Geopolitics

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today Highlights Portfolio Strategy An easy Fed, the drubbing in the US dollar, the opening up of the global economy, poor pharma operating metrics and the specter of a “Blue Wave” more than offset the likelihood of a COVID-19 vaccine and oversold technicals, and compel us to cut pharma exposure below benchmark. This downgrade of the heavyweight pharma index also pushes the S&P health care sector down to a neutral position. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight, today. Trim the S&P health care sector down to a benchmark allocation, today. Table 1 Peering Across The Election Valley Peering Across The Election Valley Feature On the eve of the election, the SPX oscillated violently last week as it became evident that there will be no agreement on a bipartisan fiscal package. Thus, the odds are rising of a mega fiscal package next year irrespective of the election outcome. The longer politicians wait the larger the stimulus bill will end up being. Realistically now a fresh fiscal impulse is pushed out to late-January at the earliest, casting a dark cloud over the current quarter’s economic and profit growth prospects.   In mid-October we highlighted that positioning remained stretched in both VIX and S&P 500 e-mini futures, which warned that investors were prematurely betting on subsiding volatility. Similarly, we cautioned that VIX options activity corroborated the stretched positioning message as investors were piling into VIX puts and neglecting to buy any election protection in the form of VIX calls. The final blow came early last week when the equity vol curve inverted with the VIX spiking north of 40 and implying that the SPX would move by +/- 12% in the next 30 days. Given so much fear priced in the VIX, last Thursday we decided to close our election protection in the form of VIX December 16, 2020 expiry futures that we held since our July 27 Special Report we penned with our sister Geopolitical Strategy on the rising odds of a contested US election. Our view remains that the SPX could glide lower into the November election before rallying into year-end courtesy of receding election and fiscal policy uncertainties. Nevertheless, at the risk of getting overly bearish a few offsetting observations are in order. While there is a chance that the VIX will continue to roar as it did early in the year and push the equity vol curve deeper in backwardation, our sense is that the correction that commenced in early September is close to running its course. Historically, Chart 1 shows that the VIX curve inversion is typically short-lived and more often than not serves as a launchpad for the SPX. Chart 1Correction Enters Third Month Correction Enters Third Month Correction Enters Third Month With regard to market internals, a flurry of M&A activity has propelled the Philly SOX index to all-time highs in absolute terms and to nineteen-year highs versus the SPX. IPO activity has also resumed and the Renaissance IPO exchange trade fund is on a tear breaking out recently to uncharted territory. Moreover, the SPX advance/decline line is also probing all-time highs and signaling increased participation beyond the top 5 tech titans (Chart 2). While the Fed has been a bystander of late – trying to exert some pressure on Congress to pass a fresh stimulus package – and the fiscal circus continues unabated in Washington D.C., both the money supply release and the American Association on Individual Investors confirm that a lot of dry powder remains on the sidelines. The implication is that as election uncertainty recedes then this idle cash courtesy of the sloshing liquidity will make its way through the markets. In other words decreasing cash balances push the SPX higher and vice versa (Chart 3). Chart 2Market Internals: A Few Rays Of Light Market Internals: A Few Rays Of Light Market Internals: A Few Rays Of Light Chart 3Lots Of Dry Powder Lots Of Dry Powder Lots Of Dry Powder Meanwhile, following up from last week’s debt discussion we delve deeper into the non-financial corporate sector’s debt profile. The pandemic has pushed non-financial business debt to an extreme almost on a par with nominal GDP (top panel, Chart 4). The big difference this cycle is that, according to Moody’s, subordinated debt that has defaulted sports a recovery rate in the teens, a far cry from previous recessionary troughs (second panel, Chart 4). The overall junk bond recovery rate is near 25 cents on the dollar plumbing historical lows (a recent Bloomberg article highlighted that COVID-19 has ushered in this “new era of US bankruptcies” with ultra-low recovery rates).1 The risk remains that the default rate will continue to rise (bottom panel, Chart 4): the longer the fiscal stimulus package takes to arrive the higher the bankruptcies will be.   Importantly, the deep cyclicals (tech, industrials, materials and energy) net debt-to-EBITDA ratio has crossed above 1.5x during the recession on the back of cash flow ails. In fact cyclicals have been paying down net debt in absolute terms during the pandemic (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Beware Low Recovery Rates Beware Low Recovery Rates Beware Low Recovery Rates Chart 5Debt Saddled Defensives Debt Saddled Defensives Debt Saddled Defensives In marked contrast, the defensives (health care, consumer staples, utilities and telecom services) net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is hovering near 3x, as these debt saddled sectors have not been able to pay down net debt. Not only is net debt roughly $2tn, but it also comprises 50% of the broad market’s net debt at a time when the market cap weight is close to 30% (Chart 5). Taken together, the relative debt profile clearly favors cyclicals at the expense of defensives and we continue to recommend a cyclicals versus defensives portfolio bent. One neglected part of the Baker, Bloom and Davis policy uncertainty has been the trade-related uncertainty. The pandemic has put the trade dispute in the back burner. Moreover, the odds remain high of a Biden win; at the margin, a Democratic President will be less hawkish on trade and will try to deescalate global trade tensions. This backdrop is a de facto positive for cyclicals/defensives, especially given our view of a reopening of the global economy in 2021 (Chart 6). This week we continue to augment the cyclical/defensive bent of our portfolio by taking a defensive sector down a notch. Chart 6Cyclicals Benefit From Dwindling Trade Uncertainty Cyclicals Benefit From Dwindling Trade Uncertainty Cyclicals Benefit From Dwindling Trade Uncertainty Comatose Big Pharma shares broke down recently and we are compelled to downgrade exposure to underweight on the eve of the US election. While a short term reflex bounce may be in the cards, we would sell that strength as relative share prices are teetering and are on the verge of giving up 25 years of relative returns (top panel, Chart 7). Stiff macro headwinds, tough operating metrics and hawkish political rhetoric more than offset positive COVID-19 vaccine-related news.  On the macro front, the Fed’s ZIRP bodes ill for defensive pharma equities. The Fed was uncharacteristically quick this recession to drop rates to the lower zero bound to reflate the economy. As a result, safe haven equities, Big Pharma included, typically trail the broad market as the economy gets out of the ER and into the recovery room (middle & bottom panels, Chart 7).  Importantly, relative pharmaceutical profits are highly counter cyclical: they rise with the onset of recession and collapse as the economy stands back on its own two feet. Currently, as the COVID-19 hit to the world economy has transitioned to a V-shaped recovery, the reopening of the economy into the New Year will continue to knock the wind out of relative pharma profitability (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 8). Chart 7A Tough Pill To Swallow A Tough Pill To Swallow A Tough Pill To Swallow Chart 8Sell The Pharma Counter-Cyclicality Sell The Pharma Counter-Cyclicality Sell The Pharma Counter-Cyclicality Similarly, an appreciating greenback has historically been synonymous with pharma outperformance and vice versa (third panel, Chart 8). Keep in mind, Big Pharma make the lion’s share of their profits domestically further cementing the positive correlation with the US dollar. This local profit sourcing represents one of the main reasons why politicians on both sides of the aisle are after domestic pharma profits (more on this below). Worrisomely and likely tied to the domestic nature of the industry’s profit extraction, the debasing of the US dollar fails to provide any export relief. In fact, exports have been historically positively correlated with the greenback (bottom panel, Chart 8). Pharma prices are on the cusp of contracting. Importantly, President Trump’s late-July executive order “to allow importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada”2  among other provisions is a direct blow to the profit prospects of Big Pharma (second panel, Chart 9). Other operating factors also weigh on pharma earnings. Industry shipments have risen to a level that has marked prior peak growth rates. Any letdown on the demand side coupled with the recent inventory build, will lead to pricing power losses. Tack on accelerating productivity losses despite recovering pharma industrial production and factors are falling into place for a relative profit driven underperformance phase (Chart 9). With regard to the election outcome, a Biden win accompanied by a Senate flip to the Democrats would be the worst possible outcome for the pharmaceutical industry, as we posited in our recent Special Report penned with our sister Geopolitical Strategy services on sector implication of a “Blue Trifecta”, and reiterate today (Chart 10). Chart 9Pricing Power Blues Pricing Power Blues Pricing Power Blues Nevertheless, we are cognizant that definitive news of a COVID-19 vaccine will likely lift Big Pharma, but only temporarily, as cyclical forces will more than offset the positive vaccine news. Finally, with regard to valuations and technicals, pharma is not offering compelling value but rather is a value trap and we would use any reflex rebound to lighten up exposure to this defensive industry (Chart 11). Chart 10Heightened “Blue Sweep” Risk Heightened “Blue Sweep” Risk Heightened “Blue Sweep” Risk Chart 11Value Trap Value Trap Value Trap Netting it all out, an easy Fed, the drubbing in the US dollar, the opening up of the global economy, poor pharma operating metrics and the specter of a “Blue Wave” more than offset the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine and oversold technicals. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5PHARX, JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, MYL, PRGO. A Few Words On Health Care The Big Phama downgrade to underweight also pushes the S&P health care sector to a benchmark allocation from a previously modest overweight stance. This leaves the S&P medical equipment index as the sole overweight in this defensive sector that enjoys cyclical and structural tailwinds (especially in emerging markets that are instituting the health care safety nets the developed markets already enjoy) more than offsetting the safe haven characteristics that typically overshadow health care outfits (second panel, Chart 12). Moreover, we are putting the S&P health care sector on downgrade alert as we reckon most of the positive profit drivers are already reflected in cycle high relative profit growth figures and are at major risk of deflating if our thesis of a global reopening of the economy takes shape in the New Year. Our relative macro driven EPS growth models corroborate that earnings are at heightened risk of major disappointment next year (Chart 13). Chart 12Stick With Health Equipment Stick With Health Equipment Stick With Health Equipment Chart 13Put The S&P Health Care Sector On Downgrade Alert Put The S&P Health Care Sector On Downgrade Alert Put The S&P Health Care Sector On Downgrade Alert Bottom Line: Trim the S&P health care sector to neutral today and also put it on downgrade watch.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-26/bond-defaults-deliver-99-losses-in-new-era-of-u-s-bankruptcies 2     https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-increasing-drug-importation-lower-prices-american-patients/   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Size And Style Views October 26, 2020 Favor small over large caps July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives 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

Highlights A Biden victory with a Republican Senate (28% odds) poses the greatest risk to the global reflation trade. The US is the most susceptible to social unrest of all the developed markets. Europe is stable relative to the US, but political risks are rising as new lockdowns go into effect. Emerging markets are also susceptible to social unrest – even those that look best on paper. Chile and Thailand have more downside due to politics, despite underlying advantages. Turkey and Nigeria are among those at risk of major unrest in a post-COVID world. Book gains on EUR-GBP volatility, Indian pharma, and rare earths. Cut losses. Feature This week saw a long-awaited risk-off move in global financial markets. A new wave of COVID lockdowns plus the US failure to pass a fiscal package finally registered with investors. Over the past two months we have argued that rising COVID cases without stimulus would produce a pre-election selloff that would drive the final nail in President Trump’s re-election bid. That should still be the case (Chart 1).  While we are sticking with our view that Biden will win, we have upgraded Trump’s odds from 35% to 45%. We are focused on Trump’s momentum – not alleged polling errors – in Florida and Pennsylvania, and Biden’s loss of altitude in Arizona, as these trends open a clear Electoral College path to another Trump victory (Chart 2). Nevertheless Biden is tied with Trump among men and leads by 17 percentage points among women. He is also in a statistical tie among the elderly.  Chart 1COVID Rising + Stimulus Falling = Red Ink COVID Rising + Stimulus Falling = Red Ink COVID Rising + Stimulus Falling = Red Ink Chart 2Trump's Momentum In Swing States Trump's Momentum In Swing States Trump's Momentum In Swing States   Even assuming Trump’s comeback proves too little, too late, it could produce a contested election in which Trump has constitutional advantages, or a Republican Senate. Either of these two scenarios would extend the election season volatility for one-to-three months. Our updated US election probabilities are shown in Table 1 alongside the odds from the popular online betting site PredictIt.org. Table 1There Is A 72% Chance The Post-Election Policy Setting Will Favor Reflation Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update A Biden victory with a Republican Senate (28% odds) is the only deflationary scenario in the near term, since fiscal stimulus will be reduced in size and uncertain in timing. However, assuming financial market pressure forces senators to agree, this is actually the best outcome over the full two-year Senate election period, since neither tariffs nor corporate taxes would rise. Notably Treasury yields have risen regardless of election scenario, but there is little doubt that this scenario poses the greatest risk to the global reflation trade (Chart 3). Why does this election matter? Trump’s re-election would prolong US political polarization and “maximum pressure” foreign and trade policy. Trump must win through the constitutional system, not the popular vote, so a win would push polarization up. Polarization at home, including Democratic opposition in the House of Representatives, would drive him abroad. By contrast, a Biden win would include a popular majority and might include a united Democratic Congress, which would result in a clear popular mandate and would concentrate Biden's administration on an ambitious domestic agenda.   A Biden victory with a Republican Senate (28% odds) poses the greatest risk to the global reflation trade. Hence Trump’s election would bolster the USD and US equity outperformance, along with global policy uncertainty relative to the United States (Chart 4). Whereas Biden’s election, if it also brings a Democratic Senate, would bolster global equity outperformance, cyclical equities, and US policy uncertainty relative to global. Chart 3Republican Senate Less Reflationary Republican Senate Less Reflationary Republican Senate Less Reflationary Chart 4Trump Would Boost US Equity Outperformance Trump Would Boost US Equity Outperformance Trump Would Boost US Equity Outperformance   The election will have a geopolitical fallout. First, Trump is still president through January 20 regardless of outcome and could take aggressive actions to seal his legacy and lock the Biden administration into conflict with China or Iran. Second, a contested election would create a power vacuum in which other nations could seek to take advantage of American distraction. Third, a Trump victory spells strategic conflict with Iran and China, and either could try to seize the advantage by acting first. Fourth, a Biden win spells confrontation with Russia and ultimately China, and both countries would test his resolve early in his administration. Diagram 1 summarizes these key market takeaways of the US election scenarios. This week we provide our monthly GeoRisk Update with a special focus on our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index and implications for select developed, emerging, and frontier markets. Diagram 1Scenarios For US Election Outcomes And Market Impacts Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update The United States The market can get hit by negative surprises after the US election just as easily as before.1 The US is a powder keg of social and political angst, ranking the worst among developed markets in our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index (Table 2). The lower a country ranks on the list, the less stable it is and the more susceptible to unrest. Social unrest becomes market-relevant if it weighs on consumer or business sentiment, or if it causes a major change in government or policy. Table 2The US Is The Developed Market Most Susceptible To Social Unrest Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update The first US risk is a contested election. By rallying in the swing states in the final weeks of the election, Trump has increased the likelihood of a disputed outcome. Armies of lawyers will descend upon the swing state election boards. The Supreme Court’s intervention in Florida in 2000 has incentivized political parties to seek a judicial intervention, especially if they think they are losing the popular vote narrowly. Mail-in counts, recounts, and other disputes could push up against the December 14 Electoral College voting date. Worse, if the Electoral College is hung, the House of Representatives would have to decide the outcome in January. Volatility and risk-off sentiment would predominate. Emerging markets are showing the first signs of upheaval in the wake of this year’s crisis. The second risk is resistance to the election results. If Trump wins on a constitutional technicality, the country faces widespread unrest. This would be relevant to investors if it paralyzes major cities, exacerbates the COVID outbreak, or snowballs into something big enough to suppress consumer confidence. If Biden wins on a technicality, the country faces not widespread unrest but isolated pockets of potentially armed resistance or domestic terrorist attacks. The FBI, DHS, and recent news events have confirmed the presence of armed or violent extremist groups of various ideological stripes that pose a rising threat in the current climate of pandemic, unemployment, and polarization.2 They could strike any time after the election.     Europe And Brexit Chart 5European Lockdowns Push Up Political Risk European Lockdowns Push Up Political Risk European Lockdowns Push Up Political Risk Europe and Canada have reinstated lockdowns in response to their rise in COVID-19 cases. The surge in political risk is evident from our GeoRisk Indicators (Chart 5). These lockdowns will not be as draconian as earlier this year as the death rate has been found to be lower than once feared. While most governments have time on the political clock to take a hardline approach today, at the start of what could be a nasty winter season, they do not have so much leeway in 2021. Greece, Spain, Italy, the UK, and France are next in line for social unrest, after the US, in our index, Table 2 above. These countries are also vulnerable because fiscal support is not as robust as elsewhere, as can be seen by our global fiscal stimulus tracker (Chart 6). France is in better shape than the others and marks the dividing line – the 2017 election was a turning point in which the political establishment unified to defeat a right-wing populist challenge. President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity is holding up decently and it will now be buttressed by his tough stance against a spate of radical Islamist terrorist attacks. Extremist incidents will continue to be a problem, given the lockdowns and economic slump. Macron will focus on economic reflation in 2021 leading up to an election for which he is clearly favored in spring of 2022. Anything that derails his political trajectory before that time is of great importance for Europe’s political future, since Macron will be the de facto leader once Angela Merkel steps down in October 2022. Italy and Spain will be ongoing sources of political risk. Italy was the first major European hotspot of the pandemic, and euroskeptic attitudes are quietly ticking back up, but the ruling coalition and especially Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte have received popular backing for their handling of the crisis. Spain, on the other hand, has seen Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez lose support, while conservative parties tick up in popular opinion. These two countries are candidates for early elections when the hens come home to roost for the pandemic and recession (Chart 7). Chart 6More Stimulus Needed In Europe Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Chart 7Europe’s Leaders Fare Better Than Others Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update   The other major countries with looming elections in 2021-22 are seeing relatively positive outcomes in popular opinion (e.g. the Netherlands, Germany). The exception is the UK, which is on the lower end of the social unrest index and is in the midst of internal disruption due to Brexit. Our assessment remains that Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Tories will have to accept a trade deal with the EU over the next month (Chart 8). They can afford to leave on paper, but the economy would suffer and Scotland’s nationalists would be empowered to attempt secession. Our European Strategist Dhaval Joshi believes a Biden win in the US will hasten Johnson’s capitulation. We don’t expect much more upside in our GBP-EUR volatility trade after the US election result is known (Chart 9).  Chart 8Go Long Sterling Go Long Sterling Go Long Sterling Chart 9Close EUR-GBP Volatility Trade Close EUR-GBP Volatility Trade Close EUR-GBP Volatility Trade Chart 10Trump Would Weigh On Euro Trump Would Weigh On Euro Trump Would Weigh On Euro Trump’s re-election would be negative for the European Union’s economic and political stability (Chart 10). It would portend a greater trade war, Middle Eastern instability and refugees, Russian aggression, or European populism. By contrast, Biden will not use sweeping tariffs to resolve trade tensions, will seek to restore the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, will suppress anti-establishment politics, will seek a multilateral approach to China trade tensions, and will only substantially aggravate the Europeans by being too aggressive on Russia. EM: Chile And Thailand Emerging markets are showing the first inevitable signs of upheaval in the wake of this year’s global crisis. What is critical to note about our Social Unrest Index for EM is that even if a country ranks high on the list overall, it could still face significant sociopolitical upheaval. This is manifest in the top-ranked countries of our list – Chile, Malaysia, Thailand, Russia, Indonesia – all of which have already seen some degree of social and/or political unrest in this crisis year (Table 3).  Table 3Even Emerging Markets That Look Good On Paper Are Susceptible To Unrest Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update Election Trades And Global Social Unrest: A GeoRisk Update The best example is Chile, which is top-ranked in the index but ranks ninth in the “Household Grievances” column, which measures inequality, inflation, and unemployment. The latter measure helps explain how Chile erupted last fall and again this fall in mass protests. Chart 11Political Risk Weighs On Chile Political Risk Weighs On Chile Political Risk Weighs On Chile Over the past week Chileans voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to revise their constitution with a constitutional convention that will be elected, i.e. not overdetermined by current members of the National Congress. The constitutional revision process is ultimately a positive way for a country with good governance to assuage its household grievances. But the process will continue through a revision process in April 2021, the November 2021 general election, and a final referendum in 2022, ensuring that political risk persists. Chilean assets have fallen short of their expected performance based on global copper prices, suggesting that they have upside in the near term (Chart 11). Positive news is driven by macro fundamentals, including Chinese stimulus, but political risk will periodically put a cap on rallies by highlighting Chile’s transition to expansive social spending, higher debts, and hence future currency risk. Thailand’s case is different, as it is not household grievances per se but rather the ongoing governance problem that is triggering mass protests. The governance problem stems from regional disparities in wealth and representative government. Modern society and pro-growth populism have repeatedly clashed with the royalist political establishment and its military backers over the past 20 years and that process is set to continue. Chart 12Thailand Not Fully Pricing New Instability Cycle Thailand Not Fully Pricing New Instability Cycle Thailand Not Fully Pricing New Instability Cycle The newest round of the crisis will build for some years and ultimately culminate in some degree of bloodshed before a new political settlement is achieved. Typically, over the past 20 years, Thai political unrest creates a buying opportunity for investors. But the previous major wave of unrest, from 2006-14, occurred during the lead-up to the all-important royal succession. Now the succession is “over” and it is not clear that the new king, Vajiralongkorn, will live up to his father’s legacy as a successful arbiter of society’s conflicts. It is possible that he will overreact to domestic opposition and abuse his powers. Our Emerging Markets Strategy has downgraded Thailand in its portfolio, showing that the economy is suffering from insufficient stimulus as a negative credit impulse offsets public spending during the crisis. Thai equities do not offer relative value within the emerging market space at present (Chart 12). Most likely Thai political troubles will continue to provide a buying opportunity, but at the moment the risks are not sufficiently priced. If Chile, Malaysia, and Thailand are already experiencing significant political risk despite their high rankings on our index, then Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, and the Philippines face even greater challenges going forward. We have written about Brazil recently – we continue to see a rising political risk premium there (Chart 13). We will update our views on South Africa and the Philippines in forthcoming special reports. For now we turn to Turkey. Turkey: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Turkey scores near the bottom of our Social Unrest Index. The regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in power for nearly two decades, is suffering cracks in public support, is continuing to suffer the inflationary consequences of populist monetary and fiscal policy, and is embroiled in a range of international adventures and conflicts, now including Nagorno-Karabakh. After a brief pause of tensions in September, we argued that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s retreat would be temporary and that geopolitical tensions would re-escalate. They have done so even sooner than we thought. The lira is collapsing, as registered by our GeoRisk Indicator, which is once again on the rise (Chart 14). Chart 13Brazilian Political Risk Nearing 2018 Levels Brazilian Political Risk Nearing 2018 Levels Brazilian Political Risk Nearing 2018 Levels Chart 14Turkish Political Risk Spikes Anew Turkish Political Risk Spikes Anew Turkish Political Risk Spikes Anew   Relations with Europe have worsened significantly. Aggressive rhetoric between Erdogan and Macron in response to France’s treatment of French Muslims and handling of recent terrorist incidents has led to a diplomatic crisis: Paris recalled its ambassador. The episode highlights both Erdogan’s increased assertiveness vis-à-vis the EU as well as his Neo-Ottoman bid to become the leader of the Muslim world. Erdogan has called for a boycott of French goods (alongside similar popular calls in various Muslim countries). The European Commission warned Turkey could face punitive action at its December summit.   The feud in the eastern Mediterranean is also escalating. Turkey’s Oruc Reis seismic research vessel was once again sent out on an exploratory mission in contested waters on October 12. The mission’s duration was extended multiple times.    The EU may impose sanctions as early as December. Brussels' response to Turkish provocations may include targeted anti-dumping measures, likely on steel and fish. There have also been calls to suspend the customs union, but this would require the conflict to rise above rhetoric as it would harm EU investments in Turkey. Turkey is growing even more assertive in its neighborhood with its support for Azerbaijan in the conflict with Armenia. Tensions with Russia are rising yet again. Erdogan is already overextended in Syria and Libya, and recently threatened to launch a new military operation in northern Syria if Kurdish militants do not relocate from along Turkey’s border. The warning follows a Russian airstrike on Turkey-backed Syrian rebels in Idlib earlier this week – the deadliest strike in Idlib since March. Provoking the United States, Turkey also tested its newly purchased Russian S400 missile defense system on October 16. This was swiftly followed by US warnings that Turkey faces US sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act if it operationalizes the system. The risk of punitive action would rise under a Biden presidency as he is more likely to adopt a tougher stance on Erdogan than President Trump. Chart 15More Downside For Turkish Lira More Downside For Turkish Lira More Downside For Turkish Lira These developments all point to a continuation in geopolitical tensions, as Erdogan flouts various risks and constraints. Turkey’s relationship with NATO allies is continuing to deteriorate meaningfully. The lira’s collapse is also in response to economic developments. After a surprise 200 basis points rate hike in September, the CBRT disappointed markets by keeping the benchmark 1 week repo rate on hold at its October 22 meeting. Investors had hoped that the September hike marked a reversal of Erdogan’s unorthodox policies. However, the October decision disconfirms this hope, as the central bank is instead opting for stealth measures to raise the cost of funding (e.g. limiting funding at the benchmark rate and thus forcing banks to borrow at higher costs; widening the interest rate corridor to give itself more room to raise the weighted average cost of funding). These decisions come amid rising inflation, debt monetization, a loss in foreign interest in Turkish equities and bonds, and deteriorating budget and current account balances. All point to further lira weakness (Chart 15). Bottom Line: The TRY faces downside pressure from the deteriorating geopolitical and economic backdrop. Although the EU has so far shown restraint in penalizing Ankara, its stance has not dissuaded Erdogan from adopting a provocative foreign policy stance. Moreover tensions with the US are at risk of escalating due to the possibility of a Biden presidency. Economic factors also point to continued weakness as monetary policy is too loose and the CBRT has not abandoned Erdoganomics. Nigeria: No Political Change Waves of protests have erupted across Nigeria in recent weeks, largely driven by the country’s youth. Protests center on calls to end the special anti-robbery squad (SARS), an arm of the national police service, which has long been accused of extrajudicial killings, torture, extortion, and corruption. Most recently, dozens of soldiers and police officers approached the scene of a major protest site in Lekki, a large district in Lagos, and opened fire, killing 12 people. The violence fueled outrage toward the government and security forces. To quell unrest, the government announced that SARS would be disbanded and promised a host of reforms. Demonstrators are skeptical of government promises without clearly specified timeframes. After all, previous incumbents have suggested police reform would be expedited. This has yet to happen, so we do not expect national policy to meet public demand. Moreover, President Buhari is a former military dictator who has maintained a hard line on security matters. He is in his final term in office and not legally required to step down until 2023. While discontent grows toward the government for social injustices, the Nigerian economy remains vulnerable and imbalanced. The local currency is facing considerable risk of major devaluation stemming from strains on its balance of payments, as BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy pointed out in a recent report. Low oil prices and weak FDI inflows will foster various imbalances impeding the nation’s structural adjustments and its potential growth rate. The US election will act as a positive catalyst for markets in the short run as long as it produces a clear result and resolves the US fiscal stalemate. Nigeria’s current account excluding oil has been structurally wide, a sign of weak domestic productivity and an uncompetitive currency (Chart 16). Foreign currency reserves stand at $36bn, barely above foreign debt obligations at $28bn. FDI inflows have reached their second lowest point over the past decade, weighing on productivity growth, which is near 0%. A positive for Nigeria’s macro fundamentals is that public debt is low, at 23% of GDP, decreasing the likelihood of a sovereign default in the near term. Government officials refrained from large COVID fiscal relief, keeping spending in check. Coupled with low debt servicing costs, of which the foreign share only represents 2% of government revenues, a currency depreciation to improve competitiveness would not make public debt dynamics a concern. Nominal GDP is above short-term rates (Chart 17). Hence there is room for the currency to fall and government spending to pick up into next year to support the economy.  Chart 16Nigeria Struggles With Economic Rebalance Nigeria Struggles With Economic Rebalance Nigeria Struggles With Economic Rebalance Chart 17Nigeria Has Fiscal Firepower Nigeria Has Fiscal Firepower Nigeria Has Fiscal Firepower   In the post-dictatorship era, oil revenues knit the country’s predominantly Muslim north with its oil-rich and predominantly Christian south. The country has struggled to rebalance the economy in the wake of the 2014 oil shock. Crude production has fallen from over 2 million barrels per day to around 1.6 million bpd since 2010, and Nigeria struggles to meet its modest OPEC quotas. The current global crisis could have a negative long-term impact as rig counts have fallen again. We expect global oil demand to be supported in 2021, as lockdowns will be less stringent the second time and global fiscal stimulus will keep coming. And while Buhari’s age and poor health make him vulnerable, he is not without reserves of political strength. He is seen as someone who has kept up a good fight against the Islamist militant group Boko Haram. Considering that he is a northerner and a Muslim by faith, this strategy has helped ease sectarian tensions across the country, strengthening his grip. The problem is that the size of the global crisis could upset even the most stable of petro-states. Like most of sub-Saharan Africa, the youth population is large – the median age is around 18. If global oil demand relapses amid the second wave of the pandemic and a lack of domestic and global stimulus, the country will suffer yet another wave of unemployment. And if policy remains hawkish, sociopolitical troubles will be amplified.  Nigeria’s impact on global oil prices is limited – it only provides 2% of global oil supply – but it could become a contributor to rising unplanned outages if instability gets out of hand. Bottom Line: The SARS protests are not likely to threaten overall government stability, but mounting economic pressures could exacerbate social unrest, and the negative feedback with security forces. This could deliver a significant blow to the aging Buhari’s government if he does not enact expansionary fiscal policy to smooth out the external shocks. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Biden Good For Global Trade Rebound Biden Good For Global Trade Rebound Biden Good For Global Trade Rebound The US election will act as a positive catalyst for markets in the short run as long as it produces a clear result and resolves the US fiscal stalemate. But a contested election is not unlikely and a deflationary risk arises in the 28% chance that Biden wins while Republicans retain the Senate. Stimulus would still be agreed but its size and timing would be uncertain, prolonging the selloff. Therefore we are updating our portfolio to book some gains and cut some losses. We are booking gains on our EUR-GBP volatility trade for a return of 13%. We are closing our long Indian pharmaceuticals trade for a gain of 12%. We are throwing in the towel on our long defense and aerospace trade for a loss of 21%. And we are closing our rare earths basket trade for a gain of 5%. We are closing two pair trades and re-initiating them as absolute longs: long China Play Index relative to MSCI global stocks (0.1% return) and long ISE Cyber Security Index relative to the NASDAQ (-6.8%). Chinese reflation and global cyber-attacks will remain relevant themes.  The inverse of Trump, Biden is positive for the euro, negative for the dollar, and supportive of global trade. However, a range of higher taxes and levies on corporations suggests that his administration will ultimately weigh on S&P global stocks relative to those at home. And while Biden appears softer on China, we consider this a mispricing, as he has largely coopted Trump’s and Sanders’s trade agenda (Chart 18). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Chart 19China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 20Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 21UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 22Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 23France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 24Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 25Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 26Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 27Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 28Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 29Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 30Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator   Geopolitical Calendar Footnotes 1  There have been strange warnings in recent days – an unidentified aircraft intercepted over a Trump rally in Arizona, a Saudi warning of a potential Houthi attack on Americans, and a Chinese warning of a potential US drone attack against Chinese assets in the South China Sea. None of these have amounted to anything, and the idea of a US drone attack on China is absurd, but investors should be cautious nonetheless, particularly because a range of state and non-state actors will have an incentive to take actions once the US outcome is known. 2  Please see FBI Director Christopher Wray, “Statement Before The House Homeland Security Committee,” Washington DC, September 17, 2020, fbi.gov; Department of Homeland Security, “Homeland Threat Assessment,” October 2020, dhs.gov; Tresa Baldas and Paul Egan, “More details emerge in plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer as suspects appear in court,” USA Today, October 13, 2020, usatoday.com.   

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights A surge in the number of Covid cases worldwide and the failure of the US Congress to forge a stimulus deal has cast doubt on the “reflation trade.” European governments have responded to rising case counts with a flurry of restrictions. While not quite as extreme as those introduced in March, the new lockdown rules will still weigh on growth over the coming months. The good news is that progress on a vaccine continues, with the vast majority of experts expecting one to be widely available within the next 12 months. The degree to which US fiscal policy will turn stimulative again depends on the outcome of the election. A “blue wave” would produce the most fiscal stimulus, while a Biden victory coupled with continued Republican control of the Senate would produce the least. However, even in the latter scenario, popular support for further fiscal easing – including among Republican voters – will help catalyze a deal. The near-term picture for stocks is murky. Nevertheless, investors should remain overweight global equities on a one-to-two year horizon, while shifting exposure to non-US markets and value stocks. Worries About The Sanguine Narrative Chart 1The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally... But Mortality Rates Are Lower Than Earlier This Year Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Equities recovered some of their losses on Thursday, but remain down on the week. Investors have become increasingly concerned about the viability of the so-called reflation trade. Stocks rallied in the spring and summer on hopes that the worst of the pandemic was over and that fiscal stimulus would continue to prop up employment and spending. Now, both assumptions are being challenged. The number of coronavirus cases continues to rise worldwide (Chart 1). In both Europe and the US, the daily tally of confirmed new cases exceeds its March peak. The only saving grace is that the number of deaths has not risen by as much as many had feared. Governments are reacting to rising case counts by tightening social distancing rules. The German government ordered bars, clubs, theaters, concert halls, museums, cinemas, sit-down restaurants, and most athletic facilities to close in November. Hotels will no longer be able to cater to tourists, while private meetings of over 10 people will be prohibited. Along the same lines, France has imposed a comprehensive nationwide lockdown until December 1st, with President Macron stating the nation has been “overpowered by a second wave.” Earlier this week, the Italian government announced that bars and restaurants must close by 6pm. News reports indicate that the UK government is preparing a slate of new restrictions. While the most recent lockdowns in Europe are not as severe as those introduced earlier this year, they will still weigh on growth over the coming months. There has been less movement toward shuttering the US economy in response to what is now the third wave of the pandemic. This may be partly because the latest cluster of cases has been fairly localized, concentrated mainly in the central north of the country. So far at least, the heavily populated south and coastal states have been spared the brunt of the wave. However, if more states start seeing rising case counts, stricter restrictions could be introduced across most of the country. Fiscal Food Fight Meanwhile in Washington, both Republican and Democrat leaders conceded that there will be no stimulus deal before the election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Trump had “failed miserably” in his handling of the pandemic, the economy, and everything else. The President, for his part, claimed that “Nancy Pelosi is only interested in bailing out badly-run, crime-ridden Democrat cities and states,” adding that “After the election, we will get the best stimulus package you have ever seen.” Of course, whether Trump can fulfill his “best ever” pledge depends on the outcome of the election. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty over how the political landscape in Washington will look after November 3rd. Nevertheless, most roads still lead to more stimulus. The Election Homestretch Chart 2Opinion Polls Favor The Democrats ... Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Chart 3... As Do Betting Markets Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade As the US election campaign winds down, both opinion polls and betting markets suggest that Joe Biden will become the next president while the Democrats will regain control of the Senate (Chart 2 and Chart 3). That said, this is not the only possible outcome. As this handy applet from The Cook Political Report makes clear, small changes in the assumptions about either voter preferences or turnout can shift the results significantly. For example, Trump saw his approval among African Americans rise from 25% last week to around 40% this week according to Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll. Such a large move in this one particular poll undoubtedly overstates the true magnitude of the trend, but it is consistent with the analysis that Matt Gertken and BCA’s geopolitical team has done showing that Trump has reduced the Democrats’ lead among minority voters relative to 2016. If Trump can improve his vote share among black voters from the meager 8% he received in the 2016 election to 11% this time around, it would be enough to tip the entire race in his favor. The quant model developed by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service, which elevates recent economic data over polling numbers in its computations, gives Donald Trump a 51% probability of remaining president and an equivalent chance of the Republicans picking up the Senate (Chart 4). Subjectively, Matt thinks Trump has a 45% chance of winning. While lower than his quant model, this is still above the 39% probability that betting markets assign to a Trump victory (Chart 5). Chart 4BCA’s Quant Model Points To Trump Victory And Favors Republicans In The Senate Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Chart 5Election Odds: BCA's Geopolitical Team Versus Betting Markets Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade What Would The Stock Market Prefer? From the equity perspective, stocks would likely rise if Trump won and the Democrats took over the Senate. If re-elected, President Trump would block any efforts to raise taxes or tighten business regulations. However, unlike a number of Republican senators, Trump is not averse to increasing government spending. Earlier this month, the President proposed a $1.8 trillion stimulus bill. Senate Republicans have offered only $500 million for pandemic relief. The stock market would welcome both easier fiscal policy and the implicit guarantee that taxes will not rise. The stock market would also be content with a Democratic sweep, provided it did not result in a blowout victory. A narrow Senate victory would still allow the Democrats to pass a fiscal stimulus bill through the creative use of the “reconciliation process.” However, it would curb the influence of the party’s more left-leaning members. Several Democratic senators have expressed reservations about scrapping the filibuster rule which requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass most non-budget related legislation. If the filibuster rule is eliminated, it would make it easier to strengthen antitrust law, tighten labor and environmental standards, and raise the minimum wage, all of which could dampen corporate profits. Investors would likely deem a continuation of the existing political configuration in Washington – where Donald Trump remains president and the Republicans maintain a slim majority in the Senate – as neutral for stocks. On the one hand, such an outcome would take the prospects of tax hikes off the table. On the other hand, it could prolong the trade war and extend the stalemate over a stimulus bill. Lastly, stock market investors might frown upon a scenario involving a Biden victory and continued Republican control of the Senate. Of all the scenarios mentioned above, the prospects for a major stimulus package would be lowest for this configuration of political outcomes. This is because Republican senators would have even less incentive to accede to more spending if Joe Biden, rather than Donald Trump, were pressing for it. Still, even in this scenario, it is unlikely that the US will shift to fiscal austerity anytime soon. As Table 1 shows, 72% of voters support the broad outline of the Democrat’s stimulus proposal. Strikingly, even most Republican voters support it, at least when the question is posed in nonpartisan terms. This suggests that a Democratic House could still find a way to strike a stimulus deal with a Republican Senate, perhaps by agreeing to further cut taxes in exchange for more government spending. Table 1Strong Support For Stimulus Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Investment Conclusions While governments have understandably tightened restrictions to control the latest surge in Covid cases, they are unlikely to fully revert to the extreme measures taken in March. Back then, there was considerable uncertainty over how fatal the virus was, with estimates for the mortality rate ranging from 0.5%  to over 5%. The latest research suggests that the true number is near the bottom of that range, and perhaps even below it.1 Progress continues to be made on a vaccine. Close to 95% of professional forecasters surveyed by The Good Judgement Project expect a vaccine to be widely available within the next 12 months (Chart 6). Chart 6When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Chart 7Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening The combination of a vaccine and further fiscal support against a backdrop of ultra-easy monetary policy should be enough to lift global equities by about 15% towards the end of 2021. While the near-term picture for stocks is murky, investors should remain overweight global equities over a one-to-two year horizon. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar is poised to weaken next year. Typically, non-US stocks outperform when global growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 7). Value stocks also tend to do better in such macro environments (Chart 8). Once the latest wave of the pandemic crests, as it inevitably will, investors should look to shift their equity portfolios from stocks that benefited from lockdowns towards those that will benefit from reopenings.   Chart 8 (I)... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks ... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks ... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks Chart 8 (II)... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks ... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks ... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A recent systematic review of literature found that the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) stood at 0.7%. Similarly, in September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published age-specific IFRs in its Covid-19 Planning Scenarios. The population-weighted average of the CDC’s “best estimate” suggests a 0.7% IFR. Please see “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Updated September 10, 2020; and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and Lea Merone, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 29, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade Current MacroQuant Model Scores Doubts About The Reflation Trade Doubts About The Reflation Trade

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).6 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out… November 2020 November 2020   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want November 2020 November 2020   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds November 2020 November 2020 A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists ...And Populists ...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights China’s 14th Five Year Plan and broader national strategy will continue to provoke opposition from the US and the West, regardless of the US election. China’s economic blueprint will focus on self-sufficiency, “dual circulation” (import substitution), state subsidies, and high-tech advancement – all factors that will continue to provoke western ire. US political polarization creates geopolitical risks, particularly for China, which will support the dollar and US equity outperformance, depending on the election result. If Trump wins, polarization will persist, he will face gridlock at home, and he will thus continue his aggressive foreign and trade policies, with China facing disruptive consequences. The CNY, EUR, and especially TWD would suffer. If Biden wins, he could face either gridlock or full Democratic control. The former case presents a greater risk of a focus on trade and foreign policy. The latter would result in a domestically focused Washington, which gives China breathing space. The CNY and EUR would benefit, but the TWD would face limited upside. Either way, investors are likely to become over-exuberant about assets that are exposed to the US-China relationship in the event of a Biden victory. Over the long run, this is a bull trap.  Feature In the years after the 2008 financial crisis, the global news media proclaimed the rise of China and the demise of the United States as a global leader. The US’s free-wheeling democracy and capitalism led to economic collapse, partisan gridlock, and nearly a self-inflicted default on sovereign debt. Meanwhile China’s state-controlled system stimulated its economy, cracked down on the first inklings of unrest in the spring of 2011, and expanded its regional and global influence.  The conclusion is similar today in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. The US has squandered its response to the pandemic, while partisan gridlock threatens the economic recovery. China has suppressed the virus that started within its borders and its economy is rapidly on the mend. The orgy of social unrest and political dysfunction in the US has weighed on its international image and leadership. What the past decade showed, however, is that the first narrative to take hold after a global crisis is not likely to be the final narrative. In fact, the past decade was the most difficult for China since the 1980s. The next decade will be even more challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to an official conclusion the unprecedented economic boom of the past four decades (Chart 1). Though Chinese policy makers have navigated relatively well, the social and political system faces greater challenges in a new economic and international environment. Chinese potential GDP growth has now fallen to 3%, as the labor force contracts and productivity remains flat. Chart 1China Already Plucked The Long-Hanging Fruit China Already Plucked The Long-Hanging Fruit China Already Plucked The Long-Hanging Fruit China is well-situated in the short run to benefit from domestic and global economic stimulus, but over the long run its challenges are significantly underrated. China Faces Headwinds From Abroad Chinese leaders are prepared for any of the possible outcomes in the US election. With regard to US foreign and trade policy, the election is about tactics, not strategy. US grand strategy clearly dictates that Washington focus on curbing China, which is the only country that can challenge the US for global supremacy over the long run. But the US is not alone – other countries are also taking a more skeptical stance toward China’s geopolitical prominence. The result is that China will continue to emphasize self-sufficiency, a centrally guided economic model, and state-supported technological advancement in its fourteenth Five Year Plan for 2021-25 (see Appendix). This policy trajectory, combined with the key policy developments of the past decade, suggests that China’s self-sufficiency drive will continue to attract geopolitical opposition from the US and the West: Capital Controls: China tightened its capital controls aggressively during the financial turmoil of 2015-16. This emergency decision undercut the liberal reform agenda and alienated the western world on one of its critical structural demands. With China having grown its money supply from 175% to 197% of GDP since 2009, and capital flowing out again amid this year’s crisis (Chart 2), Beijing will not be able to fully liberalize its capital account anytime soon. Chart 2China's Capital Controls China's Capital Controls China's Capital Controls Chart 3China's State-Owned Enterprises Revived China's State-Owned Enterprises Revived China's State-Owned Enterprises Revived State-Owned Enterprises: The current administration has struggled with slowing trend growth and deflationary pressures. This is not an environment opportune for restructuring or liquidating inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs). It is the opposite of the 1990s, when SOEs were last culled. The regime has instead promised to make SOEs bigger and stronger (Chart 3). While it has pursued reforms to allow more private ownership of state assets, it has also encouraged public ownership of private assets, thus producing “mixed ownership” and a fusion of state and corporate power. The US and western countries resent this reassertion of state-backed economic power, notwithstanding the fact that all countries are increasing state support amid the collapse in global demand. Notably, China will likely resist cutting manufacturing capacity any faster than it will already be cut due to the global recession and foreign protectionism, meaning that stimulus-fueled overcapacity will continue to be a problem for foreign competitors. Chart 4The Tech Race Continues The Tech Race Continues The Tech Race Continues The Tech Race: Beijing is continuing a frantic dash to upgrade its science and technology capabilities in order to lift total factor productivity, which is essential to maintaining growth in the coming decades in the post-export-industrial phase. Expenditures on research and development are skyrocketing, now rivaling the United States. True, R&D spending is flattening out as a percentage of GDP, but this is likely temporary — even faster R&D spending will probably become an official target for the next five years (Chart 4). The full weight of the political system is being thrown behind the goal of creating a “Great Leap Forward” in advanced and emerging technologies. Western countries are increasingly sensitive to China’s advances in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence, new vehicles, new energy, new materials, and computing. The new strategy of “dual circulation” will consist of import substitution, especially for critical tech goods, and will incorporate programs like “Made in China 2025” as well as “new infrastructure” that are high tech and have become targets of the West. The US and others are openly adopting export controls and reducing supply chain dependency on China. Beijing will struggle to maintain its rapid innovation drive without inviting more punitive measures from the West. Chart 5US Fears China’s Military Rise Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Military Spending: China adopted a more assertive foreign policy in the mid-2000s and intensified this approach after 2012. Military spending has risen along with economic heft and western experts have long believed that China spends considerably more than it lets on. If we assume that China began to spend 3.75% of GDP per year after its strategic break with the US – a reasonable number in keeping with Russia’s long-term average – then China is narrowing the defense spending gap with the US more rapidly than is widely believed (Chart 5). Given the US’s giant defense spending, this is a continual source of distrust. Bear in mind that China’s defense and security aims are more limited than those of the US, at least in the short run. While the US must maintain the ability to project power globally, China need only grow its regional sphere of influence. Regionalism: While the Xi administration consolidates power within the Communist Party and central government in Beijing, it is also consolidating Beijing’s authority within Greater China. This includes efforts to bring to heel wayward provinces and regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Much of this is a fait accompli that western governments can do little about. Even in Hong Kong, public opinion is showing signs of resignation to the new legislative powers that Beijing has asserted. However, Taiwan is the clear outlier. Public opinion has shifted sharply against mainland China. Given that Taiwan is the epicenter of the new cold war with the US, both for reasons of political legitimacy as well as technological capability, a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is looming (Chart 6). China has economic leverage to use first, but if this fails then a military confrontation cannot be ruled out. The above points do not hinge on the US election outcome or other cyclical factors, and highlight that geopolitical tensions will persist, particularly with the United States. The US’s adoption of a confrontational rather than cooperative posture toward China is a paradigm shift in international relations. Unlike Washington’s crackdown on Japanese trade in the 1980s, the US and China do not have an underlying trust or sense of shared security interests. Beijing’s willingness to increase US imports or appreciate its currency arbitrarily, to suit the shifting demands of US administrations, have substantial limits. Economic decoupling will continue in an environment of strategic insecurity (Chart 7). Chart 6Struggles In Greater China Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Chart 7US Redistributes Trade Deficit US Redistributes Trade Deficit US Redistributes Trade Deficit   President Trump’s biggest mistake in pursuing his trade war with China lies in his failure to build a grand alliance, or coalition of the willing, among likeminded liberal democracies. This would have amplified his leverage over China in making demands for structural reform and opening up. But this point can be overstated. China’s international image has collapsed, in Europe and Asia as well as in North America, despite the Trump administration’s diplomatic failures. Much of this effect stems from COVID-19, but that does not mean it is less grave. If the US courts allies in the trade conflict with China, it will find governments willing to cooperate (Chart 8). Chart 8China’s Image Suffers Under Trump Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Map 1Proxy Battles In Asia Pacific Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Chart 9US Arms Sales To Taiwan US Arms Sales To Taiwan US Arms Sales To Taiwan China’s perennial geopolitical challenge is shown in Map 1. It is geographically encircled by nations that have grown increasingly wary of its regional ambitions and will reach out to the US and West. These countries wish to continue benefiting from China’s economic rise but seek security guarantees to offset China’s rising strategic clout. The result will be “proxy battles,” in some cases political, in others military (Chart 9). Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam each face substantial geopolitical risk. In the case of South Korea and the Philippines, this risk is partially priced by financial markets. But in the case of Taiwan and Vietnam, it is almost entirely underrated. Taiwan has only an ambiguous defense commitment from the US, while Vietnam is a Chinese rival that entirely lacks a security guarantee from the United States. Bottom Line: Geopolitical risk will remain elevated in Asia Pacific regardless of what occurs in the US election. The growth of Chinese power, and its state-led economic model, will ensure that trade tensions persist. These will culminate in strategic conflicts in certain neighboring countries. China Will Re-Consolidate Power When Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, we argued that the looming US-China trade war would not be determined solely by relative economic size and export exposure. Instead, political unity would be a critical factor. While the US ostensibly had the economic advantage, China had the political advantage. The nineteenth National Party Congress would see Xi Jinping consolidate power domestically, while President Trump would struggle with domestic opposition and divisions within the US and the West over his protectionism. Having secured an economic rebound this year, China is likely to consolidate domestic power even further in 2021-22. This period culminates in the critical twentieth National Party Congress. Originally Xi Jinping was expected to step down at this time and hand the reins to the leader of the opposing faction. Now the opposing faction has been laid low, and Xi is likely to promote his faction and entrench his rule. The period will likely be marked with at least one major crackdown on the regime’s political rivals. Ultimately, social and political control will be tightened, particularly beginning in late 2021. These events provide good reasons for anticipating that Chinese monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy will not tighten drastically, but rather will merely normalize by mid-2021, assuming that the recovery stays on track (Chart 10). Yet this logic only goes so far – it is more bullish for the macro view today and in 2021, than it is in 2022. Obviously the regime wants to avoid a slump in 2021, the hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party, and investors should keep this in mind. But the 2017 party congress was attended by a deleveraging campaign that surprised the world in its intensity. The point is that stability, not rapid growth, is the imperative in 2022. If speculative bubbles have become a greater threat by that time, then the monetary and fiscal policy backdrop will lean hawkish rather than dovish. Tightening central control over the economy helps the Xi administration consolidate power. Chart 10China Still Consolidating Domestic Power, 2021-22 China Still Consolidating Domestic Power, 2021-22 China Still Consolidating Domestic Power, 2021-22 US Polarization A Risk For China If China continues to consolidate, the key question is what will happen in the United States. The answer will be known in short order, but what is critical to observe is that US political polarization is a geopolitical risk, and therefore if it continues to escalate it will be positive for the US dollar and negative for Chinese and other emerging market assets. The past several years have been marked by an increase in US social and political instability. Indeed, according to Worldwide Governance Indicators, the US’s governance has declined while China’s has improved, notably on the issue of political stability and the absence of violence (Chart 11). While these rankings are partial, nevertheless they point to the reality of US political division. The decade’s giant increase in political polarization has coincided with a bull market in US equities and the greenback, best exemplified by the outperformance of the US technology sector (Chart 12). Chart 11US Instability A Source Of Global Risk Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? If President Trump prevails, this trend will continue. Trump cannot win the popular vote, but his regional support could grant him a victory in the Electoral College. Or he could prevail through a contested election adjudicated by the Supreme Court or the House of Representatives. If this should occur, polarization will intensify, as the government’s legitimacy will suffer due to lack of popularity in a democracy. Facing gridlock at home, Trump would pursue trade war – not only with China, but also conceivably with the European Union. The consequence is that a surprise Trump victory (45% odds) would be negative for the euro, the renminbi, and especially the Taiwanese dollar (Chart 13). Chart 12US Polarization Reinforces Safe-Haven Status US Polarization Reinforces Safe-Haven Status US Polarization Reinforces Safe-Haven Status Chart 13Trump Second Term Would Weigh On CNY, EUR, TWD Trump Second Term Would Weigh On CNY, EUR, TWD Trump Second Term Would Weigh On CNY, EUR, TWD However, if former Vice President Biden prevails, he could win in two possible ways: one with gridlock in Congress, the other with a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate. In the former case, US polarization will persist. Biden will be incapable of executing his domestic agenda, as he will be obstructed by a Republican Senate. This will drive him into foreign policy, where he will ultimately prove to be tough on China – and certainly tougher than the Obama administration. In the latter case, a Democratic sweep of legislative and executive branches, Biden will not face domestic constraints and will be primarily focused on an ambitious agenda for rebuilding and rebalancing the US economy, with elements of the New Deal and the Green New Deal. He will be less focused on international affairs, at least initially. Trade risks will decline, along with US fiscal risks, thus producing a higher-growth macro policy environment. In both cases, while we expect a President Biden to seek a diplomatic “reset” with China, he is unlikely to repeal President Trump’s tariffs. Instead he will seek to utilize the leverage that Trump has built up, while pursuing a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. Ultimately this dialogue will be undermined by China’s state-backed economic policies and foreign policy assertiveness (see previous section), as well as Biden’s simultaneous courting of Europe and other liberal democracies. But clearly there is more room for Chinese assets to outperform under a Biden victory, especially a Democratic sweep. Investment Takeaways If Biden wins, the stock market is likely to become overly exuberant about a Biden administration’s positive implications for China-exposed companies (Chart 14). The same can be said for Chinese tech companies that are highly export-oriented (Chart 15). In a Democratic sweep, this rally can be prolonged, as US equities will face greater political risk than international equities. But any rally in assets exposed to the US-China relationship will ultimately be a bull trap, as US grand strategy calls for containing China, while Chinese grand strategy calls for breaking through containment. The US and Chinese tech sectors and Taiwanese assets are by far the most vulnerable to this dynamic, given their lofty valuations. Chart 14Market Over-Optimistic On Biden Boost To China Plays Market Over-Optimistic On Biden Boost To China Plays Market Over-Optimistic On Biden Boost To China Plays Chart 15Chinese Tech Faces Trade Tensions Chinese Tech Faces Trade Tensions Chinese Tech Faces Trade Tensions If we are correct that geopolitical risk will persist for China regardless of US political party, then the primary beneficiaries of Chinese stimulus and US decoupling will be domestic-oriented Chinese equities as well as “China plays” – external markets that export machinery and resources to China, such as Australia, Brazil, and Sweden. China will still invest heavily in traditional infrastructure, property, and manufacturing to shore up demand whenever it sags amid the difficulties of the economic transition. Our China Play Index, designed by Mathieu Savary of our flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, neatly captures the potential for this index to outperform on the back of Chinese stimulus, which will be even more necessary if US policy continues to be punitive (Chart 16). The near term could involve substantial US fiscal risks as well as geopolitical risks with China, which can occur under a gridlocked Biden administration or a second term Trump administration. Over the next year, the looming Chinese and global recovery, combined with ultra-dovish US monetary policy, spells continued downside for the US dollar and upside for Chinese and emerging market currencies and risk assets (Chart 17). But while the dollar may face challenges to its reserve currency dominance, China’s geopolitical risks, at home and abroad, will prevent the renminbi from making more than incremental gains on the dollar. The euro is a much likelier alternative for the foreseeable future. Chart 16China Plays Will Benefit From Reflation China Plays Will Benefit From Reflation China Plays Will Benefit From Reflation Chart 17King Dollar Persists … But Cyclical Downside Looms King Dollar Persists ... But Cyclical Downside Looms King Dollar Persists ... But Cyclical Downside Looms   Appendix Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan Goals Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden? Is China Afraid Of Big Bad Biden?   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com