Equities

Underweight Our recent downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight also pushed the overall S&P consumer staples sector to a below benchmark allocation. According to our mid-April research on what sectors investors should avoid during recessionary recoveries, consumer staples stocks trail the SPX on average by 660bps one year following the SPX trough. The current macro backdrop corroborates this analysis and underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative staples share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also consumer confidence is making an effort to trough (ISM manufacturing and consumer confidence shown inverted). Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P consumer staples index to underweight. For more details, please refer to the most recent Weekly Report. ​​​​​​​

Highlights ‘Value’ sector profits are in terminal decline. Bank profits are in terminal decline, because private sector credit is now ‘maxed out’, and the intermediation between borrowers and savers can be done more cost-effectively by the blockchain. Oil and gas profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the energy stored in ‘chemical bonds’ of portable fossil fuels, and rely more on the energy of ‘moving electrons’ generated from unportable alternative energy sources. Basic resources profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the ‘physical stuff’ that requires basic resources. As such, structurally overweighting the value-heavy European market versus the growth-heavy US market is a ‘widow maker’ trade. The caveat is that a vicious snapback out of growth into value is possible when a universally accepted treatment for Covid-19 is found. Or if bond yields spike. This would create a burst of outperformance from Europe, but any such snapback would be a brief interruption to the mega downtrend. Fractal trade: Long RUB/CZK. Feature Chart of the WeekValue' Has Underperformed For 12 Years... But The Mega Downtrend Isn't Over I have just returned from a summer holiday, on which I took a clean break from the financial markets. A clean break that is highly recommended for anybody who looks at the markets day in, day out. Nevertheless, I made two market-relevant observations. First, that having to wear a face mask on an aeroplane was an unpleasant experience. Tolerable for a short-haul flight lasting a couple of hours, but something that would be unbearable for the duration of a long-haul flight. Second, that even the most popular bars and restaurants in the most popular places were operating at half capacity. They were fully booked, yet the requirements of physical distancing at the bar, and between tables, meant that their operating capacity and revenues had collapsed. Worse, the owners feared a further hit in the winter when eating and drinking in their outdoors spaces became impossible. The use of face masks and physical distancing cripples any economic activity that requires you to have your (uncovered) mouth and nose in proximity to others. These first-hand experiences simply confirm the message in An Economy Without Mouths Or Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs.1 The use of face masks and physical distancing cripples any economic activity that requires you to have your (uncovered) mouth and nose in proximity to others – like flying, or drinking and eating out. Hence, if governments remove the financial incentives for employers to retain workers while the pandemic is still rampant, expect structural unemployment to rise sharply. In which case, expect bond yields to remain ultra-low, and where possible, go even lower. And expect ‘growth’ sectors to continue outperforming ‘value’ sectors. Explaining Recent Market Action Returning to the financial markets after a break, several things stood out. Apple has become America’s first $2 trillion company, while HSBC’s share price is within a whisker of its 2008 crisis low. This vignette encapsulates that growth sectors – broadly defined as tech and healthcare – have been roaring ahead, while value sectors – broadly defined as banks, oil and gas, and basic resources – have been struggling. Hence, the growth-heavy S&P500 has reached a new all-time high, while the value-heavy FTSE100 and other European indexes are still deeply in the red for 2020 and have recently drifted lower (Chart I-2). The combined effect is that the strong recovery in global stocks has taken a breather. Chart I-2US Market At All-Time High, But European Markets Still Deeply In The Red In turn, the breather in the stock market explains the recent support to the dollar. Significantly, the 2020 evolution of the dollar is a perfect mirror-image of the stock market. Nothing more, nothing less. If the stock market gives back some of its gains, expect the countertrend strengthening in the dollar to continue (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Dollar Is A Mirror-Image Of The Stock Market Yet the best performing major asset-class in 2020 is not growth equities, nor is it gold. Instead, it is the US 30-year T-bond, which has returned a spectacular 32 percent (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Best Performing Major Asset-Class Is The 30-Year T-Bond Suddenly, everything becomes crystal clear. If the ultra-long bond has surged, then other ultra-long duration investments must also surge. Within equities, this means that growth sectors, whose profits are skewed to the very distant future, must receive a huge boost to their valuations. Whereas value sectors whose profits are not growing will receive a smaller (or no) valuation boost. In fact, the value sectors have a much bigger structural problem. Not only are their profits not growing. Their profits are in terminal decline. Since 2008, Overweighting Value Has Been A ‘Widow Maker’ In the 34 years through 1975-2008, value trebled relative to growth.2 Albeit, with the occasional vicious countertrend move, such as the dot com bubble. But through 2009-2020, the tables turned. For the past 12 years, value has structurally underperformed growth and given back around half of its 1975-2008 outperformance (Chart of the Week). This means that for the past 12 years ‘proxy’ value versus growth positions have also structurally underperformed. The best example of such a proxy position is overweighting the value-heavy European market or Emerging Markets versus the growth-heavy US market. Since 2008, underweighting the US market has been a ‘widow maker’ trade. A widow maker trade is when you are on the wrong side of a megatrend. A widow maker trade is when you are on the wrong side of a megatrend. It is a widow maker because it can kill your career, or your finances, or both. The big danger is that a widow maker trade can last for decades. As the uptrend in value versus growth lasted more than three decades, there is no reason to suppose that the downtrend cannot also last a very long time. What drove value’s outperformance for 34 years, and what is driving its underperformance for the past 12 years? The simple answer is the structural trend in profits. Until 2008, the profits of banks, oil and gas, and basic resources kept up with, or even beat, the profits of technology and healthcare. This, combined with the higher yield on these value sectors, resulted in the multi-decade 200 percent outperformance of value versus growth. But since 2008, while the profits of technology and healthcare have continued their strong uptrends, the profits of banks, oil and gas, and basic resources have entered major structural downtrends. It is our high conviction view that these declines are terminal, and the reasons are nothing to do with the pandemic (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Sector Profits Are In A Major Structural Downtrend Sector Profit Outlooks In One Sentence Each When a sector’s profits flip from a multi-decade uptrend to a multi-decade downtrend, it is almost unheard of for them to reflip into a new uptrend. Essentially, the sector has entered a terminal decline. As strong believers in brevity, we can summarise the reason for the terminal declines in one sentence per sector, as follows: When a sector’s profits flip from a multi-decade uptrend to a multi-decade downtrend, it is almost unheard of for them to reflip into a new uptrend. Bank profits are in terminal decline, because private sector credit is now ‘maxed out’, and the intermediation between borrowers and savers can be done more cost-effectively by the blockchain (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Bank Profits In Terminal Decline Oil and gas profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the energy stored in ‘chemical bonds’ of portable fossil fuels, and rely more on the energy of ‘moving electrons’ generated from unportable alternative energy sources (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Oil And Gas Profits In Terminal Decline Basic resources profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the ‘physical stuff’ that requires basic resources (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Basic Resources Profits In Terminal Decline Conversely: Technology profits can grow, because we now rely more on information, ideas, and advice, and over half of the world’s population is still not connected to the internet (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Technology Profits Continue To Grow Healthcare profits can grow, because as economies (and people) mature, they spend a much greater proportion of their income on healthcare to improve the quality and quantity of life (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Healthcare Profits Continue To Grow Nevertheless, a vicious snapback out of growth into value is possible. Indeed, it is to be expected when a universally accepted treatment for Covid-19 is found. Or if bond yields spike. But any such snapback, even if vicious, will be a brief countertrend rally in a terminal decline. This is because the megatrends driving down value sector profits were already in place long before the pandemic hit. The pandemic just gave the megatrends an extra nudge. This is our high conviction view. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is long RUB/CZK, with the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 5 percent. In other trades, the explosive rallies in precious metals reached exhaustion as anticipated by their fragile fractal structures. This has taken our short gold versus lead position into profit. However, short silver was stopped out before its rally eventually ended. The rolling 1 year win ratio now stands at 60 percent. Chart I-11RUB/CZK When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "An Economy Without Mouths Or Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs", dated July 30, 2020 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 In total return terms. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Historically, soft-budget constraints have typically been followed by periods of poor equity market performance. Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinct economic scenarios: malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. Odds are that the US will continue to pursue easy money policies, sowing the seeds of US equity underperformance in the years ahead. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints, which will weigh on their growth in the near term. However, forced restructuring could boost efficiency and productivity leading to their equity and currency outperformance in the coming years. Unlike other developing economies, China is not currently facing hard-budget constraints. However, the structural overhang from the past 10 years of soft-budget constraints is lingering on and in some cases is increasing. The Thesis The consensus in the investment industry is that cheap money and ample stimulus are good for share prices. We do not disagree with this thesis when it is applied to the near and medium-term equity strategy. However, excessive stimulus and easy money policies — we refer to these as soft-budget constraints — bode ill for share prices in the long run. The investment relevance of this thesis is as follows. Since March, the US has implemented the largest fiscal and central bank stimulus in the world and will likely continue doing so in the coming years (Chart I-1). Such soft-budget constraints will likely support the US economy for now. Nevertheless, they will also sow seeds of future US equity underperformance and currency depreciation. Conversely, many emerging economies (excluding China) have failed to provide sufficient fiscal and credit support to their economies (Chart I-2). The resulting hard-budget constraints will foreshadow their economic underperformance vis-à-vis the US in the coming months. Chart I-1Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Chart I-2EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints   That said, hard-budget constraints will force companies in these EM economies into deleveraging, restructuring and improving efficiency. Ultimately, such hard-budget constraints will benefit EM shareholders in the long run. This thesis has been a key rationale behind our decision to close the short EM / long S&P 500 strategy on July 30, and to turn negative on the US dollar on July 9. In the months ahead, we will be looking for an opportunity to upgrade EM equities to overweight versus the S&P500. BOX 1 Gauging Budget Constraints In our opinion, the best way to gauge budget constraints for the real economy is by monitoring changes in the money supply. This is due to the following reasons: First, net changes in the money supply account for all net loan origination. Second, the money supply also reflects the monetization of public and private debt by the central bank and commercial banks. When a central bank and commercial banks acquire a security from or lend to a non-bank entity, they create new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not change the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. Securities transactions among non-banks do not create new or destroy existing deposits, i.e., they have no impact on the money supply. Rather, these constitute an exchange of securities and existing deposits between sellers and buyers. Provided these types of transactions do not expand the money supply, they do not, according to our framework, alter budget constraints. Finally, the broad money supply, not central bank assets, is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Commercial banks’ excess reserves at the central bank – a large item on the central bank balance sheet - do not constitute a part of the broad money supply. Empirical Evidence The following are examples of soft-budget constraints that were followed by periods of weakening productivity growth, diminishing return on capital and poor equity market performance: 1. China’s soft budget constraints in 2009-10 Due to the post-Lehman crisis stimulus, the change in broad money exploded above 40% of GDP (Chart I-3, top panel). The economy boomed from early 2009 until early 2011 as cheap and abundant money super-charged investment and consumption. Chart I-3China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance However, Chinese share prices — the MSCI China Investable equity index excluding technology, media and telecom (TMT)  — peaked in H1 2011 in absolute terms (Chart I-3, second panel). Relative to the global equity index excluding TMT, the Chinese investable stocks index began underperforming in late 2010 (Chart I-3, third panel). The basis for this equity underperformance was falling return on assets for non-financial companies due to capital misallocation, breeding inefficiencies and diminishing productivity gains (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). In China, the excessive stimulus of 2009 and 2010 and ensuing recurring rounds of soft-budget constraints put a floor under the economy but have destroyed shareholder value. 2. Money overflow in EM ex-China in 2009-10. China’s boom in 2009-10 produced a bonanza for other emerging economies. Not only Chinese imports from developing economies boosted the latter’s balance of payments and income but also international investors rushed into EM equity and fixed income. EM companies and banks took advantage of easy financing and their international borrowing skyrocketed. Finally, EM policy makers stimulated and domestic bank credit boomed. This period of soft-budget constraints led to complacency, lower productivity, falling return on capital and/or inflation in the following years (Chart I-4). Their financial markets performance in the 10 years that followed the soft-budget constraints in 2009-10 has been dismal. The share price index of EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan as well as the total return on their currencies (including the carry) versus the US dollar have been in a bear market (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). 3. The credit and equity bubbles in Japan, Korea and Taiwan of the late 1980s Money and credit bubbles proliferated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s (Chart I-5, Chart I-6 and Chart I-7).  Chart I-4EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market Chart I-5Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-6Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-7Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth   Their productivity growth rolled over in the late 1980s amid easy money policies. Share prices deflated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s (please refer to the middle and bottom panels of Charts I-5, I-6 and I-7). Chart I-8ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise 4. The boom-bust cycle in emerging Asia ex-China in the 1990s Soft-budget constraints prevailed in many emerging Asian economies in the first half of the 1990s. Foreign money inflows and domestic bank credit produced an economic boom. The consequences of such soft-budget constraints were debt-financed malinvestment, falling return on assets and massive current account deficits (Chart I-8). All of these culminated in epic currency and banking crises. 5. The credit bubbles in the US and Europe leading to the 2008 crash Lax credit standards propelled credit and property booms in the US and Southern Europe in the period of 2002-2007. Broad money ballooned in the euro area and swelled in the US (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 2). These property bubbles unraveled in 2007-08. These are well known, and we will not delve into the details. Soft-Budget Constraints Lead To Malinvestment Or Inflation Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinctive economic scenarios – malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. The malinvestment scenario occurs when easy money propels undisciplined capital spending. Easy and abundant money boosts medium-term growth and, thereby, creates the illusion of an economic miracle. The latter renders companies, creditors, investors and government officials complacent. Creditors lend a lot and do so based on optimistic assumptions while companies expand hastily and invest carelessly. The result is capital misallocation, i.e., companies pour money into projects that do not ultimately produce sufficient cash flow. Equity investors project high growth expectations into the future and bid up share prices. Government officials preside over an unsustainable growth trajectory overlooking lurking systemic risks and deteriorating economic fundamentals. Easy money and unlimited financing typically bode ill for efficiency and productivity— this is simply due to human nature. Companies neglect efficiency considerations and, as a result, productivity stagnates. Consequently, cost overruns and unprofitable investments suffocate corporate profits. Declining corporate earnings at a time of expanded capital base culminate in a collapse of return on capital. This is the crucial reason why share prices drop. As profits and return on capital decline, companies retrench by cutting costs and halting investment spending. Defaults mushroom, leading creditors to cut new financing. The inflation scenario transpires when easy money boosts consumption more than investment. Easy money and unlimited financing lift household income and consumption. This can arise from a large fiscal stimulus or private sector's borrowing and spending. On the one hand, robust household income growth inevitably leads to higher wage growth expectations. On the other hand, limited investment brings about productivity stagnation. Mounting wages and languishing productivity growth lead to rising unit labor costs and, ultimately, result in a corporate profit margin squeeze. Faced with corporate profit margin shrinkage, companies either raise prices, i.e., pass through higher costs, or retrench by shedding labor and shrinking capital spending even further. The latter produces a widespread economic downturn, and stifles business profits and share prices. A symptom of higher inflation is a wider current account deficit. With an economy’s productive capacity lagging behind demand, the gap between the two can be filled in by imports. In addition, escalating domestic costs make a country less competitive, which inhibits exports and bloats imports. When a central bank is unwilling to tighten monetary policy meaningfully amid high and rising inflation and/or a widening current account deficit, it falls behind the inflation curve. This constitutes a very bearish backdrop for the exchange rate. Currency depreciation erodes the country’s equity returns in common currency terms versus other bourses. Can an economy with soft-budget constraints, i.e., booming money growth, avoid both malinvestment and inflation? Yes, it can if it is able to boost productivity growth so that it avoids systemic capital misallocation (i.e., investments produce reasonable returns to pay off to creditors and shareholders) and escapes higher inflation by expanding output faster to meet growing demand. However, achieving higher productivity growth amid soft-budget constraints is easier said than done. Bottom Line: The scenario of malinvestment has been playing out in China since 2009. Capital misallocation also occurred in the US and parts of Europe during the 2002-2007 credit boom, and took place in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s. Malinvestment, with some elements of inflation, occurred in emerging Asian countries prior the 1997-98 crises as well as in many EM economies like India, Indonesia and Brazil in 2009-2012. Investment Implications It is fair to say that the unprecedented economic downturn in the US warranted an exceptionally large stimulus. The question for the next several months and years is whether US authorities will: overstay easy policies and make soft-budget constraints a permanent feature of the US economy, or tighten policy earlier than warranted, or navigate policy perfectly so that the economy is neither too hot nor too cold. Our sense is that US authorities will overstay their easy money policies. If the US continues to pursue macro policies in the form of soft-budget constraints, will the nation experience malinvestment or inflation? Our sense is that the US will likely experience asset bubbles and inflation. As the Federal Reserve stays behind the inflation curve in the coming years, the US dollar will be in a multi-year downtrend. Hence, the strategy should be selling the greenback into rebounds. We switched our short positions in select EM currencies— such as BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, IDR and PHP —away from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY on July 9. For now, EM currencies will lag DM currencies. US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world is in the late innings (Chart I-9). The pillars of US equity underperformance in common currency terms will be excessive US equity valuations, a potential new era of US return on capital underperforming the rest of the world and greenback depreciation. Chart I-9US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages The top panel of Chart I-10 illustrates that the difference between US investors owning international stocks and non-US investors holdings of US equities is at a record low. This reveals that both US and foreign investors currently "over-own" US stocks versus non-US equities. Perfect timing of a structural trend reversal is impossible, but we believe US equity outperformance will discontinue before year-end. That was the rationale behind terminating our short EM / long S&P 500 strategy and upgrading EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints which will weigh on their economic performance in the near term. This is why we are not rushing to upgrade EM stocks and currencies to overweight. However, the lack of cheap money will force these EM countries and their companies to do the right things: deleverage households and companies, clean up and recapitalize their banking systems and undertake corporate restructuring. Ultimately, hard-budget constraints will likely sow the seeds of high productivity and, with it, equity and currency outperformance in the years to come. China is a tricky case. On a positive note, it has not stimulated as much during the pandemic as it did in 2009. Besides, policymakers are now aware of the ills that come with soft-budget constraints and have been working hard to address these. Critically, the Chinese population, businesses and the authorities are all united in the nation’s confrontation with the US. Complacency in this context is not a major risk and the focus on efficiency and productivity will be razor sharp. On the negative side, the credit, money and property bubbles that had not been dealt with before the pandemic are now increasing with the stimulus. Continued malinvestment and falling return on capital in China’s old economy sectors is signified by the very poor performance of China’s cyclical “old economy” stocks (Chart I-11, top panel). In turn, bank share prices are making new cyclical lows underscoring their worsening structural outlook (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Chart I-11Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises   Weighing the pros and cons, we infer that the cyclical recovery in China has further to run. This will support China’s growth and equity outperformance for now. That is why we continue to recommend overweighting China within an EM equity portfolio. However, as the credit and fiscal impulses fade starting in H1 next year, structural malaises will resurface posing risks to China’s equity outperformance.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

The frenetic rise in the forward multiple explains all of the SPX’s return year-to-date and then some as 12-month forward EPS have taken a beating. Equities are long duration assets and given the drubbing in the discount rate, the forward P/E multiple has done all the heavy lifting. The chart below puts some historical context to the S&P 500 forward P/E going back to 1979 using I/B/E/S data. Empirical evidence supports finance theory and shows that the 40-year bull market in bond prices has caused a structural upshift to the SPX forward P/E. The onus now falls on profits to make a comeback, and the jury is still out. The big risk remains a selloff in the bond market that triggers a cascading effect with investors fleeing highly valued tech growth stocks (which have been the pillar of the SPX’s recovery since the March lows) and redeploying capital in some beaten up deep cyclical areas. Such a transition will be tumultuous and likely serve as a catalyst for a much needed breather in the overall market. Bottom Line: While we remain cyclically bullish, a near-term correction is likely in the cards as markets are getting extremely stretched and complacent at a time when (geo)political risks are lurking in the background.

Special Report

Highlights ESG-related equities have outperformed global benchmarks over the past two years, as well as during the recent equity selloff. Investor demand and institutional pressure will drive the financial industry to analyze nonfinancial disclosures more closely and take them more into account. The pathway to achieving that is not simple: Unification of reporting standards and improvement in the quality of disclosure are required. Governments can play a role by enforcing climate and sustainability disclosure for firms wanting bailout support. Key stakeholders in the financial system – especially asset managers and other providers of capital – will look to incorporate more sophisticated ESG analysis into their traditional frameworks. Introduction This report is an update to our Special Report published in late 2018 on the benefits of ESG investing. In that report we concluded that ESG indices have performed at least in line with, and may even have slightly outperformed, broad-market indices, while providing societal and environmental benefits.1 We can now also answer one of the questions we raised in that report: Whether ESG investing provides protection during recessions and bear markets. Since we published that report, the ESG space has continued to grow, with the number of new US “sustainable” fund launches, as tracked by Morningstar, increasing – albeit at a lower rate than in the previous two years (Chart 1).2  This can be attributed to an ever-increasing investor demand, predominantly from Europe, but growing rapidly in both the US and Asia, too. The Global Sustainable Investment Review estimates that ESG assets under management (using a relatively broad definition of ESG) totaled $30 trillion as of 2018.3 Chart 1The Industry Is Catering To Increasing Investor Demand Our earlier report highlighted the increasing demand from investors to allocate capital based on environmental, social, and governance standards, or ESG. Simply put, we defined ESG investing as any investment activity that recognizes a certain set of principles, and screens securities based on those factors. While the term itself might be new, the core concept behind it is not. It encompasses a philosophy dating back hundreds of years, beginning with faith-based investing, to the more recent increased awareness of climate and governance issues. The COVID-19 pandemic – also considered an ESG risk – illustrated how quickly a health and environmental threat can turn into a social issue, as unemployment rates surged to new highs and economic activity came to a halt. In this report, we analyze how the performance of ESG indices has evolved since our last report, and in particular, during the recent February-March equity selloff. Additionally, we discuss the opportunities that governments, investors, and corporations can seize in the future. We also assess the various risks facing ESG investing, given that it is no longer a niche space. Performance Update Since we published our report in late 2018, ESG indices in most countries (with the exception of the US and Canada) have outperformed the broad market benchmarks.4  The global ESG index has outperformed the All-Country World (ACW) broad market index by 1% since (Chart 2). While this might not count as a remarkable outperformance, it answers some of the doubts cast on the merits of ESG investing. However, it is critical for investors to realize that ESG indices are not necessarily just another vehicle to invest in to try to outperform the market; rather, they are a sustainable alternative to traditional indices that do not detract from performance. Importantly, ESG indices either performed in line with or better than broad market indices during the equity selloff between February-March 2020. ESG indices in all major countries and regions, with the exception of the US, outperformed the benchmark during this period (Chart 2). Research by MSCI breaks down the active returns of various ESG country and region indices versus their corresponding broad market indices in Q1 2020. This analysis showed that the outperformance predominantly came from equity style tilts, followed by ESG-related factors and sector/industry tilts (Chart 3). Chart 2ESG Indices Outperformed Broad-Market Benchmarks In Most Regions During The Equity Selloff ESG indices tilt towards higher-quality, low-beta, and high-yielding stocks relative to their benchmarks. As part of the index construction, some ESG indices exclude stocks not meeting the indices’ ESG eligibility criteria.  This would include various names in the oil & gas industry, for example (for environmental criteria), as well as some tech giants (for social and governance reasons). The exclusion of some tech names partly explains the US index’s underperformance. Chart 3 shows that stock selection for the US MSCI ESG Leaders index – the one shown in Chart 2 – had a negative contribution to active returns over the first quarter. Chart 3Breaking Down ESG Performance Index methodology plays a big role in determining expected performance. The methodology of the MSCI ESG index suite generally aims to reduce sector differences relative to the broad indices, thereby limiting systematic risk. However, even within the MSCI ESG suite, methodologies differ between indices (Tables 1 & 2).5 Table 1Index Methodology Determines Sector Tilts Table 2Methodology Differences Matter However, it is critical for investors to realize that ESG indices are not necessarily just another vehicle to invest in to try to outperform the market; rather, they are a sustainable alternative to traditional indices that do not detract from performance. It is also important for investors to understand that sustainability is a long-term issue. For example, as economies shut down when COVID-19 infections and deaths rose, investors rushed to sell their risky exposures: The five largest “traditional” US equity ETFs saw cumulative net equity outflows of as high as $22 billion during the three-week period between February 19 and March 13. By contrast, the five largest ESG equity funds experienced small, yet positive, inflows over the same period (Chart 4). This was also true globally, where sustainable funds tracked by Morningstar recorded inflows close to $45 billion dollars during this period, whereas equity funds overall recorded over $380 billion of outflows.6 The most likely reason for this is that investors see ESG investing as a defensive play, given its sector and factor tilts. Chart 4Small, Yet Steady Inflows During The Equity Selloff Institutional Pressure Chart 5Analyzing Nonfinancial Disclosures Is A Must... Investors – particularly those with longer investment horizons, such as pension funds and endowments – are becoming more committed to evaluating their investments more rigorously from an ESG standpoint. This means putting pressure on asset managers to screen and assess company performance using ESG factors. A survey by EY in June 2020 shows that only 2% of respondents conduct little-to-no review of nonfinancial disclosures relating to a company’s environmental and social performance, down from 36% in 2013 (Chart 5). However, absent a formal governing body, standardized reporting, and proper regulation regarding what should be labeled ESG, as well as how metrics are evaluated, asset managers struggle to comply. One of the key points we highlighted in our previous report is that consideration of ESG factors in investment decisions must go beyond simple reliance on ESG scores. The various ESG rating agencies rely on different metrics, factors, and datasets to rank companies and therefore produce very different benchmarks and funds, even though they may have the same objectives. This means that different investors using different ESG indices could end up with different allocations to the same universe of stocks. Therefore, analysis and inclusion based on ESG scores may be misleading and yield dissimilar results. A research paper by the MIT Sloan School of Management showed that the sources of differentiation of ESG rankings by ratings agencies stem from: 1) Scope Divergence: Ratings rely on different attributes to capture ESG performance; 2) Measurement Divergence: Relying on different indicators to measure the same attribute; and 3) Weight Divergence: Ranking the attributes differently in terms of importance. Of these, the paper found that the measurement divergence was the most important.7  Chart 6...With More Companies Now Reporting Asset managers are not necessarily to blame. They simply lack adequate tools. The problem is not the dearth of disclosure, but rather its quality and comparability. In fact, over the past few years, more companies have begun reporting on their sustainability and social performance (Chart 6). However, the fact that reporting is voluntary, and companies rely on different reporting frameworks and standards, makes cross-country and inter-firm comparisons difficult. On the bright side however, there is a growing pressure for collaboration between the various reporting frameworks in order to bring about a single reporting standard. For example, a recently announced partnership between the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) – two of the many organizations responsible for creating sustainability reports and reporting on governance data – is an important step in bringing the various standard-setters together. This should promote greater reporting consistency, and highlight the importance of key non financial disclosures. Improved reporting will affect not only investors, but also providers of capital, including banks. Incorporating ESG factors into conventional investing frameworks will become a core step in assessing risk for asset allocators. Providers of capital will have to assess not only borrowers’ fundamentals and growth prospects, but also understand their governance policies and environmental footprint. A recently published report by the Bank of England (BoE) highlighted the potential impact of climate change – both through transition8 and physical risks9 – on UK banks, insurers, and the entire financial system. To highlight the extent of “climate-related exposure,” the analysis found that almost 10% of England’s mortgage value is on properties in flood-risk zones, and that loan exposures to high emission-intensive sectors represent almost 70% of the common equity Tier 1 capital of the UK’s largest banks.10 If a climate event occurs, or new regulations are implemented, the impact will be severe. Incorporating ESG factors into conventional investing frameworks will become a core step in assessing risk for asset allocators. Governments can play a role. As COVID-19 stimulus plans are rolled out – mainly in developed economies – governments are requiring companies in need of support or bailouts to improve their environmental and climate disclosures. This will make it easier for private-sector investors to incorporate ESG analysis. Large Canadian firms, for example, that apply for government loans, must now publish annual climate disclosure reports as well as other releases relating to environmental and sustainability goals. Additionally, further rounds of stimulus could be given to those investing in ESG-related areas – known as “green stimulus.” Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, G20 countries have committed over $300 billion to support various energy initiatives, of which approximately $150 billion was aimed at clean energy policies and renewable energy programs.11 This could set a precedent for future government support to aid the transition to a greener economy. It can perhaps also serve as an indicator of which areas can present opportunities for investment. Monetary policy is set to remain accommodative for the next few years. It is not unimaginable, then, that central banks’ unconventional monetary easing methods could involve purchasing green bonds,12 issued by both corporations and governments. This is something ECB president Christine Lagarde has hinted at, to aid in the world’s fight against climate change.13 Chart 7The Green Bond Market Is Growing The green bond market continues to grow, with bond issuance in 2019 up over 55% year-on-year. This growth, however, has fallen somewhat in 2020 due to the economic slowdown (Chart 7), despite overall bond issuance increasing in the second quarter of the year, as companies rushed to raise cash and refinance at lower rates.14 The fact that proceeds issued by green bonds must explicitly be used for environmental projects is the most likely reason for the decline. Green bond issuance, in 2020, has totaled $112 billion as of July, with the US, Germany, France, and the Netherlands being the top four issuers. China, the top issuer in 2018 and 2019, slipped to sixth place in 2020, with its green bond issuance shrinking from $27 billion in 2019 to $6 billion year-to-date. Risks & Headwinds Investors should be wary of various short-to-medium term risks to ESG investment. In the short-term, a delay of climate-change targets is possible. A second wave of COVID-19 infections that would trigger further lockdowns might lead to a rollback in environmental regulation and a refocus of stimulus packages on all-out growth rather than on ESG and climate initiatives. Over the coming years, as ESG investing becomes more mainstream, investors will need to take greater care to spot “greenwashing.”15 For example, this includes funds labeled as “sustainable”, but which hold securities that do not fit under that umbrella. It would also include companies taking advantage of the absence of reporting regulations to report misleading or incomplete information. Such care will be crucial until a unified reporting framework is established. According to calculations by Morningstar, over 500 funds expanded their prospectuses to include ESG factors in their investment analysis in 2019, up from the roughly 50 funds which did so in 2018.16,17 Indeed, this is a sign that funds are responding to investor demand and adding appropriate ESG analysis. However, whether these funds use sustainability as a core factor in their investing is unclear. Therefore, investors should continue to undertake their own proper due diligence. Conclusions The path to fully incorporating ESG analyses into a traditional investing framework is heading in the right direction, but is not yet clear-cut. A unified framework that allows for consistent and comparable disclosures would fix one of the biggest hurdles that investors face. ESG-related equity indices have outperformed in most countries and regions since late 2018, as well as during the recent equity selloff. The full advantage to be derived from incorporating ESG factors should be unlocked as more accurate and comprehensive data becomes available. Investor demand for ESG-related investments will remain the dominant force in driving the shift to integrating ESG disclosures into traditional financial analysis. Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “ESG Investing: No Harm, Some Benefit,” dated November 21, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see https://www.morningstar.com/articles/989209/esg-funds-setting-a-record-pace-for-launches-in-2020 3 "Global Sustainable Investment Review 2018," Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, gsi-alliance.org. 4 For the purpose of this analysis, we use the MSCI ESG Leaders index suite. 5 "MSCI ESG Indexes," MSCI, msci.com. 6 Please see https://www.morningstar.com/articles/984776/theres-ample-room-for-sustainable-investing-to-grow-in-the-us 7 Florian Bergand, Julian F Kölbel, and Roberto Rigobon, "Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings," May 17, 2020. 8 Transition risks can be defined as the risks of economic dislocation and financial losses associated with the transition to a lower-carbon economy. 9 Physicals risks can be defined as those arising from the interaction between climate-related events and human and natural systems. 10"The Bank of England’s climate-related financial disclosure 2020," Bank Of England. 11 "G20," energypolicytracker.org. 12 Green bonds are fixed income securities in which the proceeds are exclusively and explicitly assigned to projects or activities to finance and combat environmental issues – such as those relating to climate change and depletion of biodiversity and natural resources. 13 "Lagarde Puts Green Policy Top Of Agenda in ECB Bond Buying," Financial Times, July 8, 2020. 14 "Credit Trends: Global Financing Conditions: Bond Issuance Is Expected To Finish 2020 Up 6% After A Strong Second Quarter," S&P Global Ratings, July 27, 2020. 15Greenwashing is the process of relying on false claims and impressions to provide misleading information about how certain activities, investments, services, products, etc., are environmentally sound and friendly. 16 https://www.morningstar.com/articles/973432/the-number-of-funds-considering-esg-explodes-in-2019 17 As of March 2020, data by Morningstar show that 3,297 global sustainable funds exist.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. A firming macro backdrop, the USD’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight, today. This move also pushes our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Table 1 Feature In our March 23 Weekly Report, when we identified 20 reasons to start buying equities, we published a cycle-on-cycle profile (Chart 1, top panel) of how the SPX performs following a greater than 20% drawdown. History suggested that, on average, new all-time highs would emerge sometime in early 2022! Unfortunately, this assessment proved offside as the S&P 500 made fresh all-time closing highs last week, less than five months from the March 23 trough. Chart 1Overstretched Nevertheless, comparing the current unprecedented SPX rebound with the historical recessionary profile remains instructive as it highlights how excessively stretched equities currently appear. The bottom panel of Chart 1 warns that the SPX is vulnerable to a snapback, were the SPX to return to the historical mean or median recovery profile. Likely rising (geo)political risks could serve as a near-term catalyst for a healthy pullback. Importantly, all of the SPX’s return since the March lows is due to the multiple expansion and then some, as forward EPS have taken a beating (not shown). Equities are long duration assets and given the drubbing in the discount rate, the forward P/E multiple has done all the heavy lifting. Chart 2 puts some historical context to the S&P 500 forward P/E going back to 1979 using I/B/E/S data. Empirical data supports finance theory and shows that the 40-year bull market in bond prices has caused a structural upshift to the SPX forward P/E. Chart 2Moving In Opposite Directions While low rates explain the near all-time highs in the SPX forward P/E, looking ahead we doubt that the SPX multiple can expand much further if we assume that the easy assist from ZIRP is behind us and will not repeat; i.e. the Fed will refrain from wrecking the US banking system by exploring NIRP. In contrast, our analysis suggests that a selloff in the bond market is the missing ingredient that will ignite a massive rotation out of growth stocks and into value and propel deep cyclicals versus defensives to uncharted territory. More specifically, the rallies in copper prices, crude oil and the CRB Raw Industrials index need confirmation from the bond market that they are demand, rather than supply driven. This backdrop will also shift equity returns within deep cyclicals away from a handful of tech stocks and toward other beaten down high operating leverage sectors (i.e. energy, industrials and materials) as we posited in our recent August 3 Special Report “Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives”. Zooming out and observing how investors have moved capital from one asset class to the next in the aftermath of QE5 is in order (Chart 3). First, the SPX enjoyed a V-shaped recovery from the March 23 lows. Then in early-May, as we first posited in our May 11 Weekly Report, the big EURUSD up-move was set in motion and investors started piling into short USD positions taking cue from the Fed’s QE5 that was directly targeting the US dollar with liquidity swaps. The debasing of the dollar served as a global reflator. Now the final piece of the QE5 puzzle is the bond market. Chart 3 highlights that in order for QE to work, counterintuitively a selloff in the bond market would confirm that the economy is healing and is ready to start standing on its own two feet. The jury is still out. With regard to the Fed’s remaining bullets, yield curve control (YCC) is one unorthodox tool that the FOMC could choose to deploy in the coming years. On that front, turning back in time and drawing parallels with the 1940s is instructive. In 1942 the Fed, at the behest of the Treasury, pegged long-term interest rates at 2.5% and ballooned its balance sheet in order to finance the government’s expenditures during WWII. The Fed surrendered its independence, and this YCC unwarrantedly stayed in place until 1951 when in the midst of the Korean War, the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord finally ended the peg of government long-dated bond interest rates.1 Chart 3Bonds Yields Are Left To Rally Chart 4WWII-Like Starting Point Chart 4 shows the ebbs and flows of the US government’s total debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal deficit as a percentage of output since 1940. While the debt-to-GDP profile fell from 1945 onward owing partially to a tight fiscal ship that the US subsequently ran, it troughed when the US floated the greenback. Since then, the US has been fiscally irresponsible running large budget deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio has never looked back and very recently went parabolic (top panel, Chart 4). Charts 5 & 6 take a closer look at some macro variables in the 1940s and Charts 7 &  8 compare them to today. Chart 5The… Chart 6…1940s… First, YCC did not prevent the late-1948 recession (Chart 5, shaded areas). Crudely put, monetary stimulus is not a panacea for boom/bust cycles. Second, M2 growth was climbing at a 30%/annum rate, the money multiplier was on a secular advance and money velocity was surging especially in the first half of the 1940s (Chart 6). As a result and as expected, YCC caused three significant inflationary jumps (bottom panel, Chart 6) that aided the US government in bringing down the massive debt-to-GDP ratio (i.e. inflating its way out of a debt trap) that it had accumulated via large deficits in the front half of the 1940s (top panel, Chart 5). Third, interest rates were a coiled spring and once the Treasury-Fed Accord was signed, they exploded higher (fourth panel, Chart 5). Finally, equities fared well during the first three years of YCC until the end of WWII, but then suffered an outsized setback until mid-1949, before recovering and taking out the 1945 highs in 1951 (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 7...Compared With… Chart 8…Today Were the Fed to embark on YCC in the near-future in order to monetize the US government’s deficits, there are a few parallels to draw with the 1940s especially given that the starting point of debt-to-GDP is similar to the WWII figure (top panel, Chart 4). The Fed would likely lose its independence. This would be a paradigm shift. The Fed would crowd out fixed income investors, and flood the market with US dollars. M2 money stock would continue to surge. Few investors will be chasing US dollar assets including equities. The path of least resistance would be significantly lower for the US dollar as foreign investors would flee. This debt monetization along with a depreciating currency and swelling money supply would result in inflation rearing its ugly head, especially given that import prices would soar. What is difficult to envision is how the economy would perform during an inflationary impulse. Our sense is that the risk of stagflation would rise significantly, especially given the current inverse correlation between M2 growth and the velocity of money.2 In the stagflationary 1970s, any liquidity injections via higher M2 growth failed to translate into rising money velocity. Importantly, the “Nixon shock” effectively ended the Bretton Woods system and floated the US dollar causing a 40% devaluation from peak-to-trough (Chart 9). Tack on the oil related supply shock and stagflation reigned supreme in the 1970s, owing to cost-push inflation. Chart 9Dollar The Reflator In contrast during the 1940s, demand-pull inflation hit the economy rather hard, as the US was retooling its industrial base to win WWII alongside its allies. Also the US dollar was linked to gold since the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and ten years later the Bretton Woods international monetary agreement ushered in the era of fixed exchange rates, which is a big difference from the 1970s.3 As a reminder, from a political perspective venturing down the inflation avenue is the least painful way of dealing with a debt burden, rather than pursuing tight fiscal policy which is synonymous with political suicide. From an equity perspective, owning commodity-levered sectors and other hard asset-linked equities including REITs would make sense as we highlighted in our recent inflation Special Report. Health care stocks would also shine in case of an inflationary spurt according to empirical evidence that we highlighted in the same Special Report. On the flip side, our inflation Special Report also revealed that shedding telecom services and utilities would be wise and most importantly avoiding technology stocks. Tech stocks are disinflationary beneficiaries as they are mired in constant deflation and have built business models not only to withstand, but also to thrive in deflation. Inflation is a tech killer as these growth stocks suffer when the discount rate spikes and causes valuations to move from a premium to a discount. Nevertheless, deflation/disinflation is more likely in the coming 12-to-18 months, whereas inflation is at least two-to-three years away as we mentioned in our recent inflation Special Report. This week we continue to augment our cyclicals versus defensives portfolio bent and take our defensive exposure down a notch by downgrading consumer staples to a modest below benchmark allocation via a downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index. Downgrade Hypermarkets To Underweight… Last summer we upgraded the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight as we were preparing the portfolio to withstand a recessionary shock given that the yield curve had inverted. Fast forward to the March carnage in the equity markets and this defensive move served our portfolio well. However, we did not want to overstay our welcome and set a stop in order to exit this position that was triggered in late-March netting our portfolio 26% in relative gains. More recently, we have been adding cyclical exposure to the portfolio and lightening up on defensives and as a continuation of this shift we are now compelled to downgrade the S&P hypermarkets to underweight. The economy is reopening and thus it no longer pays to seek refuge in safe haven hypermarket equities. In fact most of the macro indicators we track suggest the recession is over that will sustain severe downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 10 shows that the ISM manufacturing new orders subcomponent has slingshot from below 30 to north of 60, junk spreads are probing all-time lows, consumer confidence has troughed and small and medium enterprises hiring intentions are on the mend. Moreover, the extraordinary fiscal expansion has brought spending forward and PCE is all but certain to skyrocket when the Q3 GDP figures get released in late-October, signaling that the easy money has been made in Big Box retailers (top panel, Chart 11). Similarly, discretionary spending should pick up the slack from staple-related purchases, further dampening the need to own hypermarket shares (middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Rebounding Macro Chart 11Returning to Normality On the operating front, while WMT is making strides in its online presence and offering mix, non-store retail sales are on a tear dominated by King AMZN (as a reminder we are overweight the S&P internet retail index). This is a secular trend and should continue unabated and in a relative sense continue to weigh on hypermarket profitability (bottom panel, Chart 12). Finally, a significant tailwind is turning into a severe headwind for this industry: import price inflation. The US dollar has reversed course and it is in a freefall. Historically, the greenback has been an excellent leading indicator of import price inflation and the current message is grim for hypermarket razor thin profit margins (import prices shown inverted, Chart 13). Chart 12Amazonification Is On Track Chart 13Currency Headwinds Adding it all up, softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HYPC – WMT, COST. …Which Pushes Consumer Staples To A Below Benchmark Allocation The downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index tilts our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Countercyclical consumer staples stocks served their purpose and provided the support to our portfolio in the front half of the year when we needed them most. Now that the economic reopening is gaining steam and the government, the health care system and society are all ready to effectively deal with a flare up in the pandemic, the allure of defensive positioning has diminished. In other words, COVID-19 is currently a known known risk versus an unknown unknown risk early in the year, and defending against it now is more successful. Moreover, according to our mid-April research on what sectors investors should avoid during recessionary recoveries, consumer staples stocks trail the SPX on average by 660bps one year following the SPX trough. The current macro backdrop corroborates this analysis and underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also consumer confidence is making an effort to trough (ISM manufacturing and consumer confidence shown inverted, Chart 14). Meanwhile, financial market variables emit a similarly bearish signal for safe haven staples stocks. Following a brief spike in the bond-to-stock ratio (BSR), the BSR has recently resumed its downdraft (top panel, Chart 15). Volatility has all but collapsed since soaring to over 80 in March, as the Fed has orchestrated a quashing of all asset class volatilities (middle panel, Chart 15). Lastly, the pairwise correlation between stocks in the S&P 500 has also nosedived bringing some semblance of normality back into equity markets (bottom panel, Chart 15). All three of these financial market variables will continue to exert downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 14V-shaped Recovery… Chart 15...Across The Board On the US dollar front, while consumer goods manufacturers get a P&L translation gain from a depreciating currency, their export exposure is on par with the SPX and does not provide a relative advantage. In marked contrast, empirical evidence shows that relative profitability moves in tandem with the greenback and the USD recent weakness will undercut consumer staples profitability (bottom panel, Chart 16), especially via climbing input cost inflation. In sum, a firming macro backdrop, the US dollar’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P consumer staples index to underweight. Chart 16Mind the Gap Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/special_reports/treasury_fed_accord/background 2     The velocity of money “is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.” Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 3    Our colleagues from The Bank Credit Analyst recently illustrated how a strong dollar is good for the US economy on a medium term basis. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations ​​​​​​​ Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 ​​​​​​​Favor value over growth