of household excess savings have reached USD2.4 trillion in the US, EUR150 billion in German, EUR130 billion in France and GBP180 billion in the UK. With respect to the Eurozone specifically, fiscal and monetary policy will remain very accommodative. The fiscal thrust in 2022 will be negative 2.1%, which is significantly less onerous than the US’s -5.9% of GDP. Moreover, economies like Italy and Spain may have a negligible fiscal thrust because of the NGEU program’s disbursements. In addition, while the fiscal thrust will be slightly negative next year, government deficits will remain wide, which indicates that fiscal policy in Europe continues to support demand. Meanwhile, monetary policy still generates deeply negative interest rates on the continent, which sustains demand further. This view is not without risks. The first threat stems from the Chinese credit slowdown. BCA’s China strategists expect credit flows to bottom out by the second quarter of 2022, which implies that Chinese domestic activity should accelerate meaningfully in the second half of the year.  Already, we are seeing tentative signs that authorities in China are trying to curb the credit slowdown. For example, Beijing cut the reserve requirement ratio last summer and excess reserves in the banking system are moving back up as liquidity injections grow (Chart 8). The problem is that, so far, Chinese credit demand is not responding to these small measures designed to ease policy. More will be needed as the tightening in financial conditions for real estate developers points to significant downside ahead in construction activity (Chart 9). For now, it is difficult for Beijing to ease policy much more than it has done so far: PPI has reached a 25-year high at 13.5%. Chart 8Not Enough... Chart 9... Especially With Such A Drag These Chinese inflationary pressures are likely to decline in the first months of 2022, which will allow Beijing to become more aggressive in its support to economic activity. First, Chinese demand is weak, unlike demand in the US. Second, the surge in the PPI is mostly driven by a 17% increase in the energy PPI and a 66% surge in the mining component. These jumps are unlikely to repeat themselves, which will reduce overall inflationary numbers in that economy. The second major risk is global inflation, which is hurting real wages. As a case in point, US real wages are contracting at a 3.2% annual rate, or their deepest cut in six decades. In Europe too, real wages are weak because of the increase in inflation. While these inflationary pressures have had limited effect on European consumer confidence so far, US consumer confidence is breaking down (Chart 10), driven by a collapse in the willingness to buy. If this trend continues, we might see a significant deceleration in global real consumer spending. Chart 10Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front We still expect the European inflationary risk to start dissipating in the first half of 2022. Unlike in the US, the spike in core CPI mostly reflects an increase in VAT and remains narrow, with trimmed-mean CPI lingering near record lows. Moreover, the 24-month rate of change of core CPI remains within the historical norm, which is not the case in the US. The US situation is more tenuous. Last week’s inflation data showed a broadening of inflationary pressures across major sectors of the economy unaffected by the pandemic, with shelter inflation being of particular concern. However, there are positives. Long-term inflation expectations, as approximated by the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rate, are still below the levels that prevailed before the oil price crash of 2014 (Chart 11, top panel). Additionally, shipping costs have started to ebb, with global container freight rates losing steam and the Baltic Dry index collapsing by 50% since beginning of October (Chart 11, bottom panel). Moreover, as health restrictions are being relaxed in Asia, Asian PMI’s are improving, while the production of semiconductors is rising again in the region (Chart 12). As a result, although there is still significant inflation risk over the next five years, 2022 is likely to witness a temporary pullback in CPI growth. Chart 11Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front Chart 12Semiconductor Production Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Global investors are right to anticipate a decline in global growth next year. However, even if growth slows, it will remain above trend. Moreover, the considerable stimuli in the global economy and the decreased expectations of investors improve the odds that global economic surprises will increase in 2022. China’s domestic weakness and the rise in US inflation constitute the two greatest risks to this view. Investment Implications The level of the global economic surprise index as well as its evolution have important implications for many key European assets. Table 1 highlights the performance of various financial markets at three months, six months, and a year following various ranges of readings of the surprise index (the categories are based on one standard-deviation intervals from the mean). We highlight this methodology, because there remains significant uncertainty about the near-term outlook of the surprise index. Table 1Level Of Surprises And Subsequent Returns Currently, the global economic surprise index stands at -20, or between its -1-sigma and its historical average. This level offers limited clear results for investors when it comes to the performance of the Eurozone benchmark relative to the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), and no clear results in terms of the performance of value stocks relative to growth. However, the current reading of the surprise index is consistent with an outperformance of growth stocks relative to momentum over both the three- and six-month horizons. It is also showing a 74% probability of small-cap equities beating large-cap ones over a 12-month basis. Table 2 shows the performance of the same assets over the same windows, following three consecutive months or more of an improving global economic surprise index. This is consistent with our main hypothesis that global economic surprises are set to increase by early next year. Table 2Surprise Upticks And Subsequent Returns Using this method again shows no strong call for the Euro Area equity benchmark relative to the ACWI. There is a small improvement in performance, but Europe on average still underperforms, which reflects the thirteen years of a relative bear market in European equities. Similarly, results for European value stocks compared to growth equities are limited, as the sample is dominated by the structurally poor performance of value equities. However, this method highlights that the euro is likely to appreciate against the USD on both the three- and six-month investment horizon. This message is consistent with that of our Intermediate-Term Timing Model. Finally, this approach once again underscores the attractiveness of European small-cap equities on a three-, six-, and twelve-month investment horizon. Consequently, we maintain our buy recommendation on the euro. As we wrote three weeks ago, the near-term outlook for the common currency is fraught with risks and the low readings of the global economic surprise index confirm this reality.  Moreover, markets might enter a phase when they aggressively discount Fed rates hikes next year, which would further hurt the euro. However, the outlook for global growth will ultimately put a floor under EUR/USD. Chart 13Small-Caps: Almost There We also view European small-cap stocks as the premier equity vehicle in Europe over the coming 18 months because of their heightened pro-cyclicality.  However, the timing around shifting toward overweighing small-cap remains risky in the near-term, as they have not fully worked out the overbought conditions we flagged four weeks ago (Chart 13). Thus, we maintain small-cap equities on an upgrade alert, and we are looking to pull the trigger very soon.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com     Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance