Geopolitics

Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates.  In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We are upgrading Trump’s odds of winning to 45%. We have bet on a Democratic sweep all year. Incumbent parties rarely survive recessions, and President Trump has mishandled the pandemic. However, our updated quantitative election model – which relies heavily on short-term changes in the 50 states’ economies – points to a Trump victory with 279 Electoral College votes. The model puts Biden’s odds at 49%, i.e. “too close to call.”    Opinion polls still favor Biden – and polls are generally accurate with sitting presidents. Yet Biden’s lead in swing states is comparable to Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. And we all know how that ended.   Trump’s comeback, successful or not, will increase the chances of a contested election and will boost Republicans in Senate races. Our Senate model is also now flagging Republican control. The US fiscal policy outlook hinges on control of the Senate. Democrats would add 4%-7% of GDP to the fiscal thrust next year. We give 28% odds to a risk-off scenario, leaving a 72% chance that the policy setting will favor reflation.   Feature We are upgrading President Trump’s odds of winning the US election from 35% to 45%. Looking at opinion polls, Biden is still favored as we go to press. But according to our quantitative election model, which relies heavily on the economy, Trump will eke out an Electoral College victory. What matters is that the media and financial markets are once again underrating Trump. The race is getting closer in the final days. Not only is our model flagging a Trump win, but the V-shaped economic recovery is boosting Trump’s popular support in the battleground states critical to winning an Electoral College majority. At very least investors should hedge their bets on former Vice President Joe Biden, who is not, after all, an extraordinarily charismatic challenger. Biden is not polling much better than Hillary Clinton polled against Trump four years ago (Chart 1). Chart 1ABiden Not Polling Much Better Than Clinton … Biden Not Polling Much Better Than Clinton... Biden Not Polling Much Better Than Clinton... Chart 1B… Against Trump ... Against Trump ... Against Trump   The polling so far suggests that Trump suffered permanent damage from this year’s crisis and his support will hit a ceiling and relapse over the next week, confirming the month’s general tendency of a Biden win. But our confidence in the outcome is lower than before. The implication for investors is that the current volatility and risk-off sentiment could extend for one-to-three months, particularly given Congress’s failure to pass a new COVID relief package. However, beyond the near term, most scenarios are reflationary, positive for global equities and negative for low-yielding government bonds. There Are Still Undecided Voters Trump beat expectations in the final presidential debate on October 22, according to CNN polls. But debate performance does not accurately predict the winner of US elections. Moreover around 58 million voters have already voted based on prior information.1 Chart 2Still Enough Undecided Voters To Turn Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Still, Trump’s recovery in swing state polling is simultaneous with a lot of early voting in October, and there are enough undecided voters to change the outcome in critical swing states. About 6% of voters are undecided – virtually the same as in 2016. While the number of third-party supporters has fallen by 5.7 percentage points (ppt), this trend will not hurt Trump (Chart 2). In swing states in 2016, Libertarian Party voters outnumbered Green Party voters by a ratio of four to one, which does not suggest that these voters will all flock to Biden. They could even lean Trump. A large third party vote points to popular discontent, which hurts the incumbent party, as in 1980 and 1992. A lower third party vote is thus neutral for Trump. This is a major difference in 2020 from 1980 and 1992, which are the only two modern examples of a president losing after his first term. The best demographic projections have long shown that a rerun of the 2016 election, albeit with a normalization of the third-party vote share, would lead to an Electoral College tie. While it is virtually impossible for Trump to win the popular vote, he has a lifeline if state results are contested and/or the Electoral College is indecisive. Quant Model Gives Trump 279 Electoral College Votes Economic activity in the US continues to bounce back, according to flash PMIs in services and manufacturing as well as the latest data release from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s Coincident Economic Index. This index is the key input in our quantitative US election models for the White House and Senate, both of which now flag Republican victories. The latest reading pushes Trump’s odds of winning re-election up by 2ppt, to 51%, thus predicting that he will win with 279 Electoral College votes, an increase of 20 votes since our September update (Chart 3). Obviously this is not a high-confidence reading but rather an outcome that says the election is “too close to call.” Our model correctly predicts all election outcomes since 1984 during in-sample back testing, and all elections since 2000 on an out-of-sample basis.   Chart 3Quant Model Points To Trump Victory … A Risk To Our View Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election A Trump victory would be a massive upset – as in 2016. According to PredictIt.org, there is a 40% chance that Republicans will keep the White House. Other prominent forecasting groups, like FiveThirtyEight and The Economist, give Trump much lower odds, at 12% and 4%, respectively. In our model, Michigan has moved comfortably toward a Republican win (74% odds), opposite the conventional wisdom. Michigan is the crux of our subjective difference with our quantitative model – we don’t see a path for Trump to win as the polls currently stand. New Hampshire is the model’s only toss-up state, with a 53% chance of switching to Republicans, another surprising find, albeit one punctuated by President Trump’s decision to campaign in the state over the weekend. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states won by the Republicans in 2016, are still expected to flip to the Democrats. State-level coincident economic indices have the largest impact in determining the outcome in the model. Our other explanatory variables are state-by-state margins of victory in 2016, a “time for change” variable that favors incumbent parties, and the range of Trump’s approval rating. These variables have not changed recently and will not change in the final days of the election. Improving economic activity across the US is the basis for our model’s finding. Chart 4Improvements In Swing State Economies Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election The Philly Fed data show that 48 out of 50 states’ coincident economic indices increased over the past three months, an increase by 10 states since the previous month’s release. All swing states rose, while the previous toss-up state, Michigan, turned positive, according to our weighting method, which takes the three-month changes in the economic indicators and weights the final months of useable data more heavily than previous months in an election year (Chart 4). Michigan and New Hampshire account for 20 electoral votes, raising Trump from 259 to 279.  Clients have asked us why we use the range of President Trump’s approval rating rather than the level (Chart 5). We found this measure more statistically significant than other measures. If we manipulate the data we find that the model would still favor Trump if we looked at the two-year change of the approval rating or the October momentum of the approval rating. However, the model flags a Trump loss if we judge by the July or October level of his approval rating (which is historically low), or if we exclude the approval rating data altogether. The result of these alternate versions of our model is a Trump loss, with 246 Electoral College votes and Florida and Michigan remaining the critical toss-up states (Table 1). We are sticking with our original model, as the range of approval predicts electoral votes with a higher confidence level than other measures. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Range Is Narrow, Stable Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Table 1Variations In Quant Model Show Range Of Possibilities Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Bottom Line: Our quant model now favors Trump for re-election with 279 Electoral College votes. This economy-heavy model suggests that Trump is once again underrated, that the odds of a contested election are rising (in which Trump has some institutional advantages), and that Senate Republicans will benefit from the final sprint. Uncertainty and volatility will affect the market if the election result is indecisive, delayed, or if the GOP keeps the Senate (see below). Why We Do Not Favor Trump Outright Biden has been our pick since March based on the year’s huge external shock. The pandemic and recession have been harmful to the material wellbeing of the American public and therefore have sharply reduced the odds that the current president and ruling party will be re-elected. Looking at the level of Trump’s approval rating, he is comparable to George Bush Sr, who lost re-election in 1992 after a recession and race riots in Los Angeles. He is well beneath George Bush Jr and Barack Obama, who were re-elected handily in 2004 and 2012 (Chart 6). Chart 6Trump’s Approval Rating Level Is Relatively Low Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Joe Biden has a 7.9ppt lead in average national opinion polling. Looking at the breakdown across demographic groups reveals Trump’s serious liabilities. Biden has a 17ppt lead among women, compared to Clinton’s 15ppt lead in 2016 exit polls, and he is tied with Trump among men, compared to a 11ppt Trump lead in 2016 (Chart 7).2 Chart 7Trump Lagging In Key Demographic Groups Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Ethnic white voters still favor Trump by 5ppt but Trump has lost ground with this group since 2016, when he had a 15ppt advantage. Biden leads among voters who have some college education, while Trump’s lead among non-college graduates has fallen from 7ppt in 2016 to 4ppt this year. Chart 8Consumer Confidence Sounds Warning For President Consumer Confidence Sounds Warning For President Consumer Confidence Sounds Warning For President However, Black and Hispanic voters support Biden by a 74ppt and 31ppt margin, respectively, down from Clinton’s larger margins of 85ppt and 38ppt in 2016. While Trump is an exclusively commercial president, his approval rating never rose above 47% even when the economy was booming and consumer confidence soared. The collapse in consumer confidence has taken a toll on his approval, which struggles to break above 45% (Chart 8). Expectations have shot up, but voters are unhappy about current conditions. Consumer spending has not fully recovered and disposable income is in a freefall due to the failure of Congress to agree to a new fiscal relief deal since August, when benefits began to expire (Chart 9). Trump wanted a deal but so far Senate Republicans have proven unable to capitulate to House Democrats’ demands. Median family income has fallen over the course of Trump’s term. It spiked on the fiscal relief but then fell back when the latest phase of stimulus fell through (Chart 10). Chart 9Lack Of Fiscal Stimulus Weighs On Households Lack Of Fiscal Stimulus Weighs On Households Lack Of Fiscal Stimulus Weighs On Households Chart 10Median Income Down Over Four Year Term Median Income Down Over Four Year Term Median Income Down Over Four Year Term   Under Trump’s watch the unemployment rate has risen from 4.7% to 7.9%. Obviously the surge was due to the pandemic and unemployment has fallen from its peak. But rising joblessness weighs on a president’s approval rating in the final reckoning – this is a good rule of thumb for identifying one-term presidents (Chart 11). Permanent unemployment is also rising, creating a group of unhappy voters that could make a difference in elections with thin margins.   Chart 11AUnemployment Often Predicts … Unemployment Often Predicts ... Unemployment Often Predicts ... Chart 11B... The Election End-Game ...The Election End-Game ...The Election End-Game   The pandemic is not over. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are climbing in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 12). Trump’s net approval rating is deeply negative with regard to his handling of the crisis, as opposed to the economy where his approval is still net positive (Chart 13). Chart 12Pandemic Re-Emerging, Hurts Trump Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Chart 13Trump Ailing On Pandemic Handling Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election     Biden, a traditional Democrat, is an acceptable alternative to Trump. His lead over Trump is 7.9% in national polling and 4% in swing state polling. He polls considerably better than Hillary Clinton did. In Arizona his polling is rising; elsewhere it is flat (Chart 14A & B).  Chart 14ABiden Polling Stable … Biden Polling Stable... Biden Polling Stable... Chart 14B… And Better Than Hillary ...And Better Than Hillary ...And Better Than Hillary   Can the opinion polls be trusted? National polling is generally close to the mark – especially for incumbent presidents – and the winner of the national vote wins the Electoral College 91% of the time. Challengers who lose elections typically outperform their final polling by 1.4%. Those who win outperform by 3%. Whereas incumbent presidents who win outperform by 0.8% and those who lose outperform by 1% – i.e. they do better than expected but still lose (Chart 15A & B). Presidents are well known so they don’t tend to bring big surprises. However, there are major exceptions, namely Harry Truman.   Chart 15AOpinion Polls Fairly Accurate On Sitting Presidents Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Chart 15BOpinion Polls More Often Underrate Challengers Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Chart 16Trump Is Rising In Battleground State Polls Trump Is Rising In Battleground State Polls Trump Is Rising In Battleground State Polls What about state level polls? The big errors in 2016 occurred on the state level. However, swing state pollsters have improved their methods. This can be confirmed by the fact that Trump’s performance in battleground opinion polls closely aligns with his job approval rating (Chart 16). The approval rating is the most reliable of all US political polls. The fact that these two are in lockstep, as against Trump’s national support rate (which is weighed down by dyed-in-the-wool Democrats in populous states), suggests that swing state polling is not wildly off the mark. On the other hand, Biden’s 4ppt lead is not very large. Voter turnout will be very high this year. Both Professor Michael McDonald from the US Elections Project and Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight expect turnout to be around 65%. High political polarization, get-out-the-vote campaigns by both parties, and expanded access to mail-in voting due to the pandemic have created a high-turnout environment. High turnout does not necessarily disfavor Trump, given that his political base consists of many low turnout groups. But it should hurt him in the context of higher unemployment, as was the case for the incumbent party in 1992 and 2008 (Chart 17). Bottom Line: History suggests the incumbent party will lose the White House. So do opinion polls, which tend to be accurate when it comes to sitting presidents. Trump’s momentum has picked up in swing state opinion polls this month, though it is pausing as we go to press. If he gains momentum in the final week then he could still win the election.  Chart 17AHigh Turnout Amid High Unemployment … Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Chart 17B…Hurts Incumbent Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election   Trump’s Path To Victory Biden’s 4ppt lead in swing states is within the range of polling error. A last-minute Trump comeback is a risk. While presidents usually lose re-election if they suffer a recession, especially during the year of the election, there have been exceptions – namely in 1900, 1904, and 1924. The basis for Trump to make a comeback is the economic snapback and the fact that voters consistently rate the economy as the most important issue in the election. The crisis struck early enough in the year that the massive fiscal relief package has propped up demand in what could be the nick of time for the president (Chart 18).3 Chart 18Trump’s Biggest Help Is V-Shaped Recovery Trump's Biggest Help Is V-Shaped Recovery Trump's Biggest Help Is V-Shaped Recovery Trump is generally polling better than he did in 2016 and his polling is ticking up in the final weeks of the race despite a disastrous year (Chart 19). His polling is improving in Florida and Arizona, meaning that a single victory in the upper Midwest would keep him in the White House. Chart 19ATrump Rallying In Some Swing States … Trump Rallying In Some Swing States... Trump Rallying In Some Swing States... Chart 19B… Critical Trend If It Continues ...Critical Trend If It Continues ...Critical Trend If It Continues   Wage growth is also seeing a V-shaped recovery – particularly in the blue states, where services and knowledge-based sectors drive the economy, but also in “purple” swing states (Chart 20), though admittedly the purple states that voted for Trump are the laggards.  The manufacturing sector is also bouncing back, which is critical for the Midwestern Rust Belt that got pummeled by Trump’s trade war prior to the pandemic. The surge in credit fueled by the Federal Reserve’s liquidity provisions is a positive for this region (Chart 21). Chart 20Swing State Wage Growth Bounces Back Swing State Wage Growth Bounces Back Swing State Wage Growth Bounces Back Chart 21Midwestern Economy Snaps Back Midwestern Economy Snaps Back Midwestern Economy Snaps Back   The stock market rally is also positive for the incumbent. The S&P 500 predicts the election result 77% of the time going back to 1896. Specifically, its year-to-date performance as of October 31 of an election year is positively correlated with an incumbent party’s likelihood of winning the White House and is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level. Back in May, with the S&P down 13%, the stock market gave Trump a 16% chance of re-election. Today, up 6% YTD, it gives him a 66% chance (Chart 22). Chart 22Simple Stock Market Model Says Trump Favored For Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election We would not put too much emphasis on this measure, as the market also rallied prior to Carter’s and Bush’s losses in 1980 and 1992. But Trump is uniquely tied to the stock market and it is clearly good for him if the market does not collapse (though the failure to pass fiscal stimulus is a liability). Simply put, Trump is stronger than Mitt Romney 2012 and Biden is weaker than Barack Obama. The 3.9ppt margin of victory in the popular vote that year should be narrower this year. Run-of-the-mill Democrats have not received more than 49% of the popular vote in recent memory. And that was the popular Bill Clinton in 1996 (Table 2). If Trump clocks in at 46%, as in 2016, then he could squeak through the Electoral College once again.     Bottom Line: We are upgrading Trump’s odds to 45%.   Table 2US Presidential Election Popular Vote Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election The Senate Is Too Close To Call Even if Trump’s comeback is “too little, too late,” it increases the chance of a contested election – in which he could get a lifeline through the Supreme Court or the House of Representatives – and also gives a boost to Republican Senators in tight races. Our Senate election model, like our presidential model, uses the Philly Fed coincident economic indicators. It has also flipped from favoring Democrats to narrowly predicting Republican control, with 51-49 seats. Specifically, Montana and North Carolina shifted into the Republican camp, though North Carolina remains a toss-up and would turn the overall balance of power (Chart 23).4   Chart 23Quant Model Says Senate Favors Republicans – A Risk To Reflation Trade Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Again the proper way of interpreting this reading is that the election is “too close to call,” with a 49% chance of Democratic control. Notably our Senate model relies more heavily on opinion polling than our presidential model – it incorporates the president’s approval rating level as well as the incumbent party’s net support rate in the generic congressional ballot (a poll that measures which party voters generally prefer for Congress). The economic recovery is the source of the boost for Republicans but marginal improvements in Republican polling do not hurt. The Senate race is critical to the overall policy significance of the US election. You cannot pass major legislation in the US without control of the Senate. And the Senate races are clearly tightening. This means uncertainty is rising, not falling, as the election approaches. Position For Reflation, The Likeliest Policy Outcome In particular the US fiscal outlook depends on the Senate. Chart 24 simulates the different courses of the deficit depending on election scenarios. If the Democrats win the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, the budget deficit will rise from 16% of GDP in FY 2020 to 23% of GDP in FY 2021, as Biden will largely execute his policy agenda. Chart 24Democratic Sweep Offers Massive Fiscal Boost Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election If Trump and the Republicans win the White House and retain the Senate, they will keep cutting deals with House Democrats as in recent years, and the deficit will at least remain flat. The only scenario in which the budget deficit contracts – i.e. a negative fiscal thrust threatens the US economic recovery – occurs if Biden wins the White House but Republicans obstruct his agenda. Realistically, this would result in something like the Republican status quo scenario in Chart 24 above, rather than the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline scenario. The baseline scenario would produce an intolerable 7.4% contraction in fiscal thrust under baseline scenario in 2021. GOP senators would not go so far. They are not the same as the House Freedom Caucus members who were so hawkish in 2010-16. Nevertheless investors cannot rule out the baseline scenario – which could cause a double-dip recession – until GOP senators allay their fears. The market will cheer if President Trump and the Republicans retain the White House and Senate, as the fiscal thrust will be neutral or slightly expansive. It will especially cheer if the Democrats win a clean sweep, adding anywhere from 4%-7% of GDP in fiscal thrust for FY 2021 – the most reflationary outcome. It will even cheer in the odd chance that Trump wins with a unified Democratic Congress, which would also be reflationary. But the market will not cheer if the election threatens premature fiscal tightening via Republican obstructionism under a Biden presidency. This is the only scenario that is deflationary. The market would have to riot to force Republican senators to cooperate with a Democratic president – and this would be the case in the lame duck session as well as for each new stimulus package and budget over 2021-22. Based on our updated quant models, this Biden+GOP scenario is about a 28% probability, a slight increase from our previous view. The flip side is that there is about a 72% probability of a reflationary outcome. Beyond the near term, a Biden presidency with a Republican senate is actually market positive. Republican senators would eventually have to agree to House-drawn budgets, but would prevent tax hikes and legislative overreach (the downside of a Democratic sweep). Meanwhile a President Biden would avoid sweeping unilateral tariffs against China and the EU (the downside of any Trump victory). Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep is the most fiscally proactive scenario but the odds have fallen from around 45% to 27% according to our quant models. The odds of Biden plus a GOP Senate have risen from 20% to 28%. The market would have to digest significant new fiscal risks in this case, so the dollar and US treasuries would initially rally.  The other scenarios combine to a 72% probability and are initially reflationary, albeit less so than a Democratic sweep, with the likelihood of massive trade war risk in 2021.  Trade Recommendations Courtesy Of The BCA Equity Analyzer As the US election approaches and the effects of the global pandemic linger, economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Equity markets tend to behave very differently in times of acute uncertainty. In order to gauge the effects of uncertainty at the individual stock level, we turn to BCA’s stock-picking engine, the Equity Analyzer. We looked at factor performance when economic policy uncertainty (as defined by Baker, Bloom and Davis) exceeds the 150-line (Chart 25). This is quite high compared to history. Chart 25Policy Uncertainty: How High Will It Go? Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election We look at the 30 factors included in the BCA Equity Analyzer and examine the Sharpe Ratio (Chart 26). The Sharpe ratio expresses the risk adjusted performance of long/short strategies based on each factor. Long/short strategies, in turn, are defined as going long the top 25% based on a factor and going short the bottom 25%. Chart 26Equity Analyzer Shows Key Traits For Navigating Uncertainty Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election The results show that the best performing factors in times of high uncertainty are: Relative earnings yield  Low accruals5 BCA Style, which is an in-house combined measure for (1) value versus growth and (2) small caps versus large caps. One-month momentum With these results, we go back to the BCA Equity Analyzer to extract the top 25 stocks filtered by our top 4 factors during times of uncertainty. The results are shown in Table 3.6   The BCA score in this table ranges from 0 to 100% (from a strong sell to a strong buy). It is based on 30 factors distributed among seven broad categories: Macro, Value, Safety, Sentiment, Technical, Quality, Payout. These picks will improve performance during the upcoming spike in uncertainty, which is now even more likely than it was given the rising odds of a contested election and/or deflationary partisan gridlock. Table 3BCA Equity Analyzer Stock Picks For Election Uncertainty Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Upgrading Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com David Boucher Chief Quantitative Strategist DavidB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  See Lauren King and Lauren Lantry, “More than 58 million Americans have already voted,” ABC News, October 25, 2020, abcnews.go.com.  2  See “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters,” Pew Research Center, August 9, 2018, pewresearch.org. 3  Back in April, former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman predicted that the likely timing of the economic snapback would be very favorable for President Trump: “We’re about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” he said. See Ryan Lizza and Daniel Lippman, “The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading,” Politico, May 26, 2020, politico.com.    4  Given the Senate’s critical importance to US fiscal policy, we weren’t joking when we said that Democratic candidate Cal Cunningham’s sex scandal in North Carolina could end up making the difference for the election’s overall consequences as well as the global macro outlook! 5  Accounting accruals are the non-cash component of a firm’s earnings and can be used as a metric to gauge the overall quality of a firm. Firms with high accruals tend to underperform firms with low accruals because of the potential to mask poor performance through the practice of accrual accounting. 6  Screener is based on US exchanges, top 30% based on market cap, Relative Earning Yield Score above 50%, Accruals Score above 50%, 1-month Momentum above 50%, and BCA Style above 50%.

Highlights The US saves too much to achieve full employment but not enough to close the current account deficit. According to the “Swan diagram,” a weaker dollar would move the US economy closer to “external” and “internal” balance. Structural forces are unlikely to have much effect on the value of the dollar over the next few years: The neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in most other developed economies; the US still earns more on its overseas assets than it pays on its liabilities; and there is no meaningful competition to the dollar’s reserve currency status. Cyclical forces, in contrast, will become more dollar-bearish over the coming months: A vaccine would buoy the global economy next year; interest rate differentials have moved sharply against the dollar; and further fiscal stimulus should lift US inflation expectations. Stocks tend to outperform bonds when the dollar is weakening. Investors should remain overweight global equities on a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US stocks and cyclical sectors. A Clash Of Views? Today marked the last day of BCA’s Annual Investment Conference, held virtually this year in light of the pandemic. As in past years, it was a star-studded cavalcade of the who’s who in financial and policymaking circles. I always find it interesting when two of our speakers seemingly disagree on a critical issue. Such was the case with Larry Summers and Stephen Roach. Larry kicked off the proceedings with an update of his secular stagnation thesis. He argued that his thesis had gone from “a hypothesis that needed to be considered” to a “presumptively accurate analysis of the status quo.” In Larry’s mind, the core problem facing the US and most other economies is a surplus of savings. Excess savings results in a chronic shortfall of spending relative to an economy’s productive capacity. Faced with the challenge of maintaining adequate employment, central banks have been forced to cut rates to extraordinarily low levels. Perpetually easy monetary policy has periodically spawned destabilizing asset bubbles. Larry recommends that governments ease fiscal policy in order to take the burden off central banks. Later that morning, we heard from Stephen Roach. Stephen expects the real US trade-weighted dollar to weaken by 35% by the end of next year. What’s behind this bearish forecast? The answer, according to Stephen, is that the US economy suffers from a shortage of savings. Unable to generate enough domestic savings to cover its investment needs, the US has ended up running persistent current account deficits. How can the US be saving too much, as Larry Summers claims, while also saving too little, as Stephen Roach insists? The two views seem utterly unreconcilable. In fact, I think there is a way to reconcile them with something called the Swan diagram. The Swan Diagram True to the reputation of economics as the dismal science, the Swan diagram – named after Australian economist Trevor Swan – depicts four “zones of economic unhappiness” (Chart 1). Each zone represents a different way in which an economy can deviate from “internal balance” (full employment and stable inflation) and “external balance” (a current account balance that is neither in deficit nor in surplus). Chart 1The Swan Diagram And The Four Zones Of Unhappiness Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? The four zones are: 1) high unemployment and a current account deficit; 2) high unemployment and a current account surplus; 3) overheating and a current account deficit; and 4) overheating and a current account surplus. The horizontal axis of the Swan diagram depicts the budget deficit. A rightward movement along the horizontal axis corresponds to an easing of fiscal policy. The vertical axis depicts the real exchange rate. An upward movement along the vertical axis corresponds to a currency appreciation. The external balance schedule is downward sloping because an easing of fiscal policy raises aggregate demand (which boosts imports, resulting in a current account deficit). To restore the current account balance to its original level, the currency must weaken. A weaker currency will spur exports, while curbing imports. The internal balance schedule is upward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a stronger currency in order to keep the economy from overheating. The US presently finds itself in the top quadrant of the Swan diagram: It saves too much to achieve internal balance, but not enough to achieve external balance. From this perspective, both Larry Summers and Stephen Roach are correct. Unlike the US, the euro area, Japan, and China run current account surpluses. Rather than pursuing currency depreciation, the Swan diagram says that all three economies would be better off with more fiscal easing. What It Would Take To Eliminate The US Trade Deficit By how much would the real trade-weighted US dollar need to weaken to achieve external balance? According to the New York Fed, a 10% dollar depreciation raises export volumes by 3.5% after two years, while reducing import volumes by 1.6%.1 Given that exports and imports account for 12% and 15% of GDP, respectively, this implies that a 10% dollar depreciation would improve the trade balance by 0.12*0.035+0.15*0.016=0.7% of GDP. Considering that the trade deficit is around 3% of GDP, the dollar may need to weaken by 30%-to-50% to eliminate the trade deficit, a range which encompasses Stephen Roach’s projection for the dollar’s decline.  Don’t Hold Your Breath In practice, we doubt that the dollar will decline anywhere close to that much. Despite a net international investment position of negative 67% of GDP, the US still generates substantially more income from its overseas assets than it pays to service its liabilities (Chart 2). This reflects the fact that US foreign liabilities are skewed towards low-yielding government bonds, while its assets largely consist of higher-yielding equities and foreign direct investment (Chart 3). Chart 2The US Generates More Income From Its Overseas Assets Than It Pays On Its Liabilities The US Generates More Income From Its Overseas Assets Than It Pays On Its Liabilities The US Generates More Income From Its Overseas Assets Than It Pays On Its Liabilities Chart 3A Breakdown Of US Assets And Liabilities Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Given that the Fed will keep rates on hold at least until end-2023, it is unlikely that US government interest payments will rise substantially in the next few years. Faster Growth Helps Explain America’s Chronic Current Account Deficit The neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in most other developed economies. Economic theory suggests that global capital will flow towards countries with higher interest rates, producing current account deficits (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Interest Rates And Current Account Balances Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? The higher neutral rate in the US can be partly attributed to faster trend GDP growth. There are three reasons why faster growth will raise investment while lowering savings, thus leading to a current account deficit: Faster-growing economies require more investment spending to maintain an adequate capital stock. For example, if a country wants to maintain a capital stock-to-GDP ratio of 200% and is growing at 3% per year, it would need to invest (after depreciation) 6% of GDP. A country growing at 1% would need to invest only 2% of GDP. Governments may wish to run larger budget deficits in faster-growing economies in the belief that they will be able to outgrow their debt burdens. To the extent that faster growth may reflect productivity gains, households may choose to spend more and save less in anticipation of higher real incomes in the future. While trend growth is just one of several factors influencing the balance of payments, in general, the evidence does suggest that fast-growing developed economies such as the US and Australia have tended to run current account deficits, while slower-growing economies such as the euro area and Japan have generally run current account surpluses (Chart 5). Chart 5Fast-Growing Developed Economies Tend To Run Current Account Deficits, While Slower- Growing Economies Tend To Run Surpluses Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? The Dollar’s Reserve Currency Status Is Not In Any Jeopardy Even if many commentators do tend to overstate the importance of having a reserve currency, the dollar’s special status in the global financial system will still provide it with support. The US dollar’s share of global central bank reserves stood at 61.3% in the second quarter of 2020, only modestly lower than where it was a decade ago (Chart 6). While the euro area is not at risk of collapse, it remains an artificial political entity. China’s role in the global economy continues to increase. However, the absence of an open capital account limits the yuan’s appeal. Chart 6The US Dollar’s Share Of Global Central Bank Reserves Has Barely Fallen Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Then there’s the dollar’s first mover advantage. During our conference, Marc Chandler likened the greenback to the QWERTY keyboard: It may not be perfect, but like it or not, it has become the default choice for typing.  I like to equate the dollar’s role with that of the English language. When a Swede has a business meeting with another Swede, they will speak in Swedish. However, when a Swede has a business meeting with an Indonesian, chances are they will speak in English. By the same token, when a Swede wants to purchase Indonesian rupiah, the bank is unlikely to convert krona directly to rupiah since the probability is low that many people will just happen to be looking to exchange rupiah for krona at precisely the same time. Rather, the bank will first convert the krona to US dollars and then convert the dollars to rupiah. The dollar is the hub of the global financial system. Just like the pound remained the global currency long after the sun had set on the British Empire, King Dollar will endure for many years to come. Cyclical Forces Will Drive The Dollar Lower Chart 7The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The discussion above suggests that structural forces are unlikely to have much effect on the value of the dollar for the foreseeable future. Cyclical forces, in contrast, will become more dollar-bearish over the coming months. The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 7). According to the Good Judgment Project, there is a 43% chance that a Covid vaccine will be available by the first quarter of 2021, and a 91% chance it will be available by the end of the third quarter (Chart 8). A vaccine would supercharge global growth, causing the dollar to weaken.   Chart 8When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Interest rate differentials have moved considerably against the dollar – more so, in fact, than one would have expected based on the fairly modest depreciation that the greenback has experienced thus far (Chart 9). Chart 9A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials Chart 10Stocks Tend To Outperform Bonds When The Dollar Is Weakening... As Do Non-US Stocks Versus US Stocks Tend To Outperform Bonds When The Dollar Is Weakening... As Do Non-US Stocks Versus US Stocks Tend To Outperform Bonds When The Dollar Is Weakening... As Do Non-US Stocks Versus US   An open question is how additional fiscal support will affect the dollar and other financial assets. Equity investors have brushed off the dwindling prospects for a pandemic relief bill before the election on the assumption that a “blue sweep” will allow the Biden administration to enact even more stimulus than was possible under President Trump and a Republican senate. The dollar rallied in the weeks following Donald Trump’s victory. The dollar also surged in the early 1980s after Ronald Reagan lowered taxes and raised military spending. A key difference between now and then is that real interest rates rose during both of those two prior episodes. Today, the Fed is firmly on hold. This implies that real rates are unlikely to rise much, and could even fall if inflation expectations move up in response to easier fiscal policy. Stocks tend to outperform bonds when the dollar is weakening (Chart 10). In particular, stock markets outside the US often do well in a soft-dollar environment. Investors should remain overweight equities on a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US stocks and cyclical sectors.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Mary Amiti, and Tyler Bodine-Smith, “The Effect of the Strong Dollar on U.S. Growth,” Liberty Street Economics, (July 17, 2015). 2 There are many different ways to measure the neutral rate. As depicted in Chart 4, capital flows tend to equalize the neutral rate across countries. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate would be higher in the US were it not for the fact that the US runs a current account deficit.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? Does The US Save Too Much Or Too Little? ​​​​​​​

Highlights The US Senate election is as important as the presidency for US politics and markets. Our quantitative Senate election model suggests Democrats will win control – as we have long argued – but there is a 49% chance that they do not, which is higher than consensus. A Republican Senate under a Biden presidency is positive for US stocks relative to global. Corporate taxes will stay put. However, fiscal reflation will have to be earned through tough budget battles, which will raise hurdles for markets. The Democratic sweep scenario is generating excessive enthusiasm in the media, as taxes will rise, but it is ultimately reflationary. It will benefit global stocks more than US stocks. Feature Chart 1Democratic Sweep Favors Global Stocks Versus US Democratic Sweep Favors Global Stocks Versus US Democratic Sweep Favors Global Stocks Versus US Throughout the year we have argued that, as a base case for the US election, investors should expect that the pandemic, recession, and widespread social unrest in the United States would culminate in an anti-incumbent movement among voters. President Trump and the Republicans would lose the White House and Senate in a Democratic sweep. The implication for markets was that, after election volatility, global equities would rally in expectation of less hawkish US foreign and trade policy, while US equities would underperform on the expectation of higher taxes and regulation at home. This view has now become the market consensus (Chart 1). However, our quantitative US election model – which does not rely on head-to-head opinion polling – has recently given President Trump a 49% chance of winning in the latest reading. It is flagging a Biden victory but is essentially “too close to call” (Chart 2). The rapid snapback in the economy provides a basis for Trump to make an eleventh-hour comeback, contrary to optics. Chart 2Quant Model Shows Trump Loss, But 49% Odds Of Winning Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model In this report we present our quant model for the US Senate election, updated for the 2020 cycle. The Senate model is constructed with similar variables, though not exactly the same, and the result is that Democrats are favored to win control but only slightly. The implication is that Democrats are currently overrated by markets and that the election could still go either way. Uncertainty will go up for the remainder of the month. Ultimately we are sticking with our original forecast unless Trump and the Republicans regain momentum in opinion polling, but our models are flagging major risk. Investors should expect volatility to rise in the short term. We will maintain our tactical risk-off trades, since the risk of a contested election and/or a Trump re-election (and hence renewed global trade war) is rising. The Foundations Of Our Senate Model BCA Geopolitical Strategy developed a US Senate election model in September 2018 which quantified the margin of victory for the GOP among several Senate races during the 2018 mid-term election. The beta model focused on modeling individual Senate races, those deemed competitive by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy at the time, by combining state and national level economic and political variables as well as the latest polling data applicable to each race.1 We are now re-introducing this model, but with a twist: this time we are adopting the same methodology as per our US presidential election model. The result is a state-by-state model that predicts the number of seats the incumbent party will win in the Senate election on November 3, 2020. Like our US election model, our Senate model is based off a probit model that produces a probability that each state will remain under the control of the incumbent party. The dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as 1 = incumbent party wins the Senate election in each state; or 0 = incumbent party does not win the Senate election in each state. This method allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. Therefore we can predict the probability of the incumbent party winning all the Senate seats in each of the 50 states (though, of course, this is only relevant to the one-third of the states that have a Senate seat up for election in 2020). Our model would have predicted the past five Senate election outcomes correctly on an in-sample basis and the past four Senate elections on an out-sample basis. Unlike our presidential election model, which sampled nine elections (1984 to 2016), our sample size for the Senate model is notably larger. That is, our sample consists of 18 Senate elections (1984 to 2018), across 50 states, amounting to 900 observations. While midterm Senate elections are different from those held during a presidential election year, we would not want to exclude the information they provide. The 2018 Senate race has a bearing on our 2020 prediction and this is appropriate. The Senate Model’s Variables Our Senate model includes six explanatory variables: 1. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index. The coincident index for each state combines four of the state’s indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). Like in our US Presidential model, we applied several transformations to the data to obtain meaningful results in the modeling process. We found that using a three-month change of the state coincident index in our Senate model provided the most statistically significant result. Our Senate model suggests that Republican odds of winning are underrated by online betting markets, as with our presidential model. The three-month change of all the monthly state coincident indexes are given heavier weight as we approach the Senate election early in November. However, we only include the preceding year of a Senate election up until September of the election year (i.e. the last data release in October prior to the election itself). Senate elections occur every two years, and we excluded data that has been accounted for in previous elections. As we highlighted in the update of our US Election model we assume that prevailing economic conditions matter most to voters (as future expectations inevitably affect people’s assessment of their current situation), and this bolsters our rationale in using a 3-month change of the state coincident index. 2. The incumbent party’s margin of victory in previous Senate elections in each state Senate race. This is measured as the incumbent party’s share of the popular vote minus the non-incumbent party’s share. If the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in each state in the previous Senate election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election becomes smaller. Moreover, the larger the margin of victory in a previous Senate election race, the more likely that incumbent party will win re-election in said state. 3. Net average approval level of the incumbent president in a Senate election year. This is the difference between the incumbent president’s approval and disapproval levels in a Senate election year, from the start of the year up until the end of October of that year – taken as an average. 4. Generic congressional ballot (net support rate). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress. We take the average net support rate in a Senate election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). Democrats are usually favored in congressional generic ballot voting, so the net rate is more predictive than the gross rate 5. Dummy variable for congressional ballot. A dummy variable is assigned to variable number four. For example, dummy takes the value of 1 when Democrats have a positive net support rate in generic congressional ballot voting, and 0 when Republicans have a net positive support rate. We assign only one dummy variable to avoid a dummy variable trap.2 6. A “time for change” variable, a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has controlled the Senate for three or more terms (six or more years). If the Senate has been controlled by the incumbent party for three or more terms, the model will “punish” the incumbent party, as we would expect to see a change in control of the Senate the longer one incumbent party controls it. Estimating The Model Since this is a probit model, the coefficients cannot be directly interpreted like in an ordinary regression.3 In Table 1, the sign of the coefficient corresponds to the direction of change in probability. An increase in the State Coincident Index, the incumbent’s margin of victory in previous Senate races, net approval of the incumbent president and generic congressional support ballot, all increase the probability of the incumbent winning a Senate election in a state. Table 1Senate Model Regression Coefficients Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Meanwhile occupying the Senate for more than three terms serves as a “punishment” and would decrease the probability of winning a Senate election in a state. The output of our model is the probability of an incumbent win in each state. As in our US Presidential election model, there are two ways of aggregating these probabilities to produce a national-level outcome: Proportional: Allocate the number of Senate seats won by the incumbent proportionally to their probability of victory in each state, and then sum them up across all states. Winner Takes All: As we do in our US Presidential election model, assume a probability threshold of 50%: any state with an incumbent win that is at least 50% likely is fully assigned to the incumbent. The latter, winner takes all, is the aggregation method we base our Senate prediction on. Senate Election Model Prediction Table 2 shows our 2020 prediction. Overall, the Republican Party is expected to win 49 Senate seats, a decrease of four seats from its current 53-seat majority. This means that the Democrats are expected to control the Senate with 51 seats (this includes Independents that caucus with Democrats). Moreover, the model suggests that Republicans have a 49% chance of retaining Senate control. Table 2Predicted 2020 Senate Balance Of Power Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model This is substantially higher than consensus, which has put Republicans at 42% throughout the past month and currently has them at 37% (Chart 3). As with our presidential model, the rapid recovery in the state economic indicators is providing the Republicans with a last-minute boost that contradicts the gloomier picture painted by opinion polls. We do not think they will retain the Senate, but our conviction level is now lower. Chart 3Betting Market Overrates Democratic Odds Of Winning Senate Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model In terms of Senate seats, our model expects Republicans to lose Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana, and North Carolina. This is enough for Democrats to obtain 51 seats, a majority, assuming that they lose Alabama. The full list of states that have Senate races in 2020 and the probabilities of a Republican win according to the model are shown in Chart 4. Chart 4Quant Model Shows Democrats Win Senate, But GOP Odds 49% Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Three Senate races are classified as toss-ups, which we define as having a probability between 45% and 55% according to the model. These states are Iowa (54%), Maine (48%) and North Carolina (49%). Montana is close to a toss-up, with a 44% chance of a Republican win. We expect Democrats to win control of the Senate with 51 votes. They need 50, plus the White House, to have a majority. Of these states, if Republicans retain any two, then they will retain their majority, so control of the Senate is on a knife’s edge. Chart 5 shows the odds for each of the 12 swing states in this election. Chart 5Our Senate Odds Compared With The Bookies Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Bear in mind that only 50 seats are needed for the party that wins the White House, since the Vice President is also the President of the Senate and casts the tiebreaking vote. Senate Races Of Interest Our results show that the consensus is underestimating the Republicans, except in Michigan and Montana. The latter could affect overall control of the Senate. The same can be said for Maine, where the Republican challenger may be underrated (Chart 6). The trend of opinion polling in Chart 6 generally shows closer races than the betting markets expect. Our model supports the betting markets on the unlikelihood that Democrats will prevail in several deep red states. Chart 6US Senate Polling And The Betting Odds Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model The presidential race should be the decisive factor. If voters in swing states are sufficiently motivated to vote out the sitting president that they chose only four years ago, which is uncommon in modern US history, then they will likely repudiate the senators who carried that president’s water through a whirlwind of scandals and controversies. Yet with the races so precariously balanced, small or local factors could also decide the outcome. This is an important limitation on our macro method. For example, it is not at all clear that Democrats will win Maine. Our model gives Republicans a 48% chance, while online gamblers put it at 27%. Susan Collins is well-entrenched, having survived again and again since 1996. If Democrats do poach Maine, it is still not clear that they will carry Iowa and Montana, which are more conservative yet saw Democratic victories in 2018. Our model suggests Montana will go Democratic and Iowa will stay Republican. Democrats must win one of these two states (or North Carolina) or they will not take the Senate. A feather could tip the scales. A feather may already be doing that in North Carolina, the other key toss-up state. Democratic candidate Cal Cunningham’s sex scandal has roiled the race. It is not yet clear that voters will abandon Cunningham (see Chart 6, panel 1), but that is likely unless there is an unstoppable Democratic wave.4 If North Carolina stays Republican as a result, then, according to our model, the US Senate would tie at 50-50 and the winner of the White House would turn the balance. Some Democrats have argued that deeper red states may be in contention, such as Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska, Kansas, or Kentucky. Of these, Kansas is notable since no candidate has an incumbent advantage. However, our model rules these races out of play and we tend to agree. Bottom Line: Our model suggests that Democrats will narrowly win control of the Senate as things stand today. With several races extremely close, a trivial event in a single state could turn the balance of power in the US Senate and hence the policy consequences of the entire US election. However, the close contest implies that the party that wins the White House will also win the Senate. Back Testing Our Model Our Senate model performs at an acceptable level during in-sample and out-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1984 – 2018) and find that 72% of Senate elections (control of the Senate) are correctly predicted, with the model predicting the outcome of the last five Senate elections correctly (Chart 7). Chart 7In-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2000 – 2018, comprising of ten Senate elections, where our model correctly predicts 69% of actual outcomes. The previous four Senate elections are predicted correctly (Chart 8). There is still a roughly 50/50 chance of divided US government in 2021-22. Chart 8Out-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Investment Takeaways Our US Senate model is based off a similar methodology as our US Presidential election model. There are however some minor differences. First, we use a weighted maximum likelihood estimate as opposed to a traditional maximum likelihood estimate. This is because of unbalanced binary outcomes in our dependent variable (see Appendix). Chart 9Fair Chance Of Divided Government Still Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Secondly, not all our explanatory variables are the same. While we maintain using the State Coincident Index as our one and only economic variable, our suite of political variables has changed to be more geared towards predicting the Senate outcome. Our Senate model predicts Republicans will retain only 49 seats and lose control of the Senate. The Democrats will take control with 51 seats. And yet Republicans have a 49% chance of retaining Senate control. This is equivalent to saying that the race is “too close to call” – which is similar to our presidential model results. The reason is the rapid snapback in the economy. Subjectively, the risk is to the downside for Republicans given the President’s poor polling, particularly on his handling of the pandemic, and the high unemployment rate. The Senate outcome should be determined by the White House race, but obviously there is a fair chance that the winner of the White House still loses control of the Senate (Chart 9). Chart 10Wall Street Expects Divided Government Wall Street Expects Divided Government Wall Street Expects Divided Government Chart 11Trump Protectionism Good For The Dollar Trump Protectionism Good For The Dollar Trump Protectionism Good For The Dollar The stock market is behaving like it expects gridlock, rather than a Democratic sweep – the latter offering greater downside and lesser upside, at least judging by history (Chart 10). So let’s boil this all down to what we know with reasonable certainty: If Trump wins with a Republican Senate, he will still face opposition from House Democrats, so he will be driven to foreign and trade policy in his second term. Protectionism will affect not only China but also Europe and other economies. This is broadly positive for the dollar and US equities relative to global stocks and commodities (Chart 11). Government bond yields would be volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from global trade war. If Biden wins in a Democratic sweep, economies other than China will benefit from lower trade risk and the US will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021. But financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. This outcome is broadly negative for the dollar and US equities relative to global equities and commodities. Government bond yields would rise on the generally reflationary agenda. If Biden wins without the Senate, the market has the most positive outcome of all: less trade war yet no new tax hikes. Both US and global equities would benefit. Bond prices and the dollar would trend downward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Statistical Appendix A notable property in our dependent variable data requires a brief discussion. Our dependent variable classified as “elected” takes the form of a binary outcome. This data, however, is what’s called “unbalanced,” since incumbent Senators are re-elected approximately 80% of the time. This means that most outcomes in our dependent variable are coded as “1,” with fewer “0’s” because of the strong incumbency effect in Senate races. There are many data sets that exhibit this type of property, such as events like wars, vetoes, cases of political activism, or epidemiological infections, where non-events occur rarely. To alleviate this statistical property in the data, we estimate our model using a weighted maximum likelihood estimate as opposed to the ordinary maximum likelihood estimate usually used in a probit regression.5 This method assigns more weighting to the unbalanced data, or what is known theoretically as “rare event” data, to aid the probit regression in assigning higher probabilities to “0” outcomes. Through this process, we effectively deal with our unbalanced dependent variable data. That said, in developing our quantitative US Senate Election Model, we estimated a suite of probit regressions with several other variables that were theoretically assumed to be relevant and subsequently tested empirically. In Appendix Table 1 below, we only include variables 1, 2, 3 and 6 from our listed variables (we excluded the generic congressional ballot and its corresponding dummy variable). This model suggests that Republicans will hold control of the Senate with 51 seats. Back testing this model revealed that 71% of past Senate elections were correctly predicted, while 67% were correctly predicted in out-sample testing. This is only slightly worse of a track record than our final model. If this model proves more accurate in the event, the implication is that the generic congressional ballot is an unreliable poll. Americans could be shy about stating their support for the Republican Party in the era of Trump. For this outcome, Republicans would only lose Arizona and Colorado. Critical swing states here are Montana (53%) and Arizona (45%). Appendix Table 1Alternative Senate Model Predictions Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model A re-work of the above model, but with a variable that punishes Republicans for holding the Senate for six years or more on average, suggests that Republicans will only win 47 seats in the Senate, giving up six seats (Appendix Table 2). Forecast accuracy is slightly worse off, giving just 68% and 67% predictive accuracy during in and out-sample forecasting of previous Senate elections, respectively. Compared to our primary model, Republicans would lose Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Carolina and Alabama. Alabama (45%) is the only critical swing state. Appendix Table 2Alternative Senate Model Predictions Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model Note: This report has been corrected since publication due to errors in charting. Charts 7 and 8 showed the correct majority party in historical Senate elections but mistakenly attributed to that party the minority party’s number of seats. The changes do not affect the text or the substance of the report: our quantitative model’s accuracy levels remain unchanged, as does the model’s performance relative to historical election results. Footnotes 1 The model was able to predict 14 out of 18 (77%) Senate races flagged as competitive by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy. Florida, North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri were flagged as Democratic by our model but were won by Republican candidates. 2 A dummy variable trap is a scenario in which the independent variables are multicollinear — a scenario in which two or more variables are highly correlated; or, in simple terms, in which one variable can be predicted from the others. To avoid such a trap, we must exclude one of the categorical variables. Since there are two categorical variables that can be represented here (Republican or Democrat), we use k-1 (where k = the number of categorical variables). 3 The coefficients in a probit regression model measure the change in the Z-score associated to each independent variable for a one-unit change in that variable. 4 See Evie Fordham, "NC Democrat Cal Cunningham faces FEC complaint over California trip amid affair," Fox News, October 13, 2020, foxnews.com. 5 Weighted maximum likelihood estimation is a reasonable approach in dealing with dependent variables that show significant imbalance in their data set. See: King, G. and Zeng, L., 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political analysis, 9(2), pp.137-163.

Highlights Duration: Prospects for more pre-election fiscal stimulus are slim. But with the Democrats gaining ground in the polls, the bond market will stay focused on rising odds of a blue sweep election and greater fiscal stimulus in early 2021. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Feature Chart 1Breakout Breakout Breakout After having been lulled to sleep by several months of stagnant yields, bond investors experienced a minor shockwave in early October. The 10-year Treasury yield and 2/10 slope both broke out of well-established trading ranges and implied interest rate volatility bounced off all-time lows to reach its highest level since June (Chart 1). We suspect this might turn out to be just the first small tremor in a tumultuous month leading up to the US election. Specifically, there are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month. Both have major implications for the bond market. Bond-Bullish Risk: No More Stimulus Before The Election  The first risk is the possibility that the current Congress will not deliver any more fiscal stimulus. This increasingly looks like less of a possibility and more of a likelihood, especially after the president tweeted that he is halting negotiations with House Democrats. While he partially walked those comments back the next day, the fact remains that there is very little time between now and November 3rd, and the two sides remain at loggerheads. We have argued that more household income support from Congress is necessary. Otherwise, consumer spending will massively disappoint during the next year.1 However, it could take a few more months before this becomes apparent in the consumer spending data. Real consumer spending still rose in August, though much less quickly than it did in June and July (Chart 2). Meanwhile, August disposable income remained above pre-COVID levels, as it continued to receive a boost from facilities related to the CARES act (Chart 2, bottom panel). This boost will fade as the CARES act’s money is doled out, pushing spending lower. That is, unless Congress enacts a follow-up bill. There are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month and both have major implications for the bond market. It looks less and less likely that a bill will be passed this month but, depending on the election outcome, a follow-up stimulus bill could become more likely in January. If consumer spending can hang in for the next couple of months, then the bond market might look past Congress’ near-term failure. This appears to be what is happening so far. The stock market fell 1.4% last Tuesday after Trump tweeted about halting negotiations. The 10-year Treasury yield, however, dropped only 2 bps on the day. More generally, long-dated bond yields rose during the past month, even as stocks sold off and prospects for immediate fiscal relief dimmed (Chart 3). Chart 2September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical Chart 3Bonds Ignore Stock ##br##Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... With all that in mind, we think September’s consumer spending data – the last month of data we will see before the election – are very important. If spending collapses, it might re-focus the market’s attention on Congress’ failure, sending bond yields down. However, we think the market would see through a modest drop in spending, especially if the election looks poised to bring us a larger bill in 2021. Bond-Bearish Risk: A Blue Sweep Election Chart 4...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds This brings us to the second big political risk that could influence bond yields during the next month: The possibility of a “blue sweep” election where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House. This would clearly be a bearish outcome for bonds, as an unimpeded Democratic party would enact a large stimulus package – likely worth $2.5 to $3.5 trillion – shortly after inauguration. It appears that the bond market is already tentatively pricing-in this outcome. While the recent increase in bond yields is hard to square with weak equity prices and souring expectations for immediate stimulus, it is consistent with rising betting market odds of a blue sweep election (Chart 4). To underscore the bond bearishness of this potential election outcome, consider that not only would a unified Congress be able to quickly deliver another fiscal relief bill, but Joe Biden’s platform calls for even more spending on infrastructure, healthcare, education and other Democratic priorities. In total, Biden is proposing new spending of around 3% of GDP, only about half of which will be offset by tax increases (Table 1). Table 1ABiden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Table 1BBiden Would Spend $7 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market How likely is a “blue sweep” election? It is our Geopolitical Strategy service’s base case.2 Also, fivethirtyeight.com’s poll-based forecasting model sees a 68% chance that Democrats win the Senate, a 94% chance that they win the House and an 85% chance that Joe Biden wins the presidency. Investment Strategy These two political risks appear to put bond investors in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, if no stimulus bill is passed this month and September’s consumer spending data are weak, then bond yields could fall in the near-term. However, we are inclined to think that if all that occurs against the back-drop of rising odds of a blue sweep election outcome, the bond market will look beyond the near-term and yields will move higher on expectations of larger stimulus coming in January. As such, we retain our relatively pro-reflation investment stance. We recommend owning nominal and real yield curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners and maintaining an overweight position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. All these positions are designed to profit from a rising yield environment.3 Municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. We retain an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance for now, for two reasons. First, while a blue sweep election outcome looks like the most likely scenario, it is not a guarantee. Second, even against the backdrop of greater government stimulus and continued economic recovery, the US economy will still be dealing with a large output gap next year that will temper inflationary pressures. This will keep the Fed on hold, limiting the upside in bond yields. That being said, the odds of another significant downleg in bond yields look increasingly slim. We will likely shift to a more aggressive “below-benchmark” duration stance this month, if our conviction in a blue sweep election outcome continues to rise. A Rare Buying Opportunity In Municipal Bonds No matter how you slice it, municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. First, we can look at the spread between Aaa-rated munis and maturity-matched US Treasury yields (Chart 5). When we do this, we find that 2-year and 5-year municipal bonds trade at about the same yields as their Treasury counterparts. This is despite municipal debt’s tax-exempt status. Munis look even more attractive further out the curve, with 10-year and 30-year bonds trading at a before-tax premium relative to Treasuries. Chart 5Aaa Munis Versus ##br##Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Table 2Muni/Corporate Breakeven Effective Tax Rates (%) Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Next, we can look at how municipal bonds stack up compared to corporates. We do this in a couple different ways. In Table 2, we start with the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Index split by credit tier. We then find the General Obligation (GO) municipal bond that matches each corporate index’s credit rating and maturity and calculate the breakeven effective tax rate between the two yields. The breakeven effective tax rate is the effective tax rate that would make an investor indifferent between owning the municipal bond and the corporate bond. For example, if an investor faces an effective tax rate of 7%, they will observe the same after-tax yield in a 12-year A-rated GO municipal bond as they do in a 12-year A-rated corporate bond. If their effective tax rate is more than 7%, the muni offers an after-tax yield advantage. Alternatively, we can look at the relative value between munis and credit using the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Indexes. In Chart 6A, we start with the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation indexes by maturity. We then find the US Credit index that matches the credit rating and duration of the municipal index and calculate the yield differential.4 We find that in all cases, for GO bonds ranging from 6 years to maturity and higher, the muni offers a before-tax yield advantage compared to the Credit Index. This is also true when we perform the same exercise using municipal revenue bonds instead of GOs (Chart 6B). Chart 6AGO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit Chart 6BRevenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit You may notice that municipal bonds trade at a before-tax premium to credit in Charts 6A and 6B, but at a discount in Table 2. This is because we compare bonds by maturity in Table 2 and by duration in Charts 6A and 6B. Unlike investment grade corporates, municipal bonds often carry call options making them negatively convex and giving them a duration that is much shorter than their maturity. Cheap For A Reason, Or Just Plain Cheap? Chart 7State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm We have effectively demonstrated that municipal bonds offer value relative to both Treasuries and corporate credit. But attractive value is not enough to warrant an overweight allocation. Ideally, we would also like some degree of confidence that wide spreads won’t eventually be justified by a wave of downgrades and defaults. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. For starters, state & local governments were experiencing strong revenue growth prior to the pandemic (Chart 7, top panel). This allowed them to build rainy day funds up to all-time highs (Chart 7, panel 4). Second, income support for households from the CARES act helped prop up state & local income tax revenues in the second quarter (Chart 7, panel 2), though sales tax revenues took a significant hit (Chart 7, panel 3). Going forward, a blue sweep election scenario would not only provide more income support for households – helping income tax revenues – but a Democratic controlled Congress would also quickly deliver fiscal aid directly to state & local governments. In fact, it is this aid for state & local governments that is currently the key sticking point in fiscal negotiations. In the meantime, state & local governments will continue to clamp down on spending. This can already be seen in the massive drop in state & local government employment (Chart 7, bottom panel). This is obviously a drag on economic growth, but the combination of austerity measures and high rainy day fund balances will help municipal bonds avoid downgrades and defaults, at least until a fiscal relief bill is passed next year. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: Credit Growth & The Labor Market Credit Growth Slowing Chart 8No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits Of notable economic data releases during the past two weeks, we find it particularly interesting that both consumer credit and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) bank lending continue to slow (Chart 8). On the consumer side, massive income support from the CARES act and few spending opportunities caused households to pay down debt this spring. Then, after two months of modest gains, consumer credit fell again in August (Chart 8, top panel). This strongly suggests that, even as lockdown restrictions have eased, consumers aren’t yet ready to open up the spending taps. On the corporate side, firms received much less of a direct cash injection from Congress and were forced to take on massive amounts of debt to get through the spring and early summer months. But as of the second quarter, we recently observed that nonfinancial corporate retained earnings now exceed capital expenditures.5 This strongly suggests that firms have taken out enough new debt and that C&I bank lending will remain slow in the coming months. Cracks Showing In The Labor Market Chart 9Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Finally, we should mention September’s employment report that was released two weeks ago (Chart 9). It is certainly positive that the unemployment rate continues to fall, but the main takeaway for bond investors should be that the US economy remains far from full employment, and therefore far away from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. While the unemployment rate fell for the fifth consecutive month, it is now dropping much less quickly than it did early in the summer (Chart 9, panel 2). Also, we continue to note that labor market gains are entirely concentrated in temporarily unemployed people returning to work. The number of permanently unemployed continues to rise (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Appendix The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”, dated October 9, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on these recommended positions please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Note that we use the US Credit Index in Charts 6A and 6B. This index includes the entire US corporate bond index but also some non-corporate credit sectors like Sovereigns and Foreign Agency bonds. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Out Of Bullets”, dated September 29, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Both public opinion polls and betting markets suggest that Joe Biden will become President, with the Democrats gaining control of the Senate and retaining the House of Representatives. Such a “blue wave” would have mixed effects on the value of the S&P 500. On the one hand, corporate taxes would rise under a Biden administration. On the other hand, trade relations with China would improve. The Democrats would also push for more fiscal stimulus, which the stock market would welcome. The odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. In a blue wave scenario, the Democrats will enact $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion in pandemic relief shortly after Inauguration Day. Joe Biden‘s platform also calls for around 3% of GDP in additional spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Unlike in late 2016, the Fed is in no mood to raise interest rates. Large-scale fiscal easing will push down the value of the US dollar, while giving bond yields a modest boost. Non-US stocks will outperform their US peers. Value stocks will outperform growth stocks. Looking further out, Republicans will move to the left on economic issues, leaving corporate America with no clear backer among the two major parties. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade. Look, Here's The Deal: Joe Biden Is In The Lead With four weeks remaining until the US presidential election, Joe Biden remains on course to become the 46th president of the United States. According to recent public opinion polls, the former vice president leads Donald Trump by 10 percentage points nationwide, and by 4 points in battleground states (Chart 1). Far fewer voters are undecided today compared to 2016. This suggests that there is less scope for President Trump to narrow his deficit in the polls. Betting markets give Biden a 68% chance of prevailing in the race for the White House (Chart 2). They also assign a 67% probability that the Democrats will take control of the Senate and 89% odds that they will retain their majority in the House of Representatives. Chart 1Opinion Polls Favor Biden ... Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Chart 2.... As Do Betting Markets Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave   Mixed Impact On The S&P 500 What would the market implications of a “blue wave” be? Our sense is that the overall impact on the value of the S&P 500 would be small, largely because some negative repercussions from a Democratic sweep would be offset by positive repercussions. On the negative side, Biden has pledged to raise the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He has also promised to introduce a minimum of 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and lift payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. Together, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. On the positive side, while geopolitical tensions will persist, US trade relations with China would likely improve if Joe Biden were to become the president. Biden has roundly criticized Trump’s tariffs, saying that they are “crushing farmers” and “hitting a lot of American manufacturing… choking it to within an inch of its life.”1 He has pledged to honor multilateral agreements. The World Trade Organization concluded on September 15 that Trump’s tariffs violated international trade rules. This judgement and the desire to turn the page on the Trump era could give Biden the impetus to eventually roll back some of the tariffs. In contrast, having been stricken by what he has called the “China virus,” Trump could take things personally and retaliate with a flurry of new punitive measures.  Fiscal policy would be further loosened in a blue wave scenario, an outcome that the stock market would welcome. Voters would also applaud more pandemic relief. Table 1 shows that 72% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, support the broader contours of the $2 trillion stimulus package that President Trump has rejected. Table 1Voters Support A New $2 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Package By A Fairly Wide Margin Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave At this point, the odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. If Biden wins and the Republicans lose control of the senate, the Democrats would likely enact a stimulus package worth $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion shortly after Inauguration Day on January 20. In addition to pandemic-related stimulus, Joe Biden has called for around 3% of GDP in spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Only about half of those expenditures would be matched by higher taxes, implying substantial net stimulus for the economy. A Weaker Dollar And Modestly Higher Bond Yields The greenback jumped on Tuesday after President Trump said he is breaking off negotiations with the Democrats over a new stimulus bill. This suggests that the dollar will weaken if fiscal policy is loosened. If that were to happen, it would be different from what transpired following Trump’s victory in 2016 when the dollar strengthened. Why the disconnect between now and then? The answer has to do with the outlook for monetary policy. Back then, the Fed was primed to start raising rates again – it hiked rates eight times beginning in December 2016, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to 2.5% by end-2018 (Chart 3). This time around, the Fed is firmly on hold, with the vast majority of FOMC members expecting policy rates to stay at rock-bottom levels until at least 2023. This suggests that nominal bond yields will rise less than they did in late 2016. Since inflation expectations will likely move up in response to more stimulative fiscal policy, real yields will rise even less than nominal yields. Over the past 18 months, US real rates have fallen a lot more in relation to rates abroad than what one would have expected based on the fairly modest depreciation in the US dollar (Chart 4). If US real rates remain entrenched deep in negative territory, while the US current account deficit widens further on the back of strong domestic demand, the dollar will continue to weaken. Chart 3Trump Victory Was Followed By Rising Interest Rates Trump Victory Was Followed By Rising Interest Rates Trump Victory Was Followed By Rising Interest Rates Chart 4A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials   Favor Non-US And Value Stocks Non-US stocks typically outperform their US peers when the dollar is weakening (Chart 5). This partly stems from the fact that cyclical stocks are overrepresented in stock markets outside of the United States. It also reflects the fact that cash flows denominated in say, euros or yen, are worth more in dollars if the value of the dollar declines. Chart 5A Weaker Dollar Tends To Benefit Cyclical And Non-US Stocks A Weaker Dollar Tends To Benefit Cyclical And Non-US Stocks A Weaker Dollar Tends To Benefit Cyclical And Non-US Stocks Financial stocks are overrepresented outside the US (Table 2). They are also overrepresented in value indices (Table 3). While a Biden administration would subject the largest US banks to additional regulatory scrutiny, the impact on their bottom lines would likely be small. US banks have been living under the shadows of the Dodd-Frank Act for over a decade. Today, banks operate more as stable utilities than as cavalier casinos. Table 2Financials Are Overrepresented In Ex-US Indexes, While Tech Dominates The US Market Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Table 3Financials Are Overrepresented In Value, While Tech Dominates Growth Indexes Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Stronger stimulus-induced growth next year will allow many banks to release some of the hefty provisions against bad loans that they built up this year, while modestly steeper yields curves will boost net interest margins. Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices. Better trade relations would help US tech companies, as would a weaker dollar. That said, Joe Biden’s plan to increase taxes on overseas profits would hit tech companies disproportionately hard since the tech sector derives over half its revenue from outside the United States. Stepped up antitrust enforcement and more stringent privacy rules could also weigh on tech profits. On balance, while there are many moving parts, a Democratic sweep would favor non-US equities over US equities, and value stocks over growth stocks. Trumpism Transcends Trump Chart 6Trump Targeted Socially Conservative Voters Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave In 2016, we bucked the consensus view that Hillary Clinton would win the election. On September 30, 2016, we predicted that “Trump will win and the dollar will rally,” noting that “Trump has seen a huge (yuge?) increase in support among working-class whites. If the so-called “likely voters” backing Clinton are, in fact, less likely to turn out at the polls than those backing Trump, this could skew the final outcome in Trump's favor.”2 Right-wing populism was the $1 trillion bill lying on the sidewalk that no mainstream Republican politician seemed eager to pick up. According to the Voter Study Group, only 4% of the US electorate identified as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in 2016, compared to 29% who saw themselves as fiscally liberal and socially conservative (Chart 6). The latter group had no political home, at least until Donald Trump came along. Rather than waxing poetically about small government conservatism – as most establishment Republicans were wont to do – Trump railed against mass immigration, unfair trade deals, rising crime, never-ending wars, and what he described as out-of-control political correctness. While Trump was able to carry out parts of his protectionist agenda, most of his other actions fell well short of what he had promised. His only major legislative achievement was a massive tax cut for corporations and wealthy individuals – something that the vast majority of his base never asked for. The Rich Are Flocking To The Democratic Party How did corporations and wealthy Americans reward Trump for lowering their taxes? By shifting their allegiances towards the Democrats, that’s how. According to the Pew Research Center, households earning more than $150,000 favored Democrats by 20 percentage points during the 2018 Congressional elections, a 13-point jump from 2016. Households earning between $30,000 and $149,999 favored Democrats by only 6 points in 2018. The only other income group that strongly favored Democrats were those earning less than $30,000 per year (Table 4). Table 4Democratic Candidates Had Wide Advantages Among The Highest-And-Lowest Income Voters Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Chart 7Democratic Districts Have Fared Better Over The Past Decade Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Other data tell a similar story. Median household income in Democratic congressional districts rose by 13% between 2008 and 2017. It fell by 4% in Republican districts. Today, on average, Republican districts have a median income that is 13% below Democratic districts (Chart 7). Campaign donations have shifted towards the Democrats. The latest monthly fundraising data shows that the Biden campaign received three times more large-dollar contributions in total than the Trump campaign. The nation’s CEOs have not been immune from this transformation. Seventy-seven percent of the business leaders surveyed by the Yale School of Management on September 23 said they would be voting for Joe Biden.3   As elites desert the Republican Party, will the Democratic Party start championing lower taxes and less regulation? That seems unlikely. According to the Voter Study Group, higher-income Democrats are actually more likely to support raising taxes on families earning more than $200,000 per year than lower-income Democrats (83% versus 79%). Among Republicans, the opposite is true: 45% of lower-income Republicans are in favor of raising taxes, compared to only 23% of higher-income Republicans.4  There used to be a time when companies tried to steer clear of the political limelight. This is starting to change. As the relative purchasing power of Democratic voters has risen, many companies have become emboldened to adopt overtly political stances on a variety of hot-button social and cultural issues, even if those stances alienate many conservative customers.  What does this imply for investors? If big business abandons conservative voters, conservative voters will abandon big business. Corporate America will be left with no clear backer among the two major parties. Over the long haul, this is likely to be bad news for equity investors. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  “Biden Takes On ‘Trump’s Tariffs’,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2019. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Three (New) Controversial Calls,” dated September 30, 2016. 3 “CEO Caucus Survey: Business Leaders Fault Trump Administration on COVID and China,” Yale School of Management, September 24, 2020. 4 Lee Drutman, Vanessa Williamson, Felicia Wong, “On the Money: How Americans’ Economic Views Define — and Defy — Party Lines,” votersstudygroup.org, June 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Current MacroQuant Model Scores Market Implications Of A Blue Wave Market Implications Of A Blue Wave

Highlights President Trump is waffling on fiscal relief. Our constraints-based framework still points to a deal, but the odds have clearly fallen. US and global stocks have rallied despite the fiscal failure. Markets evidently believe stimulus is coming regardless, particularly if Democrats win a blue sweep – our base case election scenario. However, our quantitative election model has boosted Republican odds, flagging a major risk to the blue sweep scenario. Moreover a blue sweep will remove checks and balances on the new administration and thus bring negative surprises that the market is underrating. We maintain our tactical risk-off positioning on the expectation of another leg of election-related volatility. Over a 12-month time horizon we remain invested in reflation plays. Feature Financial markets came around to our “blue sweep” base case for the US election this week. Betting markets shifted sharply after the first presidential debate (Chart 1). Support for Biden surged in national opinion polls while Trump dropped off, albeit to a lesser extent in swing states. Worryingly for the White House, the few polls taken since Trump took ill with COVID-19 on October 2 do not show a sympathy bounce for the president (Chart 2). Chart 1Consensus Forms Around ‘Blue Sweep’ Base Case It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Chart 2Trump Takes A Dive With Little Time On Clock It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over In a very dangerous turn for the president’s re-election chances, Trump discontinued negotiations with House Democrats over a fiscal relief bill, promising to pass a large new stimulus after the election. Partially walking back those comments, he said he would sign any targeted stimulus bills that Congress sends him in the meantime (such as a new round of $1,200 rebates for households). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot down the option of a skinny bill, as we have argued she would. Now they are going back and forth. While the S&P 500 rallied on the news, other reflation trades like US cyclicals, oil, and silver show the risk of premature fiscal tightening (Chart 3). Investors may have to wait until late January until getting a new infusion of government support. Chart 3Lack Of Stimulus Still A Risk To Reflation Trades Lack Of Stimulus Still A Risk To Reflation Trades Lack Of Stimulus Still A Risk To Reflation Trades Chart 4Market Rally Not Based On Blue Sweep Odds Market Rally Not Based On Blue Sweep Odds Market Rally Not Based On Blue Sweep Odds True, a fiscal deal could be passed in the lame duck session in November or December, but Republican Senators unwilling to pony up around $500 billion to bail out blue states – when they face a possible wipeout in a historic election – will be even less willing if they lose the election. They will be more hawkish since they will want to pin deficits on the Democrats in future. If Republicans retain control of the Senate despite the latest news – which is possible, especially given the Democratic candidate’s new vulnerability in the North Carolina race due to a sex scandal – then investors have two years of fiscal hawkishness to contend with. Diagram 1 highlights the market implications of this Senate risk. Diagram 1Scenarios For US Election Outcomes And Market Impacts It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over So we need to look elsewhere to explain why the market rallied when odds of a fiscal deal fell. The above reasoning leaves us with the following options: The economy is recovering so robustly that new fiscal stimulus is unnecessary. This is not the view of Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, who all but pleaded for Congress to conclude a deal to secure the recovery, or of other mainstream economists. Stimulus is coming regardless of election outcome. Congress will be forced to support the country during a slump. Debt monetization is the relevant point, even if there is a month-or-two delay in stimulus. Financial markets are cheering the higher odds of a Democratic clean sweep of Congress and the White House since it implies fiscal largesse. The market may already have discounted some of the impending tax hikes over the past month. The second explanation is the best but the third is rapidly becoming the new consensus on Wall Street. Chart 4 suggests there is no connection between the S&P rally and the odds of a blue sweep. With the Fed pursuing “maximum employment” and average inflation targeting, it makes sense that the real mover in the macro landscape has become fiscal policy. Hence the outcome that produces the most proactive fiscal policy is positive for financial markets. A blue sweep is verification of the shift toward debt monetization, which is missing from option two above. The problem is that a blue sweep also brings downside risks. Domestic policy uncertainty will only fall temporarily after the election if there is a blue sweep. Checks and balances will vanish. Eventually Democrats will become overweening in their policy agenda, delivering negative surprises to financial markets. A “New Deal”-style policy agenda would weigh on the corporate earnings outlook. For example, Democrats have refused to forswear removing the filibuster or stacking the Supreme Court, both of which would lie in their power and either of which would enable them to pass an ambitious “New Deal”-style policy agenda that would bring unforeseen consequences – largely in the direction of wealth redistribution away from corporations. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Redistribution would start to correct US social and economic imbalances, improve middle class spending power, and boost consumption – but it would first weigh on the corporate earnings outlook. Net profit growth, which grew by 16% above what was otherwise expected due to the Trump tax cuts (Chart 5), could suffer more than the expected 11% one-off contraction (Table 1), as our US equity strategist Anastasios Avgeriou has shown. Chart 5Partial Repeal Of Trump Tax Cut Bad For Earnings Partial Repeal Of Trump Tax Cut Bad For Earnings Partial Repeal Of Trump Tax Cut Bad For Earnings New proposals will also emerge that the market is not taking account of. To take just the latest example, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen recently stated that the US could adopt a $40 per ton tax on carbon emissions under a Biden administration.1This proposal is not part of Biden’s official plan, hence not priced by markets along with Biden’s expected tax hikes (Table 2). But control of the Senate would make it a real option given Biden’s ambitious climate goals. Table 2Biden Needs Senate To Raise Taxes It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Consumer confidence in the US will suffer from political polarization. Recall that in 2016, the economy was in fine shape but Republicans did not believe it, weighing down the average until President Trump won the election. Today the economy is in a slump but Republicans may not recognize the bad news until President Trump loses. Democrats, for their part, will suddenly abandon their doom and gloom if Biden wins the election. Applying a comparable partisan shock to consumer confidence for 2021 would suggest that overall confidence will be lackluster (Chart 6). At least this is true until the passage of new stimulus and an advancing recovery outweigh the partisan effect. Chart 6Biden Will Not Recreate Trump Confidence Boost It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over A similar case can be made that small business sentiment will worsen in a blue sweep scenario. Fear of higher regulation and taxes will spike and weigh on animal spirits (Chart 7). Historically the first year after an election sees smaller equity upside and larger downside with unified government as opposed to divided government (Chart 8). If this time is different it is because of the sea change in the US to embrace debt monetization. But that sea change occurred under a Republican administration and is likely to persist due to the output gap. Chart 7SMEs Will Fear Blue Wave SMEs Will Fear Blue Wave SMEs Will Fear Blue Wave Chart 8Stock Market Profile Fits Divided Government, Which Has More Upside Stock Market Profile Fits Divided Government, Which Has More Upside Stock Market Profile Fits Divided Government, Which Has More Upside A Republican Senate under a Biden presidency would bring higher fiscal risk, but the truth is that neither trade war risks nor corporate taxes would go up, yet Republicans would eventually have to concede to spending bills (just as Democrats did under Trump). Hence divided government is not as negative as it is made out to be as it contains mostly known quantities, whereas a blue sweep would lead the US in a redistributionist direction that is initially disruptive. Relative to divided government, it would be positive for aggregate demand but negative for corporate earnings. Bottom Line: US and global equities will rise over the coming 12 months on the back of eventual US stimulus and ongoing global stimulus. A blue sweep is our base case election outcome but it brings mixed results. Global equities would benefit more than US equities which will face a spike in taxes and regulation. US equities will still rise but they face more upside under a divided government in which Republicans halt tax hikes. Supreme Court Confirmation Looms Of course, a blue sweep outcome is not guaranteed. Indeed the fact that it is now consensus makes us nervous, as there are still 26 days until the election. Our quantitative election model gives the Republicans a 49% chance of winning the White House on the back of the V-shaped recovery in the states, which delivers Florida to the Republican camp, leaving Trump with 259 Electoral College votes (Chart 9). This probability is well above our subjective 35% judgment and the new market consensus on Trump’s odds. Chart 9Quant Election Model Gives Trump 259 Electoral College Votes And 49% Odds Of Victory It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Trump’s decision to break off the fiscal talks probably sealed his doom, but we would still maintain that a correct reading of the various political and economic constraints point toward a fiscal deal. Hence there is still some chance that a deal will be snatched from the jaws of defeat. At that point we would upgrade Trump’s chances to something closer to our election model. But it would not be bullish, as the market would need to price a higher risk of trade war. Subjectively Trump has a 35% chance of re-election, but our quant model flags a risk to this view. The market also must contend with COVID-19 risks (Charts 10A and 10B). Stimulus is necessary to prevent COVID-19 risks from hitting the market, as more distancing will be necessary in states where cases are rising. Chart 10ACOVID-19 Cases Rising It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Chart 10BCOVID-19 Hits Swing States It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over The reason President Trump cut short the fiscal talks was to ensure that they would not interfere with the Senate’s ability to confirm his Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The confirmation hearings will go up for a floor vote in the Senate sometime around October 23, ensuring a massive constitutional brawl just ahead of the election. The dollar has more upside if Trump wins. Chart 11Risk: Trump Comeback Boosts The Greenback Risk: Trump Comeback Boosts The Greenback Risk: Trump Comeback Boosts The Greenback We do not expect this showdown to change the game, since boosting turnout among Trump’s conservative base will be insufficient in an election fought in the face of major national shocks that affect the median voter (pandemic, recession, social unrest). This election is already going to be a high turnout election – preliminary information suggests it could be the highest since 1908 at 65% of eligible voters2 — which means that Republicans will suffer from the leftward tilt of the median voter. However, if Trump’s polling improves between now and then – and if mFarkets inexplicably rally all month despite the withdrawal of fiscal support – then we could be surprised. Our quantitative model provides a basis for believing that Republicans are now underrated. This implies that the dollar has more upside in the near term as the risk of a contested election and/or a Trump second term, and hence another shock to the US political system and global trading system, must still be guarded against (Chart 11). Investment Takeaways The market faces near-term downside risk and volatility until the US fiscal support is restored. This is particularly the case as long as COVID-19 cases are not subdued. The rising odds of a blue sweep, our base case, is not sufficient to dampen volatility over the coming month. Depending on the election results, volatility will subside in November or January at the latest. Not only is a contested election a non-negligible risk – based on our quant model’s reading – but also President Trump will remain in office till January 20 and could easily dish out some negative surprises, particularly on China relations. Hence we are maintaining our tactical risk-off and safe-haven trades: long US treasuries, Japanese yen, US health care equipment stocks (which will outperform the overall sector amid the Democratic regulatory threat), and EUR-GBP volatility. Over the 12-month time frame, we have little doubt that the US adoption of debt monetization, in keeping with Chinese and global stimulus, will push equities and risky assets higher. The reflation trade remains the core of our strategic portfolio. Global stocks should outperform under a Biden presidency. Biden will be positive for global trade ex-China, as both US electoral politics and grand strategy will drive any administration to take a hard line on China, though Biden will not wield tariffs like Trump.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Matthew Green, "U.S. could adopt carbon tax under a Biden presidency, ex-Fed Chair Yellen says," Reuters, October 8, 2020, reuters.com; see also Group of Thirty, "Mainstreaming The Transition To A Net-Zero Economy," October 2020, group30.org. 2 See John Whitesides, "More than 4 million Americans have already voted, suggesting record turnout," Reuters, October 6, 2020, reuters.com.