Geopolitics

Dear Client, The US Capitol is going on lockdown as we write to introduce BCA Research’s newest investment service, US Political Strategy, in this inaugural report. US Political Strategy will provide timely and actionable policy insights for US-dedicated, multi-asset investors. It grew naturally out of our successful Geopolitical Strategy service, which has become an industry leader in combining geopolitical and market analysis over the past decade. By client demand, we are expanding our policy team and deepening our coverage of policy-induced macro and market themes and trends. US Political Strategy will delve deep into domestic US politics: executive orders, Capitol Hill, regulatory risk, the Supreme Court, emerging socioeconomic trends, and their impacts on key US sectors and assets. Meanwhile, Geopolitical Strategy will redouble its focus on truly global and geopolitical risks and opportunities, including US foreign and trade policy but more especially China, Europe, and other major markets. Both strategies utilize our proprietary analytical framework, which relies on data-driven assessments of the “checks and balances” that shape policy outcomes. As with all our research, we are agnostic about political parties, transparent about our conviction levels and scenario probabilities, and solely focused on actionable investment advice. For more information please visit the US Political Strategy webpage. For a free trial please reach out to your BCA Research account manager or email contactbca@bcaresearch.com. We trust you will find this enhancement of coverage insightful and profitable. Happy New Year! All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President BCA Research   The outgoing Trump administration is powerless to stop the presidential transition and the US military and security forces will not participate in any “coup.” Investors should buy the dip if social instability affects the markets between now and President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day. Democrats have achieved a sweep of US government with two victories in Georgia’s Senate election. The Biden administration is no longer destined for paralysis. Investors no longer need fear a premature tightening of US fiscal policy. Fiscal thrust will expand by around 6.9% of GDP more than it otherwise would have in FY2021 and contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022. Democrats will partly repeal the Trump tax cuts to pay for new spending programs, including an expansion and entrenchment of Obamacare. Big Tech is the most exposed to the combination of higher corporate taxes and inflation expectations. Investors should go long risk assets and reflation plays on a 12-month basis. We recommend value over growth stocks, materials over tech, TIPS over nominal treasuries, infrastructure plays, and municipal bonds. The special US Senate elections in Georgia produced a two-seat victory for Democrats on January 5 and have thus given the Democratic Party de facto control of the Senate.Financial markets have awaited this election with bated breath. The “reflation trade” – bets on economic recovery on the back of ultra-dovish monetary and fiscal policy – had taken a pause for the election. There was a slight setback in treasury yields and the outperformance of cyclical, small cap, and value stocks, which rallied sharply after the November 3 general election (Chart 1). The Democratic victory ensures that US corporate and individual taxes will go up – triggering a one-off drop in earnings per share of about 11%, according to our US Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou (Table 1). But it also brings more proactive fiscal policy. Since the Democrats project larger new spending programs financed by tax hikes, the big takeaway is that the US economic recovery will gain momentum and will not be undermined by premature fiscal tightening. Chart 1Markets Will Look Through Unrest To Reflation   Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Chart 2Democrats Won Georgia Seats, US Senate Republicans Snatch Defeat From Jaws Of Victory The results of the Georgia runoffs, at the latest count, are shown in Chart 2. Republican Senator David Perdue has not yet officially lost the race, as votes are still being tallied, but he trails his Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff by 16,370 votes. This is a gap that is unlikely to be changed by subsequent vote disputes or recounts (though it is possible and the results are not yet declared as we go to press). President-elect Joe Biden only lost 1,274 votes to President Trump when ballots were recounted by hand in November. The Democratic victory offers some slight consolation for opinion pollsters who underestimated Republicans in the general election in certain states. Opinion polls had shown a dead heat in both of Georgia’s races, with Republican Senators Perdue and Kelly Loeffler deviating by 1.4% and 0.4% respectively from their support rate in the average of polls in December. Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock differed by 1.3% and 2.3% from their final polling (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3AOpinion Pollsters Did Better … Chart 3B… In Georgia Runoffs By comparison, in the November 3 general election, polls underestimated Perdue by 1.3% and overestimated Warnock by 5.3% (Chart 4). On the whole, the election shows that state-level opinion polling can improve to address new challenges. Our quantitative Senate election model had given Republicans a 78% chance of winning Georgia. This they did in the first round of the election, but conditions have changed since November 3, namely due to President Trump’s refusal to concede the election after the Electoral College voted on December 14.1 Our model is based on structural factors so it did not distinguish between the two Senate candidates in the same state. For the whole election, the model predicted that Democrats would win a net of three seats, resulting in a Republican majority of 51-49. Today we see that the model only missed two states: Maine and Georgia. But Georgia has made all the difference, with the result to be 50-50, for Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie (Chart 5). Chart 4Ossoff In Line With Polls, Warnock Slightly Beat Chart 5Our Quant Model Missed Maine And Georgia – And Georgia Carries Two Seats To Turn The Senate COVID-19 likely took a further toll on Republican support in the interim between the two election rounds. The third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has not peaked in the US or the Peach State. While the number of cases has spiked in Georgia as elsewhere, the number of deaths has not yet followed (Chart 6). Chart 6COVID-19 Surged Since November Lame Duck Trump Risk Before proceeding to the policy impacts of the apparent Democratic sweep of both executive and legislative branches, a word must be said about the presidential transition and President Trump’s final 14 days in office. First, the Joint Session of Congress to count the Electoral College ballots to certify the election of the new US president has been interrupted as we go to press. There is zero chance that protesters storming the proceedings will change the outcome of the election. The counting of the electoral votes can be interrupted for debate; it will be reconvened. Disputes over the vote could theoretically become meaningful if Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, as the combined voice of the legislature could challenge the legitimacy of a state’s electoral votes. But today the Republicans only control the Senate, and while some will press isolated challenges, based on legal disputes of variable merit, these challenges will not gain traction in the Senate let alone in the Democratic-controlled House. What did the US learn from this controversial election? US political polarization is reaching extreme peaks which are putting strain on the formal political system, but Trump lacks the strength in key government bodies to overturn the election. Second, there was no willingness of state legislatures to challenge their state executives on the vote results. This has to do with the evidence upon which challenges could be lodged, but there is also a built-in constraint. Any state legislature whose ruling party opposes the popular result will by definition put its own popular support in jeopardy in the next election. Third, the Supreme Court largely washed its hands of state-level disputes settled by state-level courts. Historically, the Supreme Court never played a role in presidential elections. The year 2000 was an exception, as the high court said at the time. The 2020 election has established a high bar for any future Supreme Court involvement, though someday it will likely be called on to weigh in. Hysteria regarding the conservative leaning on the court – which is now a three-seat gap – was misplaced. The three Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump took no partisan or interventionist role. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative leaning will be one of the Trump administration’s biggest legacies. The marginal judge in controversial cases is now more conservative and will take a larger role given that Democrats now have a greater ability to pass legislation by taking the Senate. President Trump is still in office for 14 days. There is zero chance of a successful military coup or anything of the sort in a republic in which institutions are strong and the military swears allegiance to the constitution. Attempts to oppose the Electoral College and Congress will be opposed – and ultimately they will be met with an overwhelming reassertion of the rule of law. All ten of the surviving secretaries of defense of the United States have signed an open letter saying that the election results should no longer be resisted and that any defense officials who try to involve the military in settling electoral disputes could be criminally liable.2 With Trump’s options for contesting the election foreclosed, he will turn to signing a flurry of executive orders to cement his legacy. His primary legacy is the US confrontation with China, so he will continue to impose sanctions on China on the way out, posing a tactical risk to equity prices. The business community will be slow to comply, however, so the next administration will set China policy. There is a small possibility that Trump will order economic or even military action against Iran or any other state that provokes the United States. But Trump is opposed to foreign wars and the bureaucracy would obstruct any major actions that do not conform with national interests. Basically, Trump’s final 14 days may pose a downside risk to equities that have rallied sharply since the November 9 vaccine announcement but we are long equities and reflation plays. Sweeps Just As Good For Stocks As Gridlock The balance of power in Congress is shown in Chart 7. The majorities are extremely thin, which means that although Democrats now have control, there will remain high uncertainty over the passage of legislation, at least until the 2022 midterm elections. Investors can now draw three solid conclusions about the makeup of US government from the 2020 election: The White House’s political capital has substantially improved – President-elect Joe Biden no longer faces a divided Congress. He won by a 4.5% popular margin (51.4% of the total), bringing the popular and electoral vote back into alignment. He will have a higher net approval rating than Trump in general, and household sentiment, business sentiment, and economic conditions will improve from depressed, pandemic-stricken levels over the course of his term. The Senate is evenly split but Democrats will pass some major legislation – Thin margins in the Senate make it hard to pass legislation in general. However, the budget reconciliation process enables laws to pass with a simple majority if they involve fiscal matters. Hence, Democrats will be able to legislate additional COVID relief and social support that they were not able to pass in the end-of-year budget bill. They can pass a reconciliation bill for fiscal 2022 as well. They will focus on economic recovery followed by expanding and entrenching the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). We fully expect a partial repeal of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, if not initially then later in the year. Democrats only have a five-seat majority in the House of Representatives – Democrats will vote with their party and thus 222 seats is enough to maintain a working majority. But the most radical parts of the agenda, such as the Green New Deal, will be hard to pass. Chart 7Democrats Control Both Houses With the thinnest possible margin, the Senate has a highly unreliable balance of power. Table 2 shows top three Republicans and Democrats in terms of age, centrist ideology, and independent mentality. Four senators are above the age of 85 – they can vote freely and could also retire or pass away. Centrist and maverick senators will carry enormous weight as they will provide the decisive votes. The obvious example is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has opposed the far-left wing of his party on critical issues such as the Green New Deal, defunding the police, and the filibuster. Table 2The Senate Will Hinge On These Senators The Democrats could conceivably muster the 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote majority to pass most legislation, but it will be very difficult. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D, CA), Angus King (I, ME), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), Jon Tester (D, MT), and Manchin are all skeptical of revoking this critical hurdle to Senate legislation.3 We would not rule it out, however. The US has reached a point of “peak polarization” in which surprises should be expected. By the same token, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins often vote against their party. Collins just won yet another tough race in Maine due to her ability to bridge the partisan gap. There are also mavericks like Rand Paul – and Ted Cruz will have to rethink his populist strategy given his thin margins of victory and the Trump-induced Republican defeat in the South. Not shown are other moderates who will be eager to cross the political aisle, such as Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. None of the above means Democrats will fail to raise taxes. All Democrats voted against Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which did not end up being popular or politically beneficial for the Republicans. The Democratic base is fired up and mobilized by Trump to pursue its core agenda of increasing the government role in US society and the economy and redressing various imbalances and disparities. This requires revenue, especially if it is to be done with only 51 votes via the budget reconciliation process. The two Democratic senators from Arizona are vulnerable, but they will toe the party line because Trump and the GOP were out of step with the median voter. Moreover, Arizonians voted for higher taxes in a state ballot measure in November. Since 1980, gridlocked government has resulted in higher average annual returns on the S&P500. But since 1949, single-party sweeps have slightly edged out gridlocked governments in stock returns, though the results are about the same (Chart 8). The point is that gridlock makes it hard for government to get big things done. Sometimes that is positive for markets, sometimes not. The macro backdrop is what matters. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to start tightening until late 2022 at earliest and fiscal thrust in 2021-22 will be more expansionary now that the Democrats have control of the Senate. This policy backdrop is negative for the dollar and positive for risk assets, especially equity sectors that will suffer least from impending corporate tax hikes, such as energy, industrials, consumer staples, materials, and financials. Chart 8Sweeps Don’t Always Underperform Gridlock Meanwhile, Biden will have far less trouble getting his cabinet and judicial appointments through the Senate (Appendix). His appointees so far reflect his desire to return the US to “rule by experts,” as opposed to Trump’s disruptive style of personal rule. Investors will cheer the return to technocrats and predictable policymaking even if they later relearn that experts make gigantic mistakes too. Fiscal Policy Outlook The critical feature of the Trump administration was the COVID-19 pandemic, which sent the US budget deficit soaring to World War II levels relative to GDP. In the coming years, the change in the budget deficit (fiscal thrust) will necessarily be negative, dragging on growth rates (Chart 9). Fiscal policy determines how heavy and abrupt that drag will be. Chart 9US Budget Deficit Surged – Pace Of Normalization Matters Chart 10 presents four scenarios that we adjusted based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline would see an extraordinary 6.7% of GDP contraction in the budget deficit that would kill the recovery, which the Georgia outcome has now rendered irrelevant. The “Republican Status Quo” scenario is now the minimum. Chart 10Democratic Sweep Suggests Big Fiscal Thrust In FY2021 And Less Contraction FY2022 The “Democratic Status Quo” scenario assumes that the $600 per household rebate will be increased to $2,000 per family and that the remaining $2.5 trillion of the Democrats’ proposed HEROES Act will be enacted. The “Democratic High” scenario adds Biden’s $5.6 trillion policy agenda on top of the Democratic status quo, supercharging the economic recovery with a fiscal bonanza. Biden will not achieve all of this, so the reality will lie somewhere between the solid blue and dotted blue lines. This Democratic status quo implies a 6.9% of GDP expansion of the deficit in FY2021. It also implies that the deficit will contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022, instead of 13.5% in the Republican status quo scenario. The economic recovery will be better supported. So, too, will the Fed’s timeline for rate hikes – but the Fed’s new strategy of average inflation targeting shows that it is targeting an inflation overshoot. So the threat of Fed liftoff is not immediate. The longer the extraordinary fiscal largesse is maintained, the greater the impact on inflation expectations and the more upward pressure on bond yields (Chart 11). Big Tech will be the one to suffer while Big Banks, industrials, materials, and energy will benefit. Chart 11Bond Bearish Blue Sweep Our US Political Risk Matrix There is no correlation between fiscal thrust and equity returns. This is true whether we consider the broad market, cyclicals/defensives, value/growth stocks, or small/large caps (Chart 12). Normally, fiscal thrust surges when recessions and bear markets occur, leading to volatility in asset prices. However, in the new monetary policy context, the risk is to the upside for the above-mentioned sectors, styles, and segments. Looking at sector performance before and after the November 3 election and November 9 vaccine announcement, there has been a clear shift from pandemic losers to pandemic winners. Big Tech and Consumer Discretionary (Amazon) thrived during the period before the vaccine, while value stocks (industrials, energy, financials) suffered the most from the lockdowns. These trends have reversed, with energy and financials outperforming the market since November (Chart 13). The Biden administration poses regulatory risks for Big Oil and arguably Big Banks, but these will come into play after the market has priced in economic normalization and the emerging consensus in favor of monetary-fiscal policy coordination, which is very positive for these sectors. Chart 12Fiscal Thrust Not Correlated With Stocks Chart 13Energy And Financials Turned Around With Vaccine In the case of energy, as stated above, the Biden administration will still struggle to get anything resembling the Green New Deal approved in Congress. Nevertheless, environmental regulation will expand and piecemeal measures to promote research and development, renewables, electric vehicles, and other green initiatives may pass. Large cap energy firms are capable of adjusting to this kind of transition. Coal companies are obviously losers. In the case of financials, Biden’s record is not unfriendly to the financial industry. His nominee for Treasury Secretary, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen, approved of the relaxation of some of its more stringent financial regulations under the Trump administration. Big Banks are no longer the target of popular animus like they were after the 2008 financial crisis – in that regard they have given way to Big Tech. Our US Investment Strategist Doug Peta argues that the Democratic sweep will smother any gathering momentum in personal loan defaults, which would help banks outperform the broad market. Biden’s regulatory approach to Big Tech will be measured, as the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley persists, but tech stands to suffer the most from higher taxes, especially a minimum corporate tax rate. With a unified Congress, it is also now possible that new legislation could expand tech regulation. There is a bipartisan consensus emerging on tech regulation so Republican votes can be garnered. Tech thrives on growth-scarce, disinflationary environments whereas the latest developments are positive for inflation expectations. In the recent lead-up to the Georgia vote, industrials, financials, and consumer discretionary stocks have not benefited much, even though they should (Chart 14). These are investment opportunities. Chart 14Upside For Energy And Financials Despite Regulatory Risk In our Political Risk Matrix, we establish these views as our baseline political tilts, to be applied to the BCA Research House View of our US Equity Strategy. The results are shown in Table 3. When equity sectors become technically stretched, the political impacts will become more salient. Table 3US Political Risk Matrix Investment Takeaways Over the past few years our sister Geopolitical Strategy has written extensively about “Civil War Lite,” “Peak Polarization,” and contested elections in the United States. We will dive deeper into these themes and issues in forthcoming reports, but for now suffice it to say that extremist events will galvanize the majority of the nation behind the new administration while also driving politicians of both stripes to use pork-barrel spending to try to stabilize the country. Congress will err on the side of providing too much fiscal stimulus just as surely as the Fed is bent on erring on the side of providing too much monetary stimulus. That means reflation, which will ultimately boost stocks in 2021. We also expect stocks to outperform government bonds, at least on a tactical 3-6 month timeframe. As the above makes clear, we prefer value stocks over growth stocks. Specifically we favor cyclical plays like materials over the big five of Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook. An infrastructure bill was one of the few legislative options for the Biden administration under gridlock, now it is even more likely. Infrastructure is popular and both presidential candidates competed to see who could offer the bigger plan. Moreover, what Biden cannot achieve under the rubric of climate policy he can try to achieve under the rubric of infrastructure. The BCA US Infrastructure Basket correlates with the US budget deficit as well as growth in China/EM and we recommend investors pursue similar plays. In the fixed income space, Treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) are likely to continue outperforming nominal, duration-matched government bonds. Our US Bond Strategist Ryan Swift is on alert to downgrade this recommendation, but the change in US government configuration at least motivates a tactical overweight in TIPS. The chances of US state and local governments receiving fiscal support – previously denied by the GOP Senate – has increased so we will also go long municipal bonds relative to treasuries.   Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Perdue defeated Ossoff on November 3 but fell short of the 50% threshold to avoid a second round; meanwhile the cumulative Republican vote in the multi-candidate special election outnumbered the cumulative Democratic vote on November 3. 2     Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, et al, “All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory,” Washington Post, January 3, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 3    Jordain Carney, “Filibuster fight looms if Democrats retake Senate,” The Hill, August 25, 2020, thehill.com.  

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, Next week I will be presenting our 2021 outlook on China at our last webcasts of the year "China 2021 Key Views: Shifting Gears In The New Decade".  The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, December 16 at 10:00AM EST (English) and at 9:00 AM Beijing/HK/Taipei time, 12:00 PM Australian Eastern time (Mandarin). In addition, our final weekly publication for 2020 will be on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights Chinese policymakers have shifted their focus from supporting economic growth at all costs to risk management. The trend will likely gather speed in 2021. A deceleration in credit growth next year is almost a certainty. While policymakers will be data dependent and the slowdown will be managed, our baseline scenario suggests a decline of approximately three percentage points in credit impulse in 2021. Chinese stocks could still trend higher in Q1, but prices will falter as the market starts to price in a tighter policy environment and slower profit growth in 2H21. We recommend a tactical neutral stance in both the onshore and offshore markets.  We continue to favor Chinese government bonds on a cyclical basis, while gyrations in the onshore corporate bond market will endure for at least the next six months. Feature China’s economic growth momentum has strengthened in recent months, but the nation’s policy stance has also turned more hawkish. As set out in the 14th Five-Year Plan, 2021 will mark the beginning of a new era in which policymakers will switch gears from building a "moderately prosperous society" to becoming a "great modern socialist nation.” The pivot means China’s top officials may tolerate slower economic growth, implement tougher financial and industry regulations, and accelerate structural reforms by allowing more bankruptcies and industry consolidations. As we pointed out in our November 4, 2020 Strategy Report,1 external challenges combined with a stronger domestic leadership will allow China to initiate more meaningful reforms in the next decade than in the past ten years. The reforms will strengthen our structural view on China’s economy and financial assets, but this restructuring will create headwinds for growth in the short to medium term.  Therefore, investors should maintain low expectations for Chinese growth and financial asset prices. In 2021, credit growth will decelerate, regulations will be tightened and the “old economy” will moderate in the second half of the year.  We will discuss four main themes in our outlook for 2021. Key Theme #1: Macro Policy: Turning More Hawkish Government officials recently stepped up mention of financial risk containment in their public announcements, along with tightened industry regulations. Many market commentators are downplaying the risk of a tighter policy in 2021, citing China’s fragile recovery and a weak global economy. However, the current environment resembles the policy backdrop in late 2016/early 2017 when President Xi Jinping began his financial deleveraging campaign. Our policy framework suggests that China currently faces fewer constraints than in 2016/2017. Thus, the odds are high that the leaders will turn their tough rhetoric into action in the next six to twelve months.   Importantly, despite low year-over-year GDP growth, the pace of China’s domestic economic recovery has been faster than in 2016 (Chart 1). The PMIs in both the manufacturing and service sectors have been above the 50 percent boom-bust threshold for nine consecutive months (Chart 2). The laggards in the economy - manufacturing investment and household consumption - have been consistently improving (Chart 3). Bond yields have climbed sharply, but given that corporate bond issuance only accounts for 10% of total social financing, the economic impact from rising corporate bond yields has been more than offset by the large number of government bonds issued (Chart 4). Moreover, the recovery in China’s export sector and current account balance has fared surprisingly well this year, propelled by the global demand for medical supplies and stay-at-home electronic goods (Chart 5). Portfolio inflows also have been strong, fueling a rapid appreciation in the RMB.  Chart 1Current Economic Recovery In Better Shape Than In 2016 Chart 2PMI Remains Strong Chart 3The Laggards Are Catching Up Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus More Than Offset Tighter Monetary Stance Chart 5Exports Surged Chart 6Chinese Business Cycle Upswing Still Has Steam Looking forward, China’s economic recovery should continue for at least another two quarters due to this year’s credit expansion. Economic activities usually lag the turning points in credit growth by six to nine months (Chart 6). Moreover, headline economic data in 1H21 should be impressive, given the deep slump in domestic output during the same period in 2020. The strengthening economic data will provide China’s leadership with a long-awaited opportunity to focus on risk management. Chart 7A Mild Deflation Will Not Stop Policymakers From Reining In Stimulus Furthermore, the ongoing deflation in the ex-factory prices should not stop the authorities from scaling back policy support. It is worth noting that Xi’s administration doubled down on squeezing shadow banking activity in early 2017 when the CPI was decelerating; the PPI turned positive only due to a low base factor from deep contractions in 2016 (Chart 7). In this vein, as long as the deceleration in both the CPI and PPI does not drastically worsen, we think that policymakers will see less need to reflate the economy. China’s external environment will be less challenging in 2021 than in 2016/2017. Geopolitical tensions are set to ease, at least temporarily, with US President-elect Joe Biden taking office in January. This contrasts with 2016/2017 when President Xi began his financial deleveraging campaign despite increasing strain from then newly-elected President Donald Trump. In hindsight, Xi’s intention may have been to solidify China’s financial sector in preparation for a trade war with the US. The same logic can be applied to our view for next year: Xi will accelerate structure reforms to mitigate risk in the domestic economy before the Biden administration turns its focus to China. We do not think the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary next year will prevent Xi from adopting a hawkish policy bias either. Xi plowed ahead with tightening financial regulations in 2017 even as the ruling Communist Party Committee (CPC) was preparing for a generational leadership reshuffle. In the past two years, the escalation in US-China tensions has strengthened Xi’s power in the CPC and Chinese society. The recent large number of changes in provincial CPC leaders should help Xi to further consolidate his centralized power over local governments. All signs indicate that both the domestic and external landscapes should provide Xi with even more room to undertake reforms in 2021 compared with 2017. Key Theme #2: Stimulus: Deceleration Ahead A deceleration in both credit growth and fiscal support in 2021 is almost a certainty in light of the more hawkish tone by Chinese policymakers. Chart 8 shows that between 2017 and 2019, policymakers came close to stabilizing the macro leverage ratio, but the progress was more than reversed this year due to the pandemic. If policymakers are to allow the increase in the 2021 debt-to-GDP ratio to be within the range of the past four years, then credit may expand at a rate slightly above nominal GDP growth in 2021 (assuming nominal output growth at around 10-11% next year). This scenario, which is our baseline view, is in line with recent statements from the PBoC, which calls for aligning credit growth with nominal GDP in 2021.  Our calculation suggests that credit impulse will reach around 29% of next year’s GDP, about 2 to 3 percentage points lower than in 2020 (Chart 9). Chart 8Financial Deleveraging Efforts Erased By COVID-19 Chart 9Credit Growth Will Decelerate In 2021 Even if the PBoC keeps its official policy rate (i.e. the 7-day interbank repo rate) steady, tightening regulations and repricing credit risk will lead to higher funding costs and a lower appetite for borrowing (Chart 10). Banking regulators have made it clear that some of the one-off easing measures from this year, such as the extension of loan payments (through March 2021) and the delay of macro-prudential assessments (through end-2021), will end next year. Financial institutions will need to slow the pace of their asset balance sheet to comply with these regulations. The regulatory pressures will lead to de facto deleveraging. On the fiscal front, we expect the large budget deficit to remain intact next year. Targeted stimulus through subsidies and tax cuts to support household consumption and small businesses will likely continue. Government spending in the new economy sectors such as semiconductor and tech-related infrastructure will even accelerate. However, the new-economy infrastructure investment is estimated to only account for about 1% of China’s total capital formation, having limited impact on the overall economy.2 Chart 10Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Chart 11Fiscal Boost For Infrastructure Will Scale Back The proceeds from the large number of the local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) this year will continue to provide tailwinds for infrastructure investment into Q1 2021. However, as the laggards in the economic recovery catch up and government tax revenue improves next year, 2021 quotas for government general and SPBs are likely to be scaled back, reining in expenditure growth in the traditional infrastructure sector (Chart 11).   Finally, investors should watch for signs of further hawkishness from China’s leaders at the Central Economic Work Conference this December and the National People’s Congress next March.  While we expect policymakers to be data dependent and keep a controlled deceleration in credit and economic growth, risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A more bearish scenario would be if policymakers decide to fully revert the pace of debt accumulation to the average rate in 2017-2019. In this case, credit impulse in 2021 could fall by more than 5 percentage points compared with 2020 (Scenario 2 in Chart 9 on Page 6). Key Theme #3: Chinese Equities: Position For A Peak In Prices This year’s cyclical (6- to 12 months) call to overweight Chinese stocks within a global portfolio has panned out. In the next 12 months, the risks in Chinese stocks relative to global benchmarks are to the downside; Chinese stocks are vulnerable to setbacks in policy support next year, in both absolute and relative terms. We are closing the following trades: Long MSCI China Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 1.5% profit; Long MSCI China A Onshore Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 5.6% profit; Long MSCI China Ex-TMT/Short MSCI Global EX-TMT, for a 0.7% loss; Long Investable Materials/Short broad investable market, for a 5.6% profit; and Long Onshore Materials/Short broad A-Share market, for a 9.3% profit. Chart 12Onshore Equity Market Investors Will Start To Price In Slower Profit Growth In 2H21 In absolute terms, Chinese onshore stocks on an aggregate level could still inch higher in the next quarter, supported by an improving business and profit cycle (Chart 12). However, in Q2 the market may start to price in slower economic and profit growth in 2H21, erasing the gains from the first quarter.  The resilient performance in Chinese stocks against a tightening policy backdrop in 2017 is not likely to repeat itself next year. Current valuations in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets are higher than at the end of 2016; the price-to-forward earnings ratios in both markets this year have breached the peak levels achieved in 2017 (Chart 13A and 13B). Recovering earnings in the next year will help to digest the currently elevated valuations, i.e. the market has already priced in a substantial post-pandemic profit recovery and investors’ focus will soon switch to a more pessimistic outlook for corporate earnings in 2H21.  Chart 13AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle Chart 13BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Still Elevated Additionally, a property market boom in 2017 boosted the stock performance of real estate developers and related sectors in the supply chain (Chart 14). Policies have already turned much more restrictive in the past month, and deleveraging pressures faced by property developers may weigh on both the sector’s profit growth and stock performance in the next six to twelve months.3 The investable market may not be insulated from tighter domestic policies either. Recent anti-trust regulations in China could create headwinds for mega-cap technology stocks in the near term. Global investors will demand a higher risk premium for China’s tech sector than in the past, as the rich valuations of tech stocks pose more downside risks in a less friendly policy environment (Chart 15).  Chart 14Housing Boom In 2017 Also Helped Sustain A Bull Market Back Then Chart 15Valuations In Chinese Tech Stocks Are Elevated Chart 16A Policy Overkill Will Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months Furthermore, if we presume a policy overkill with more aggressive deleveraging and a further appreciation in the RMB in 2021, our model shows a significant increase in the probability of a profit growth contraction in the next 12 months (Chart 16). In this scenario, selloffs in Chinese stock prices may start in Q1, a risk that cannot be ruled out. In relative terms, Chinese stocks will likely underperform global equities. It is doubtful that the impressive outperformance in Chinese investable stocks throughout 2017 will be repeated in 2021. Chinese equities have benefited from the successful containment of China’s COVID-19 situation in the past year (Chart 17). As breakthroughs in vaccines make the pandemic less threatening to the global economy, Chinese risk assets relative to global ones will become less appealing. Global cyclical stocks, particularly European and Japanese equities, should benefit from improvements in business activities and relatively low valuations (Chart 18). Chart 17Chinese Equities Have Benefited From A Better Control Of COVID-19 This Year... Chart 18...But Vaccines Will Give A Boost To Other Markets Next Year Importantly, despite strong inflows this year from foreign investors to China’s bond market, foreign portfolio flows into China’s onshore equity market have been less than one-third of that in 2019 (Chart 19). Looking ahead, global investors will be less keen to support Chinese stocks, based on the expectation of tighter onshore liquidity conditions and less buoyant economic growth.   Chart 19Foreign Investors Have Not Been So Keen On Chinese Risky Assets This Year Everything considered, we anticipate that Chinese A-shares and investable stocks will start descending in Q2 in absolute terms. Their performance relative to global equities will also peak. We recommend a neutral stance on both bourses in the next three months to minimize the downside risks.  Key Theme #4: Chinese Bonds: Favor Onshore Government Over Corporate Bonds We continue to recommend a cyclical long position in Chinese government bonds within a global fixed-income portfolio. However, we are closing our long Chinese onshore corporate bond trade for now, for a 17% gain (Chart 20). The large interest rate differential between yields in Chinese bonds versus those in other major developed nations should remain intact into the new year. The yield on the short-duration government notes will continue to trend higher in 1H21, based on the prospect of tighter monetary policy. The yield on long-dated bonds will also escalate as the outlook for the economy continues to improve. We are pricing in a 70BPs increase in the 1-year government bond yield and a 40BPs rise in the yield of the 10-year bond from their current levels (Chart 21).   Chart 20Handsome Returns On Chinese Government Bonds Chart 21Our Projections On Government Bond Yield Hikes Next Year Chart 22RMB Appreciation Will Continue In 2021, But At A Slower Pace Than This Year The ongoing appreciation in the RMB will also make Chinese government bonds attractive to global investors. The speed of the gain in the RMB against the US dollar may slow in 2021, but the economic fundamentals do not yet suggest that this trend will reverse. Relative growth and interest rates between China and the US will probably narrow and the geopolitical tailwinds affecting the RMB following the Biden win in the US election will subside in the new year (Chart 22). However, China's strong export sector should still support a record high trade surplus and provide a floor to the Chinese currency against the USD. Chinese onshore corporate bonds have undergone a major shakeout in the domestic corporate bond market in the past month. A slew of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults has pushed up the yields on the lower-rated corporate bond by nearly 40BPs in one month. In our view, the recent panic selloff in the onshore corporate bond market is overdone and domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive on a cyclical basis. Bloomberg data shows that the value of defaulted bonds in the first three quarters of this year is in fact much lower than in the past two years: it dropped to 85Bn RMB from 142Bn RMB defaults in 2019 and the default of 122Bn RMB in 2018. Bondholders have been spooked by the fact that the Chinese local government and top financial regulators allow defaults by state-backed firms. The policy change to shift risk to the markets should result in a continuation of risk-off sentiment among investors, inducing selling pressure in the domestic corporate bond market in the near term. However, on a cyclical basis, such selloffs could present good buying opportunities. While we expect China’s onshore corporate bond defaults to be higher in 2021, the default rate remains below the global average (Chart 23). As we pointed out in our previous report, since 2017 Chinese onshore corporate bonds have been priced with a significantly higher risk premium than their global peers, which in our view is overdone (Chart 24). Chart 23Chinese Corporate Bond Default Rate Lower Than Global Average... Chart 24...And Much Lower Than Their Risk Premiums Imply Chart 25Chinese Corporate Bonds Can Bring Better Returns Once The Peak Intensity In Policy Tightening Passes In addition, Chart 25 shows that the total returns on Chinese onshore corporate bonds briefly declined in 2017 when the government’s financial de-risking efforts intensified. It sequentially rebounded in 2018, suggesting a turnaround in investors’ sentiment after the first cleanup wave in the corporate sector.  As such, while we do not favor Chinese onshore corporate bonds in the next six months, on a 12-month horizon, conditions could become more favorable to initiate a long position. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Please see China Investment Strategy Report "The 14th Five-Year Plan: Meaningful Transformations Ahead," dated November 4, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market?" dated March 25, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers," dated October 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Every year we review our best and worst calls – both in terms of geopolitics and markets. This year our geopolitical forecasting and strategic market recommendations performed well, given the COVID-19 shock, but our tactical trades often went awry. We correctly forecast the presidency, Senate, Democratic nomination, and impeachment outcome. We anticipated “stimulus hiccups” but expected them to be resolved by November 3. The Georgia runoff on January 5 presents a 30% risk to our Senate prediction. In the main, we were right on Chinese politics, EU politics, US-Iran tensions, and Russian politics. US-China tensions kept rising, as expected, but the market ignored it. We missed the Saudi-Russia cartel break-up in Q1. The jury is still out on Brexit. Strategically, we got the big market moves right, but we were too risk-averse during the summer and after the election. Stay long cyber-security stocks in general, but close the pair trade versus Big Tech. Close the 10-year Treasury hedge. Feature Chart 1The Black Swan The COVID-19 pandemic took investors by surprise, defined the year 2020, and caused the shortest bear market in history, lasting 33 days (Chart 1). On the whole this year’s crisis illustrates how geopolitical analysis is not primarily concerned with “black swan” events, which are inherently unpredictable. Rather the wholly unexpected pandemic reinforced several of our pre-existing geopolitical themes and trends: de-globalization, American sociopolitical instability, European integration, and US-China conflict. This year our geopolitical forecasting and strategic market recommendations performed well, given the COVID-19 shock, but our tactical trades often went awry. Whether these and other trends will continue in 2021 will be the subject of our strategic outlook due next week. This week we offer our annual report card, which reviews our best and worst calls for the year with a desire to hold ourselves accountable to clients, learn investment lessons from mistakes, and hone our geopolitical method of analysis. Successful Strategy, Debatable Tactics Overall our performance this year was good. Specifically, our political forecasting was on target and our investment recommendations got the big moves correct. But our risk-averse tactical trades were less successful. In last year’s annual outlook, “2020 Key Views: The Anarchic Society,” our main investment recommendation was long gold – based on sky-high geopolitical risk and a shift toward reflationary policy by the Federal Reserve, China, and the European Union (Chart 2). We maintain this trade today, despite its losing some altitude recently, as we expect to see low real rates, reflationary global policy, and rising inflation expectations. Geopolitical risk will also remain elevated despite dropping off from recent peaks, and not only during President Trump’s “lame duck” final days in office. We sounded the alarm for clients in our January 24 report, “Market Hurdles: From Sanders To Iran,” warning that global equities and risk appetite would suffer “in the very near term” due to conventional political risks as well as the new coronavirus, which we feared would explode as a result of Chinese New Year. In retrospect we were not bearish enough even in these reports. In our March 27 report, “No Depression,” we advised that the extraordinary monetary and fiscal response to the crisis would reflate the global economy and thus went long Brent crude oil. From this point onward we gradually added risk to our strategic portfolio, including by going long global equities relative to bonds in June (Chart 3). Chart 2Gold Paid Off When Black Swan Arose Of course, despite getting these big moves right, we abandoned several of our strategic recommendations during the crisis and some of our tactical trades went awry throughout the year. Chart 3When Crisis Hits, Buy Risk Assets! Our Worst Calls Of 2020 We chose a very bad time, last December, to bet heavily on global equity rotation from growth to value and away from tech sector leadership. US equities and tech stocks surged ahead of global equities on the back of the pandemic. Our long energy / short tech trade proved disastrous. Only now, with a vaccine on the horizon, are these recommendations coming to fruition. On the other hand, we should have remained committed to our long EUR-USD position rather than cutting it short when the crisis erupted (Chart 4). Global stimulus and the Fed’s sharp reduction in interest rates and gigantic infusion of US dollar liquidity ensured that the dollar would plummet. Strategically, we got the big market moves right, but we were too risk-averse during the summer and after the election. In some cases our geopolitical forecast proved dead-on while our market recommendation faltered. One of biggest geopolitical forecasts, in September 2019, was that the US and China could well conclude a trade deal but that it would be extremely limited in scope and strategic tensions would continue to rise dangerously. This prediction has proved accurate, judging by US high-tech export controls and China’s suppression of Hong Kong this year. But we misjudged the market response, particularly after China contained the virus: the renminbi saw a tremendous rally this year while we remained short, suffering a 4.96% loss so far (Chart 5). Chart 4Stick With Your Guns...Even Amidst Crisis Chart 5US-China Tensions Persisted, But The Market Didn't Care Along these lines, President-elect Joe Biden’s statement that he will maintain President Trump’s tariffs is another confirmation of one of our most contrarian views over the past year.1 We would expect the People’s Bank to allow the yuan to slip both to deal with lingering deflationary pressures and to build up some poker chips for the coming negotiations with Biden. We also would expect the US dollar to witness a near-term tactical bounce. However, if we are wrong, our short CNY-USD trade will fall further and we will have to cut our losses. Chart 6You Can't Time The Market Other mistakes occurred when solid economic and political views combined with bad market timing. Our long position in cyber-security stocks is well grounded – we remain invested – but once again we jumped the gun on the rotation away from Big Tech, which constituted the short end of two of our pair trades, now closed. Separately, we coupled our long gold bet with a long silver bet that came far too late into the rally – though we remain strategically optimistic on silver due to its industrial uses, which should revive in the post-pandemic context. Lamentably, we ran up against our stop-loss threshold on our structural position in US aerospace and defense stocks not long before the vaccine announcement would have begun the arduous process of recuperating losses (Chart 6). We have reinitiated the latter trade, albeit in global defense stocks rather than just American. The inverse also occurred, in which our political forecasting proved faulty but our market implications worked out quite well. One of our biggest political forecasting failures stemmed from an initial success. Beginning in May, we signaled that the US Congress would experience “stimulus hiccups” in trying to pass additional fiscal relief for the economy. This view proved prescient as negotiations fell through in July and a range of benefits expired. Real rates began to recuperate at this time. The problem is that we also predicted that the fiscal impasse was merely a hiccup, i.e. would be resolved prior to the election. It remains unresolved to this day. Fortunately, our market recommendation – to go long US municipal bonds relative to duration-matched treasuries – was rooted in the principle of “buy what the Fed is buying” and therefore continued to appreciate, along with our similarly justified position in investment grade bonds (Chart 7). Chart 7Stimulus Hiccup Occurred, But Was Not Resolved Our biggest error of political forecasting was the collapse of OPEC 2.0 at the beginning of the year. We signaled to clients in January that Russia was growing internally unstable and that this would result in an external action that would prove market-negative. This was correct, but we failed to anticipate that the most important consequence would be a temporary Russian rejection of Saudi demands for oil production cuts. Still, we advised clients to stay the course, arguing that the Russians and Saudis were geopolitically constrained and would return to their cartel, which proved to be the case, thus hastening the restoration of balance to oil markets. This view supported our long spot oil recommendation in late March, though the idea that US producers might collaborate proved fanciful. Alternatively we suggested that clients go long oil relative to gold, which has performed well. Other mistakes stemmed from our tactical trades. Generally, we were insufficiently bullish both during the summer and after the US election. In both cases we overemphasized the absence of US fiscal stimulus as a risk to the rally. In reality the first stimulus was sufficient and the V-shaped recovery of the private economy reduced the need for additional support over the course of the year. Our long tactical positions in US treasuries, consumer staples, and JPY-EUR did not pan out. The takeaway going forward, given that the market is not pressuring politicians to act, is that the risk of another congressional fiscal failure prior to Christmas is underrated. Lastly, some minor emerging market trades went awry, such as our long positions in Thai and Malay equities and our shorting the South African rand. We wrongly predicted that Michelle Obama would be Joe Biden’s pick for vice president, when in fact that honor went to Senator Kamala Harris. Our Best Calls Of 2020 While we got the big market moves right in 2020, our best calls were political and geopolitical in nature: Joe Biden won the US election. He won through his ability to win back blue-collar workers and compete in the Sun Belt as well as the Rust Belt, which we outlined as a key geographic strength during his run in the Democratic primary election (Map 1). We downgraded Trump from 55% odds of re-election to 35% in March, when the lockdowns occurred, and we upgraded Trump only to 45% in October when he rallied. The thin margins in the swing states confirmed this higher-than-consensus probability of a Trump win. Map 1Joe Biden Won The Rust Belt And The Sun Belt Republicans retained the Senate. Beginning in late September, we saw that President Trump was rallying and that this would increase the odds of a Republican Senate even if Trump himself fell short. On October 16 we signaled that the Senate was too close to call, and on October 30 we upgraded the GOP again and argued that a Democratic White House plus a Republican Senate was the most likely scenario (Chart 8). There is a lingering risk to this view: a double Democratic victory in the Georgia runoffs on January 5, 2021. But we put the odds of that at 30% at best. Chart 8Republicans Held The Senate (Pending Georgia Runoffs) Chart 9Biden Won The Democratic Primary Nomination Biden won the Democratic nomination, which we first highlighted in November 2018 and June 2019 and consistently thereafter, though we never underrated his challengers (Chart 9). Trump was acquitted of impeachment charges, which seems like ages ago. We said from the start that Democrats did not have the votes (Chart 10). China stimulated the economy massively and avoided massive domestic unrest. Investors doubted that Beijing would stimulate enough to lead to a global recovery, given the leadership’s preference to avoid systemic financial risk. We insisted that constraints would prevail over preferences and the stimulus would be gigantic. Our “China Play Index” skyrocketed, though it did not outperform global equities (Chart 11). We also argued that President Xi Jinping would not face significant domestic unrest after the crisis erupted, though we view domestic political risk as underrated for the coming years. Chart 10Impeachment Failed Long Emerging markets and deep cyclicals recovered. The combination of Chinese stimulus and a US “return to normalcy” led us to go long emerging markets after the election. We articulated this trade by going long Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, on the expectation that Washington will remain hawkish toward China over trade (Chart 12). We also went long deep cyclicals and US infrastructure plays on the basis of Chinese stimulus and the Biden-Trump common denominator on building projects (Chart 13). Chart 11China Stimulated Massively   Chart 12Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Worked As EM Play The Taiwan Strait was a bigger geopolitical risk than the Korean peninsula, which markets are at last recognizing (Chart 14). Unfortunately for investors Taiwan remains a serious geopolitical risk regardless of Trump’s exit. Hong Kong attracted investors’ attention more than Taiwan in 2020, whereas we have treated Hong Kong as a red herring. Chart 13Long Infrastructure And Cyclicals Paid Off   Chart 14Hong Kong Was A Red Herring, Korea Beat Taiwan Brexit has been a red herring throughout 2020, as expected, though an end-of-year failure to agree to a UK-EU trade deal would upend our predictions (Chart 15). Chart 15Brexit Was A Sideshow Germany’s shift to more dovish fiscal policy strengthened European solidarity, keeping peripheral bond yields and “break-up risk” contained (Chart 16). In August 2019 we argued that Germany was easing fiscal policy but would not surge spending until a crisis happened – which proved to be the case when the coronavirus prompted Olaf Scholz to wheel out the “bazooka” this year. We also argued that Europe would be willing to mutualize debt, which was officially confirmed when outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel forged an agreement on an EU Recovery Fund with French President Emmanuel Macron (though not exactly a “Hamiltonian moment”). Chart 16European Solidarity Strengthened Chart 17Peak Shinzo Abe' Theme Boosted The Yen Japan saw “Peak Abenomics,” which was confirmed this year when he handed the helm over to his deputy, Yoshihide Suga, whose policies are continuous. Abe’s late-2019 tax hike was only one of many reasons we anticipated a rally in the yen, which was supercharged by this year’s crisis (Chart 17). Russia’s political risk premium spiked, as we expected, though we did not anticipate that the cause would be a temporary breakdown in OPEC 2.0 (Chart 18). We were more prepared for an event like the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and US sanctions against the Nordstream II pipeline. Our argument that Russia would lie low, for fear of domestic unrest, has so far borne out in the Belarus protests and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Whether it will continue to do so in the face of what will likely be a pro-democracy assault in eastern Europe from the US Democratic Party remains to be seen. Chart 18Russian Geopolitical Risk Spiked As Predicted India-China tensions were a red herring. India benefited from the western world’s turn against China. Partnerships and alliances were already taking shape before the coronavirus spurred a move in the West to diminish reliance on China’s health care exports. Our long Indian pharmaceuticals trade was highly profitable, though our overweight in Indian bonds was less so (Chart 19). Chart 19India Benefited From West's Anti-China Turn Brazilian political risk surged to the highest levels since the 2018 election, and President Jair Bolsonaro suffered a setback in municipal elections, as we expected, especially after witnessing his cavalier attitude toward the pandemic (Chart 20). However, his approval rating rose on the back of fiscal largesse, implying that debt dynamics will continue to trouble this market despite the bullish backdrop for emerging markets in 2021. Chart 20Brazil Remained A Muddle Chart 21Turkish Populism Exacted A Toll Chart 22A Bull Market In Iran Tensions The Turkish lira collapsed, as Turkish President Recep Erdogan maintained reckless domestic economic policies and foreign adventurism (Chart 21). As we go to press, Erdogan appears to be backing down from his aggressive approach to maritime-territorial disputes in the Mediterranean, for fear of European sanctions, which would be a positive surprise, albeit temporary. The “bull market in Iran tensions” continued, with US-Israeli sabotage and assassinations of key Iranian figures bookending the year (Chart 22). With Trump still in office for another 45 days, we would not be surprised to see another move on Iran, where hardliners are ascendant in the unstable advance of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s eventual succession. So far, Trump has taken market-negative actions in his “lame duck” period on Iran, China, and Big Tech, as we argued, which means more is coming despite the market’s enthusiasm over the partly sunny outlook for 2021. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical analysis is about structural themes and trends – not unpredictable black swans, which may even further entrench structural trends. When a crisis triggers a massive selloff, buy risk assets, then reassess. The gargantuan, coordinated monetary and fiscal response to this year’s crisis presented a clear buy signal. Once the virus was revealed not to be as deadly as first suspected, the rally gained steam. Political and geopolitical forecasts may be dead-on and yet fail to drive the market. There is a constant need to refine the ability to articulate and implement trades that seek to generate alpha from policy insight. Tactical views and attempts at cleverness are a liability when one’s strategic views – geopolitical, macro-economic, financial – are firmly grounded.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Thomas L. Friedman, "Biden Made Sure ‘Trump Is Not Going To Be President For Four More Years,’" New York Times, December 2, 2020, nytimes.com.

Bank Credit Analyst

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation, which we held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. X: As always, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the economic and financial outlook with you. The past year has been truly ghastly with the wretched COVID-19 disease wreaking extraordinary economic and social havoc. I take comfort from the hope that a vaccine will allow a gradual return to more normal conditions in 2021, but my concerns about the longer-run outlook have increased. The extreme monetary and fiscal responses to the virus-related economic collapse may have been necessary but will leave most developed economies much more vulnerable down the road. Risk assets have been propped up by easy money, but I fear that simply means lower returns in the future. Ms. X: The social impact of the virus has weighed heavily on me, making me quite depressed about the outlook. I can only hope that my normal optimism will return when a vaccine ends the pandemic. Of course, I am happy that equities have done much better than might have been expected in the past year, but I share my father’s concerns about long-term returns. I look forward to discussing ideas about how to position our portfolio. BCA: The past year has indeed been grim on many levels. The economic disruption has been severe, but the social toll of the virus has been even more damaging for many people in terms of being forcibly isolated from family and friends. It is very encouraging that vaccines should start to become widely available early in the year, but the return to normality likely will take time. During the northern hemisphere winter months, the pandemic may even get worse before it gets better. As far as the longer run outlook is concerned, the policy response to the crisis will indeed have consequences. Government debt has soared in most countries and this raises the issue of how this will be dealt with in the years ahead. Meanwhile, central bank support to the markets cannot continue indefinitely, which raises the prospect of severe withdrawal pains at some point. Furthermore, both fiscal and monetary trends pose the question of whether higher inflation is inevitable. It is therefore unlikely that voters will reward politicians who impose upon them the painful deflationary pressures. Markets are forward looking and one could take the view that the strength of equity markets in the past eight months has reflected optimism about the economic outlook. However, a more plausible explanation is that hyper-stimulative monetary policies have been the main driving force behind asset prices. If that is the case, then there is some cause for optimism because central banks have made it clear that they will not be tightening policy for quite some time. While you are both right to be concerned about low returns over the long run, risk asset prices seem likely to rise further in the coming year with equities continuing to outperform bonds. We can get into that in more details later.  Ms. X: Before we get into our discussion of the outlook, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: That will be a humbling experience given that we never built a global pandemic into our forecasts! A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Global equities would enter the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks were expensive, but bonds were even more so. As a result, if global growth could recover and the US could avoid a recession in 2020, earnings would not weaken significantly and stocks would again outperform bonds. Low rates reflected the end of the debt super cycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt super cycle was still alive in EM, particularly in China. The global economic slowdown that began more than 18 months prior to our meeting started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continued to push for more deleveraging, global growth would continue to suffer as the EM debt super cycle would end. Nonetheless, we expected China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should have promoted a worldwide reacceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty would recede in 2020. Domestic constraints would force China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit was seen as marginal, and President Trump was still the favorite in the election. A decline in policy risk would foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of geopolitical risk remained, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks were highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl. Not only would it take some time before global deflationary forces receded, monetary authorities in the G-10 would want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they were already announcing that they would allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This would ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which would push the global economy into recession in late 2021 or early 2022. These dynamics were key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth would reaccelerate. The US consumer was in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets as well as robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should have benefited from a decline in global uncertainty and a pickup in global economic activity. China would continue to stimulate its economy but would not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth would also bottom but was unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan would reaccelerate in 2020. Bond yields would continue to grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields were unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures would not resurface quickly, so the Fed was unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds were particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds were a mixed offering. Investment grade credit was unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially as corporate health was deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offered better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks would enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth would recover, we favored the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happened to offer the best value. US stocks were the least attractive bourse; they were very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that would suffer from higher bond yields. We were neutral on EM equities. We recommended that investors pare exposure to equities only after inflation breakevens had moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed fund rates had moved closer to neutral. We anticipated this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar was likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations were also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro were expected to be the main beneficiaries of any dollar depreciation. We anticipated oil and gold to have upside. Crude would benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold would strengthen as global central banks would limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar would boost both commodities. We expected a balanced portfolio to generate an average return of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2018. Obviously, our forecasts were undone by the defining event of the year: the pandemic. Nonetheless, in February we warned that asset prices did not embed enough of a risk premium to protect investors against the threat that the pandemic could terminate the global business cycle. The more deflationary risk we confront today, the more inflation we will face in the future. At the beginning of the second quarter, we were quick to recommend buying stocks back, so we participated in the rally that followed. We erred in preferring foreign to US equities, which turned out to be key winners of the pandemic thanks to their heavy exposure to growth stocks (Table 1). The economic downturn meant that bond yields fell rather than rose. They have remained exceedingly low in response to exceptionally accommodative monetary conditions, a surge in savings and deeply negative output gaps. We were right to favor peripheral bonds, which benefited from the ECB’s purchases and the European Commission’s Recovery Fund (Table 1). Finally, the market rewarded our negative stance on the dollar and our bullish view on gold. However, we were offside on oil, where the continued impact of the pandemic on global transport has left crude prices at very depressed levels. Table 12020 Asset Market Returns A Brave New World Mr. X: You mentioned that you prefer stocks over bonds for 2021. I can accept this view; while stocks are expensive, their valuations are less demanding than that of bonds. Moreover, I agree that policymakers around the world are very afraid of the deflationary consequences of removing accommodation too early but they cannot ease monetary policy much from here. This creates an asymmetric payoff in favor of stocks versus safe-haven securities. However, my favorite asset class for the near future is cash. Granted, I enjoy the luxury of not having to track a benchmark and my core focus is capital preservation. With both stocks and bonds richly valued, I see no margin of safety and I would rather stand on the sidelines. The longer-term outlook is particularly concerning. The extraordinary accommodation implemented this year was unavoidable, but its future consequences worry me greatly. Real rates have never been so low and we are leaving unprecedented public debt loads to our children and grandchildren. Moreover, I fear further adoption of populist policies because inequalities have risen in the wake of the crisis. The worst affected families stand at the bottom of the income distribution while people like me have benefited from inflated asset prices. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that we will suffer a large inflation shock in the coming decade. The global broad money supply has exploded and it is very unlikely that central banks will normalize interest rates in due time because of the burden created by gigantic public debt loads and the spectrum of further populism. My worries extend beyond these obvious concerns. Last year I was already anxious about the incredibly large stock of global debt with negative yields. This situation has only worsened since. Moreover, the various programs implemented by the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and other major monetary authorities to provide liquidity directly to the private sector at the apex of the crisis have prevented the purge of unhealthy firms necessary under a capitalist system. Instead of creative destruction, zombification has become the norm. Thus, I fear that more capital is misallocated than at any point in the past 10 years. Putting it all together, my expectations are that real returns will be poor for years to come, if not outright negative. I therefore believe that gold should stand at the core of my family’s portfolio. Ms. X: I share many of my father’s concerns. It is difficult to see how monetary and fiscal authorities will normalize policy. Hence, I agree that we will face the painful legacy of a large debt overhang and poor long-term returns. Moreover, the poor demographic profile in most advanced economies as well as China bodes ill for trend growth. I do see opportunities within this bleak picture. Healthcare stocks should benefit from an aging of the world’s population and tech equities will remain a source of disruption, innovation and profit growth in the coming decades. Thus, an equity portfolio built around these themes should generate positive real returns. In light of the positive vaccine news, next year will offer investors with both rapidly expanding profits and low discount rates and it is hard to imagine equities performing poorly. BCA: Clearly, we have many things to discuss. We should start with the COVID-19 pandemic. The news that vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are around 95% effective is very encouraging. The Oxford/AstraZeneca announcement also is a source of optimism, even if the trial results have been less clear-cut. Moreover, other vaccines are currently in the mass-testing stage. By next winter, approximately 1.5 billion people globally should have been vaccinated. These positives hide many issues. First, transporting the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (particularly the one produced by Pfizer, which needs to be kept at -70°C) will be challenging, especially for poorer countries. Second, the mRNA technology used in these vaccines is new and its long-term impact is unknown. Hence, many people will be reluctant to take this shot, especially as the confidence in the safety of vaccines has declined among the general public. Only 58% of Americans said they would probably take a COVID-19 vaccine, a number that will rise once the vaccine is demonstrated but which still highlights the challenge (Chart 1). Third, the virus could mutate and render the current generation of vaccines ineffective. The recent news of such mutations in mink farms in Denmark is worrisome, especially as the new strain of the virus has already jumped back into the human population. Chart 1The Vaccine Blues Our base case is that the vaccines will allow a progressive reopening of the economic sectors currently still under lockdown. They will lead to a further improvement in employment, consumer and business sentiment, and aggregate demand. With less fear of getting infected, consumers will return to shops, restaurants, hotels, etc. This will have a very beneficial impact on capex and profit growth. It will result in higher stock prices, especially for value stocks, cyclical stocks, as well as higher yields and commodity prices. Despite this optimistic base case, investors must have contingencies ready. The three aforementioned risks around the vaccines suggest that additional waves of infections cannot be entirely ruled out and that lockdowns may continue in 2021. Thus, we could still face periods of downward pressure on activity, yields, and value stocks. For now it remains prudent not to tilt portfolios fully toward a post-COVID bias. In contrast to the past 40 years, a 60/40 portfolio will fare poorly once we account for higher inflation. Even if the vaccines enjoy widespread adoption, near-term threats to economic activity remain. The realization that the end of the pandemic is close may prompt a temporary period where households hunker down and behave in a very conservative fashion. After all, few consumers will want to contract the virus just before a vaccine becomes available. Moreover, the sight of the end of the lockdowns reduces the fiscal authorities’ urgency to provide additional support to the population and small businesses. These two dynamics could prompt a deep contraction in spending in the first quarter of 2021, which would hurt stock prices. Mr. X: Thank you. While these near-term dynamics are crucial, the emergence of the vaccine increases the importance of discussing the long-term implications of the extreme policy conducted in recent months. BCA: The long-term implications of aggressive policy stimulus tie into the evolution of the debt super cycle. As a share of US GDP, total private debt has spiked near a record high and total nonfinancial debt has surged to new all-time highs (Chart 2). This reflects two phenomena. First, the denominator of the ratio – GDP – has collapsed. Second, total nonfinancial debt also highlights the rapid increase in government deficits. Hence, climbing leverage was a consequence of the necessary dissaving by the public sector to alleviate the deflationary forces created by the crisis. This problem is repeated around the world. As Chart 3 demonstrates, nonfinancial debt levels across the G10 are rapidly rising. Moreover, debt loads in emerging markets are also extremely elevated. Chart 2COVID-19 Boosted Debt Ratios Chart 3Elevated Debt Everywhere   Going forward, either rising savings or faster nominal GDP growth will cause the debt ratios to decline. The first option is difficult; increasing savings is deflationary and it could worsen the debt arithmetic by keeping real interest rates stubbornly high. Moreover, it is politically unpopular, especially when the public sector has been the borrower. Here, we echo the words of Keynes from his 1923 Tract On Monetary Reform: "The progressive deterioration in the value of money through history is not an accident, and has had behind it two great driving forces – the impecuniosity of governments and the superior political influence of the debtor class (…). No state or government is likely to decree its own bankruptcy or its own downfall so long as the instrument of taxation by currency depreciation through the creation of legal tender (money) still lies at hand… The active and working elements (i.e., debtors) in no community, ancient or modern will consent to hand over to the rentier or bond holding class more than a certain proportion of the fruits of their work. When the piled up debt demands more than a tolerable proportion, relief has usually been sought in (…) repudiation (…) and currency depreciation." Nominal rates cannot fall further, while large inequalities and social immobility are fomenting populism (Chart 4). Moreover, the recent COVID-19 crisis has deepened the angst of the general population and its dissatisfaction with policymakers. It is therefore unlikely that voters will reward politicians who impose upon them the painful deflationary pressures that result from the high savings necessary to reduce public sector debt loads. Even a Republican-controlled US Senate will have to allow larger deficits than usual in today’s climate. Chart 4Inequalities And Immobility Are The Roots Of Populism Instead, we expect fiscal and monetary policy to work in tandem to lift inflation and deflate the global debt load. The rising popularity of Modern Monetary Theory fits within this paradigm shift. MMT posits that as long as governments issue debt in their own currency, central bank money printing can finance the deficit. The only constraint on policymakers becomes the level of inflation that society tolerates. Society is likely to tolerate a rise in inflation. MMT is unpalatable to savers, but the majority of citizens are debtors, not lenders. In an MMT framework where the median voter is a borrower, the tolerance for inflation will likely be high, which will hurt the value of financial assets. Moreover, the corporate sector is unlikely to fight strongly against large deficits funded by central banks. If we accept the Kalecki Equation of Profits, which can be simplified as: Profits = Investment – Household Savings – Government Savings – Foreign Savings + Dividends then business profits will suffer if deleveraging takes hold, whether in the public or private sector. Instead, MMT-like policies, which will keep savings at low levels and prevent deleveraging, offers a way to keep nominal profits afloat. For businesses too, the path of least resistance steers toward higher inflation. Different countries will vary in their ability to pass MMT-like policies, but the policy shift toward inflationary policies is clear. The specter of rising populism should result in heavier regulation, at least in the EU and the US under the incoming Biden administration. Regulation further hurts the growth rate of the supply-side of the economy. It limits competition, it protects workers and it increases the cost of doing business. We expect additional fiscal stimulus will come through in the coming months. Beyond political forces, the demographic deterioration highlighted by Ms. X points in the same direction. An aging population means that the dependency ratio (the number of dependents per worker) is increasing. Moreover, analysis by the UN underscores that in old age, consumption increases due to rising spending on healthcare (Chart 5). We are therefore likely to witness a slowing expansion of the supply side relative to the demand side of the economy. By definition, this process is inflationary. In the second half of the decade, inflation could average as high as between 3% and 5%. Keep in mind that inflation is not a linear process. Once it starts to rise, it becomes very hard to control. In this regard, the experience of the late 1960s is extremely instructive. Through the 1960s boom, inflation was well behaved, contained between 0.7% and 1.2%. Then it started to rise in 1966, and quickly hit 6.1% by 1970 (Chart 6). While the average-inflation target the Fed recently adopted is well intentioned, in an environment where governments are unlikely to curtail deficits as fast as the private sector cuts its savings, it could easily unleash a long-term inflationary trend. Chart 5Aging Doesn't Spell Less Spending Chart 6Inflation Is Stable Until It Is Not   Ms. X: Why won’t technological advancements such as AI and automation cause low inflation to prevail for the rest of the decade? Chart 7Low Productivity BCA: The great paradox of this crisis is that the more deflationary risk we confront today, the more inflation we will face in the future. This relationship is the consequence of financial repression. Debt arithmetic will only stay manageable as long as real interest rates remain low; consequently, central banks will only be able to increase interest rates if nominal growth rises significantly from its low average of the past decade. Both workforce and productivity growth are low, thus quicker inflation is the only solution. As you hinted, technology is a risk to our long-term inflation view. However, technology has most often been a deflationary force. The key question is whether we are experiencing a greater impact than normal on productivity from current technological developments. So far, the answer seems to be no. Even if the statistical estimation methods for GDP overestimate inflation and thus underestimate productivity, we are still nowhere near the kind of productivity gains registered in the post-WWII period or at the turn of the millennium. We remain much closer to the productivity recorded in the 1970s or early 1980s (Chart 7).  As a result, we expect technology not to be enough of a game changer to undo the inflationary effect of the shift away from the pro-capital, deregulatory, pro-global-trade consensus that prevailed for the past forty years. Ms. X: Your view rests on an assessment that political forces are structurally moving toward populism. Doesn’t the most recent US election counter this argument? Was it not a victory of centrism over populism? Chart 8AValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8BValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8CValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8DValuations Point To Poor Long-Term Returns BCA: It was a victory of moderation over populism, but it was a narrow victory that reveals powerful populist undercurrents, particularly the strong demand for economic reflation. Despite a pandemic and recession in the election year, President Trump narrowly lost in the key swing states, and managed to garner roughly 74 million votes, the second highest tally in history. Moreover he led the Republican Party to gain seats in the House of Representatives and (likely) to retain control of the Senate. Exit polls reveal that the economy was still the number one issue on voters’ minds – they rejected Donald Trump’s personality but embraced his “growth at any cost” approach. By the same token, the Democratic Party lost elections down the ballot because they became associated with lockdowns and revolutionary social causes. President-Elect Joe Biden won the election, first, by not being Donald Trump, and second, by campaigning on a larger government spending program, a moderately liberal social stance, and a less belligerent protectionism on trade and China. The fact that both candidates wanted large stimulus packages and infrastructure programs tells us something about the median voter’s stance on economic policy: it is reflationary. Going forward, if Republicans control the Senate then the Biden administration will have to appeal to moderate Republican senators to get enough votes for COVID relief and economic recovery. If Democrats gain control of the Senate on January 5, they will have a one-vote majority and their legislative agenda will depend on winning over moderate Democratic senators. The Republican scenario is less reflationary but more likely, while the Democratic scenario is more reflationary but less likely. What investors can count on in 2021 is that the US government will not enact the mammoth splurge of government spending but that Republican senators will also be cognizant of the need for some fiscal support. Mr. X: If you expect inflation to rise structurally, how should we position our portfolio on a long-term basis? Bonds will obviously suffer, but so will an extremely expensive equity market that requires low bond yields to justify current prices. It seems like there is nowhere to hide but gold. BCA: The next one to two decades will not look like the past four, which were extraordinarily rewarding for investors. The taming of inflation, the broadening of globalization and far-reaching deregulation both cut interest rates and boosted profit margins. These trends stimulated demand and lifted asset valuations. These dynamics fed exceptional returns for all financial assets. However, these tailwinds have dissipated. The Fed will look through next year’s temporary inflation rebound. This change has many important implications for portfolio construction. You are correct that it will be hard for equities to generate decent real returns in the coming decade. Valuations may be a poor gauge of immediate stock returns, but they are clearly correlated with long-term returns (Chart 8). The odds of higher inflation in the second half of the decade will eventually cause policymakers to raise interest rates and force a normalization of equities multiples. Moreover, greater regulation and rising populism will raise the share of GDP absorbed by wages. Profit margins are likely to decline from here (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Margins Under Threat? Despite the poor long-term outlook for real stock returns, equities should still outperform bonds. Over the past 150 years, shares beat bonds in each episode of cyclically rising inflation, even if stocks generate paltry inflation-adjusted returns (Table 2). This time will not be different. Equities are significantly cheaper than bonds. Based on the current level of bond and dividend yields, US, Eurozone, UK and Japan bourses need to fall in real terms 23%, 32% 50% and 20%, respectively, over the next 10-year to underperform local government bonds (Chart 10). Additionally, the duration of bonds is very high due to their extremely low yields, which means that bond prices are exceptionally sensitive to rising rates. Table 2Stocks Beat Bonds, Part I In contrast to the past 40 years, a 60/40 portfolio will fare poorly once we account for higher inflation. During the period from 1965 to 1982, when US core CPI inflation rose from 1.2% to 13.6%, the 60/40 portfolio lost 30% of its value in real terms (Chart 11). Moreover, the portfolio started to suffer poor inflation-adjusted returns well before inflation moved into double digits. As soon as CPI accelerated in 1966, the standard portfolio began to lose value. This time, inflation will not reach the dizzying height of the late 70s, but equities are trading at price-to-sales, price-to-book or Shiller P/E 33% above that of 1965 and Treasury yields stand at 0.88%, not 4.65%. Chart 10Stocks Beat Bonds, Part II Chart 11The 60/40 Portfolio Doesn't Like Inflation   The problematic long-term outlook for the 60/40 portfolio will demand greater creativity from investors than over the past 40 years. We like assets such as farmland, timberland, and natural resources as inflation hedges. We also like precious metals. Silver is particularly attractive; like gold it thrives from rising inflation, but unlike its yellow counterpart, silver trades at a discount to its fair value implied by the long-term trend in consumer prices (Chart 12). Industrial metals are also interesting; the effort to reduce carbon emissions will hurt fossil fuel prices but will require greater reliance on electricity. Hence, the demand for copper will stay robust while investments in extraction capacity have been poor for the last decade. Silver, a great electricity and heat conductor, will also benefit from this trend. Chart 12Silver Is Cheaper Than Gold Within equity portfolios, winners and losers will also change. Empirically, technology, utilities and telecom services underperform when inflation rises durably. On the other hand, healthcare, materials and real estate outperform. The first group does not possess much pricing power in an accelerating CPI environment while the second does, justifying the bifurcated relative performances. We recommend tilting long-term equity exposure this way. Finally, this sectoral view implies a structural overweight in Europe and Japan at the expense of the US and emerging markets. Mr X: Thank you. This discussion about long-term risks and portfolio construction was very useful. That being said, the thought of MMT becoming more mainstream leaves me extremely uncomfortable. The Economic Outlook Ms. X: From your observations on the vaccine rollout, I presume you expect the recovery to remain robust next year. Aren’t you concerned that a big part of the G-10 could experience a double dip recession in the first half of the year? BCA: Near-term risks are very elevated and it is likely that Europe is experiencing a renewed slump in activity as we speak. In response to the recent violent second wave of infections, consumers have avoided public spaces and governments across the continent and in the UK have implemented increasingly stringent lockdowns. Various high-frequency indicators and live trackers for the regions already indicate that another contraction in activity is taking place (Chart 13). The US is not immune to a slowdown. The country is in the thrall of its third wave of infections and local governments are increasingly imposing lockdowns. Just look at New York City, which is somewhat of a canary in the coalmine for the nation, where schools have closed. This development is happening as the economy was already slowing down after a blistering recovery in the third quarter. Naturally, the US economic surprise index is quickly declining, which indicates that economic data is falling short of expectations (Chart 14). Chart 13The European Economy Is Slowing Right Now Chart 14The US Economy Is Decelerating   Growth is slowing but the level of US GDP is not doomed to contract. First, inventory restocking could add as much as 3.5% to current quarter GDP. Second, consumer spending is still robust. This summer, household savings jumped massively in response to both the large transfers created by the CARES act as well as the low marginal propensity to spend caused by depressed consumer confidence. Now, consumers are deploying this large pool of funds, which is buttressing expenditures. Despite these short-term headwinds, growth in 2021 should be well above trend in the US and in Europe. The ECB Target II balance permanently attaches Germany to its weaker neighbors. Mr. X: What about the risk that a lack of fiscal stimulus could scuttle the recovery? BCA: We are not overly concerned about that as we expect additional fiscal stimulus will come through in the coming months. Chart 15Borrowing Costs Are Not A Constraint To Spending In Europe, the case for additional fiscal support is clear. All the major euro area countries, including Greece, can borrow at negative interest rates, depending on the maturity (Chart 15). This too is true for Sweden, Switzerland and even the UK. Within the Eurozone, the issuance linked to the European Commission’s Recovery Fund represents the first wave of common-debt issuance. It is an embryonic tool for fiscal risk sharing, one that goes further than the European Stability Mechanism, and it is an important driver of the spread compression in the European bond market. European governments are under little pressure to apply any fiscal brake because of these low borrowing costs. Moreover, the various European central banks are buttressing government bond markets. Thus, fiscal authorities have a free hand to provide additional support if they choose to do so while lockdowns remain in place. The loose fiscal setting will allow activity to recover quickly. In the US, the situation is more complex, but we expect at least a minimal level of support. The gridlock in Washington prevents the large stimulus that would have passed under a unified Democratic control of Congress. However, a Biden administration faced with a Senate controlled by the GOP also cannot increase taxes significantly. Meanwhile the Republicans are willing to provide additional help as long as it targets households and small businesses. Netting these forces out, we expect a stimulus package of $500 billion to $1 trillion. This is smaller than the various offers on the table prior to the election, but the more concrete eventuality of a vaccine deployment in the first half of 2021 also means that the economy needs help for a shorter period. While the risk to the forecast is that the Democrats and the Republican reach a larger compromise, investors may have to wait months for a deal. This delay could magnify the underlying weakness in the US economy. Chart 16The Chinese Locomotive Is Intact In Japan, the law prescribes a negative fiscal thrust of –7.1% of GDP. We doubt this will transpire. Prime Minister Suga does not want to kill a nascent recovery and feed powerful deflationary pressures. Hence, supplementary budgets will provide more support to growth. Ms. X: Last year, we spoke a lot about China as an important driver of the global manufacturing cycle and growth. Is this still the case? BCA: China remains an important factor supporting our positive stance on global growth in 2021. Thanks to the aggressive use of testing and tracing, China has contained the virus, which is letting the economy heal and respond normally to monetary policy. On this front, the lagged impact of the easing enacted since 2019 will continue. Total social financing flows have rebounded to 33% of GDP and are consistent with a further improvement in our China Activity Indicator (Chart 16). Strengthening Chinese cyclical spending will lift imports of raw materials and machinery. The uptick in the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse suggests that China will remain a positive force for the rest of the world until the second half of 2021. After the summer, the positive impact of China on global growth will ebb. The PBoC is already allowing market interest rates to increase, which suggests that the apex of the credit easing was reached in Q4. Nonetheless, President Xi Jinping cannot tolerate any kind of instability ahead of the 100th anniversary of the CCP in October 2021. Thus, the fiscal and monetary policy tightening will be calibrated before that date and will only become a major risk afterwards. As a result, global growth will enjoy its maximum contribution from Chinese demand around Q2 2021. After that, Chinese activity will still be high enough to keep global industrial production elevated, but not enough to cause a further acceleration.  Chart 17China's Marginal Propensity To Consume Augurs Well Another good news for the Chinese and global economies is the recent pickup in China’s marginal propensity to consume (MPC), as approximated by the gap between the growth rate of M1 and M2 money supply (Chart 17). When M1 accelerates faster than M2, demand deposits are growing quicker than savings deposits, which highlights that economic agents are positioning their liquidity for increased spending. The MPC’s uptick will reinforce the positive signal for global economic activity from China’s credit trend. It also creates upside risk for China’s economy in the second half of the year compared to what policy dynamics imply. Ms. X: Beyond China and fiscal policy, do you foresee any other tailwinds for the global business cycle? BCA: Yes, there are plenty. As we already mentioned, the vaccine should allow the service sector to normalize progressively over the course of the year. Households’ healthy balance sheets will underpin US consumer spending next year. At the end of 2019, debt to disposable income stood at an 18-year low and the debt servicing-costs ratio was near generational troughs. In addition, both of these measures of financial health only improved during the crisis. Collapsing interest rates allowed households to refinance their mortgages and government transfers boosted disposable income. Likewise, after a very negative shock in Q1, household net worth quickly rebounded in Q2 when asset prices surged and household savings grew (Chart 18). The wealth effect will therefore help consumption, especially because employment continues to improve. The odds of higher yields are most pronounced for longer maturities. The outlook for capex is also bright. Capex intentions have been surprisingly robust in recent months and core durable goods shipments have reached all-time highs (Chart 19). Admittedly, capex is a lagging economic variable – companies take their cues from the behavior of households. But, this means that, as household spending continues to recover, so will capital investment. Another way to approach this topic is to think about the link between capex and corporate profitability. In capital budgeting, the pecking order theory argues that retained earnings are the preferred source of financing for corporate investments. This theory is echoed by empirical evidence. Business capital formation follows operating profits by roughly six months (Chart 20). The positive outlook for profits therefore bodes well for capex. Chart 18Solid Household Balance Sheets In The US Chart 19Surprising Capex Rebound Chart 20Earnings Drive Capex A major concern for the US economy is commercial real estate. This sector’s losses will likely be very large because many buildings are now uneconomical. Even if vaccines normalize daily activities, post-pandemic life has in some ways been reshaped. Workers are likely to conduct more of their job from home and shoppers have become used to the convenience of E-commerce. As a result, the need for office and retail space will decrease, which falling rents are already reflecting. The hit to the US banking system is still unknown. While CRE accounts for 13% of bank assets, this exposure is concentrated within smaller regional banks, which are much frailer than their SIFI counterparts (Chart 21). We could therefore see some localized troubles within a banking system that is tightening credit standards already (Chart 22). This danger warrants close monitoring. Chart 21CRE Is A Threat For Small Banks Chart 22Another Tightening In Standards Would Be Dangerous Chart 23Europe Is More Exposed To Chinese Demand It is not clear whether the US or the euro area will enjoy the sharpest growth improvement in 2021. Normally, Europe benefits the most during a manufacturing upswing, especially when China’s marginal propensity to consume is expanding (Chart 23). The European economy is more cyclical than that of the US because exports and manufacturing constitute a larger share of employment and gross value added (Chart 23, bottom panel). Moreover, the fiscal drag in Europe is likely to subtract roughly 3% from GDP next year while it could subtract 5% to 7% from the US GDP. However, an important handicap will counterbalance these advantages for Europe; the biggest source of economic delta next year should be the service sector because spending on goods began to recover in earnest in 2020. There is simply more pent-up demand left in services than goods and the service sector accounts for a larger share of output in the US than in Europe. Three additional factors could also favor the US against both Europe and Japan. First, residential activity is rebounding more quickly in North America. Historically, residential investment makes a large contribution to cyclical expenditures and it galvanizes additional spending on durable goods. Second, the Fed was able to engineer deeper declines in real interest rates than the ECB or the BoJ while Washington expanded the deficit faster than Tokyo or most European capitals. Finally, the weak dollar is creating another relief valve unavailable to Japan and Europe. In fact, the euro’s strength is potentially the greatest dampener of the European recovery in the coming quarter. Finally, emerging economies face important domestic hurdles that will handicap them significantly versus advanced economies in the first half of the year. EM banking systems remain fragile after the violent capital outflows witnessed in the first half of 2020. Thus, their ability to expand credit is comparatively limited. Moreover, EM economies have yet to withstand the inevitable second wave of infections, and their healthcare systems are even weaker than in advanced economies. The logistical complications associated with the rollouts of the vaccine will be most acute in poorer countries. Mr. X: I share your worries about long-term inflation, but where do you stand regarding near-term dynamics? A faster inflation recovery would amount to the kiss of death for asset markets. BCA: You are correct that faster inflation would threaten asset markets. It would force a rapid re-pricing of the Fed’s policy path and lift yields higher. Expensive stocks would buckle under this impulse. However, while it is a risk we monitor closely, it is far from our base case. We particularly like real yield curve steepeners. To begin with, both the output gap and the unemployment gap will remain meaningful in 2021. Our US Composite Capacity Utilization Indicator is not consistent with higher inflation (Chart 24). Additionally, at 6.9%, the US unemployment rate understates the amount of slack in the labor market. The employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers offers a more accurate read of the labor market because it accounts for discouraged workers. This labor market indicator points toward limited inflation in the Employment Cost Index (Chart 25). Chart 24Limited Immediate Inflationary Pressures Chart 25The Labor Market Is Replete With Slack Inflation is still likely to spike in the first half of the year, but this jump will prove temporary. In the second quarter, both the core CPI and the core PCE inflation will incorporate a strong base effect when annual comparisons include the extremely depressed numbers that prevailed at the nadir of the recession. Moreover, once the service sector reopens in response to broadening vaccination programs, service sector inflation could pop higher, as goods prices did once the goods sector reopened last summer. The base effect will quickly ebb and the initial surge in service inflation should also dissipate because shelter inflation will remain dampened by stubborn permanent unemployment (Chart 26). The Fed will look through next year’s temporary inflation rebound. Its new average inflation target officialized last September is designed to avoid this kind of premature response and Fed officials are currently more afraid of committing deflationary errors than inflationary ones. Markets understand this well. Hence, as long as inflation breakeven rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% band consistent with market participants believing in the Fed’s ability to achieve 2% inflation durably (Chart 27), market wobbles caused by higher inflation will create buying opportunities. Chart 26Shelter Inflation Will Remain Downbeat Chart 27The Fed Monitors Inflation Expectations   One factor could cause inflation to start moving durably higher than our base case anticipates. So far, money supply is behaving very differently than in the wake of the GFC. Back then, the Fed aggressively expanded its balance sheet, but the private sector’s deleveraging compressed money demand. Consequently, the Fed’s money injections stayed trapped in the banking system where excess reserves swelled. Broad money growth was tepid and the money multiplier collapsed. Today, the private sector is not deleveraging and M2 has surged at its fastest pace since 1944. Thanks to this lack of monetary bottlenecks, real interest rates fell much faster than in 2008/9 even if the nominal Fed Funds rate dropped to zero in both instances (Chart 28). Monetary conditions are therefore much more accommodative than they were 12 years ago. Another consequence of a functioning monetary system is that the broad money supply’s advance is outstripping the Treasury’s issuance. Historically, when money supply grows quicker than government debt, inflation emerges (Chart 29). We are tracking the velocity of money closely to gauge whether this risk is morphing into reality. Chart 28Policy Is More Accommodative Than During the GFC Chart 29An Inflationary Risk   Ms. X: Before we move on to asset market forecasts for 2021, I would like to hear your thoughts on Brexit and the extraordinary showing of European unity last summer. BCA: We came very close to ending the Brexit transition period without a free-trade agreement between the UK and the EU. First, PM Boris Johnson had been under attack from the right wing of the Conservative party. In response, his government ramped up the hard rhetoric in recent months. However, the negative impact on the British economy in the absence of a free trade agreement with the EU was always a binding constraint on the PM. Hence, the tough rhetoric was mostly bluster and negotiation tactic with Brussels. Second, the electoral defeat of President Donald Trump in the US means that the UK is unlikely to receive preferential treatment from the US if it cannot reach a trade deal with the EU. The UK would be on its own, especially because President-Elect Joe Biden is likely to side with the EU, with whom he wants to rebuild a relationship. On the EU side, it is highly unlikely that Berlin will let French demands on fishing rights threaten its capacity to sell to its 5th export market. Thus, we expect a deal to come to fruition imminently. The move toward fiscal integration in Europe is also crucial beyond its near-term bullish impact on Italian, Spanish or Portuguese bonds. Jean Monnet, one of the architects of the 1951 Treaty of Paris that created the European Coal and Steel Community (the EU’s embryo), famously wrote in his memoirs that: “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” We witnessed these dynamics last summer. The EUR750 billion Recovery Fund created by the European Commission to help economies struggling with the pandemic will issue its own bonds. It is the first step toward a permanent common bond issuance mechanism and fiscal risk sharing in the euro area. As expensive as stocks may be in absolute terms, the monetary and yield backdrop creates a large enough buffer for now. The experience of last decade’s euro crisis shows that temporary solutions often become permanent features of the EU, even if its treaties originally forbade them. The latest move will be no exception. The euro is popular; it is supported by 83%, 60%, 72%, 76% and 82% of the Spanish, Italian French, Dutch and German populations, respectively (Chart 30). Moreover, German support for the euro is particularly important. Germany’s current account surplus equals 7% of GDP because of the euro. The euro is a lot weaker than the Deutsche mark would be, which boosts German exporters’ competitiveness in international markets and within the euro area. Without the common currency, German cars would be much more expensive in France, Italy or China than they are today. Chart 30The Glue That Binds Europe Together Likewise, the ECB Target II balance permanently attaches Germany to its weaker neighbors. Italy and Spain owe EUR 1 trillion to this settlement system while Germany is owed EUR915 billion. If Italy or Spain were to go bankrupt or to leave the euro and redenominate their debt in lira or pesetas, the resulting hit would threaten the viability of the German banking system (Chart 30, bottom panel). Chart 31Competitiveness Convergence The past competitiveness problems of the European periphery are also steadily diminishing. Compared to Germany, harmonized unit labor costs in Italy or Spain have fallen 15% since 2009 and are not far from the levels prevailing at the introduction of the euro in 1999 (Chart 31). Consequently, current account deficits in Spain and Italy are narrowing considerably. Germany’s euro benefits, the tie created by the Target II imbalances and the periphery's improved competitiveness only bring Europe together and they allow the COVID-19 crisis to force a closer union. While these developments have little implication for Europe’s growth next year, they constitute a major long-term positive because they will curtail the cost of capital in the periphery and permit the sharing of funds necessary to build a lasting monetary union. Ms. X: To summarize; at the beginning of 2021, global growth should remain volatile. However, the recovery will ultimately strengthen over the remainder of the year thanks to the rollout of vaccines, the sustained fiscal support across major economies, the continued positive impact of China’s economic healing, and the strength of household balance sheets. Capex will remain robust as well, even if commercial real estate is a dangerous spot that we must monitor. Moreover, it is too early to ascertain whether the US or the EU will experience the strongest recovery in 2021, but emerging economies should lag behind. In addition, while you are concerned about the long-term inflation risk, consumer prices should not experience a durable pickup this year. Likewise, you foresee a benign outcome to the UK-EU trade negotiations and are positive on European integration. BCA: Yes, you summed it up nicely. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I find the Treasury market very puzzling right now. On the one hand, demanding valuations of US government bonds worry me, particularly in light of the upbeat economic outlook for 2021. On the other hand, if inflation remains low and the Fed is unlikely to push up rates until 2022 at the earliest, the upside for yields should be limited.  BCA: We recommend a below-benchmark duration for fixed-income portfolios with an investment horizon of 12 months or so. Valuations partially underpin this recommendation. Our Global and US Bond Valuation Indices highlight that government bonds are at the level of overvaluation that, over the past 30 years, often produce a negative return in the following 12 months (Chart 32). However, valuations only indicate the degree of vulnerability of an asset but they rarely trigger price moves. Instead, timing most often relies on cyclical and technical factors. Favor cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. Cyclical forces are increasingly negative for bonds. In the US, our BCA Pipeline Inflation Indicator has perked up. It is not pointing toward an imminent rise in inflation but it suggests that deflationary risks are ebbing, something BCA’s Corporate Pricing Power Proxy also captures (Chart 33). A removal of the left-tail risk in CPI should push up yields, especially as our BCA Nominal Cyclical Spending Proxy is also firming, which normally happens ahead of meaningful yield pickups (Chart 33, bottom panel). Chart 32Pricey Bonds Chart 33Cyclical Risks For Bond Prices Chart 34Investors Will Want Protection Against Inflation Uncertainty The odds of higher yields are most pronounced for longer maturities. First, our central forecast expects a significant rise in inflation in the latter part of the decade. Second, monetary and fiscal policy will remain very accommodative over the coming years even as private demand increases, which will lift medium- to long-term inflation uncertainty. Rising inflation uncertainty usually facilitates a steepening of the yield curve (Chart 34). Despite these forces, the upside to yields will prove limited in 2021. The Fed’s new inflation target means that it will be patient, and waiting for core PCE inflation to move sustainably above 2% could take time. The US central bank is therefore unlikely to increase interest rates for many years. This inertia limits the immediate upside in Treasury yields, but does not preclude it. While the Fed will not be quick to lift off, its forward interest rate guidance is not going to get any more dovish and the bond market is already pricing-in the first rate hike for late 2023. This expected liftoff date will be brought forward as the economy recovers, meaning that long-maturity nominal yields, real yields and inflation breakeven rates all have moderate upside. The recent equity market leadership of growth stocks is another limiting factor for higher yields. Growth stocks are extremely sensitive to long bond yields. If the latter back up too fast, it will scuttle bourses and unleash risk aversion and deflationary pressures. This creates an upper bound on the speed at which yields can move up. Mr. X: Even with their limited room to fall in the near term, the meaningful long-term and valuation risks of bonds make them so unappealing to me that I refrain from using them as near-term portfolio hedges. How can I protect my equity holdings right now? BCA: Hedging near-term risks to stocks has become one of the most hotly discussed topic with our clients because investors are witnessing the increasingly asymmetric payoffs of bonds. When equity prices rise, bond prices typically decline, but when stocks correct, bond prices barely rally. This newfound behavior of safe-haven bonds is a consequence of global policy rates having moved to or near their lower bound. We increasingly like small-cap firms relative to large-cap ones. For non-US based investors, there is a simple solution to this problem: parking some funds in US cash because the USD still acts as an effective hedge against market corrections. For US-based investors, finding adequate protection is more challenging. Those who can short and use leverage should sell currency pairs with an elevated sensitivity to changes in risk aversion, such as the EUR/CHF, AUD/JPY or MXN/JPY, to achieve some protection. Otherwise, holding cash to buy back stocks at lower levels remains an appropriate strategy. Mr. X: Which government bond market do you like most, or more accurately, which one should I avoid most right now? BCA: At the moment, we prefer the European periphery. The valuation ranking we often use when we see you is clear: Portuguese, Greek, Italian or Spanish bonds are the cheapest while German Bunds and US T-Notes are exceptionally expensive (Chart 35). Real bond yields confirm this estimation. Additionally, the nascent fiscal risk-sharing created by the European Commission’s Recovery Fund should result in declining breakup risk premia embedded in peripheral bonds. Furthermore, the ECB’s asset purchases are set to rise in response to Frankfurt’s efforts to fight off the deflationary effect of both the euro’s appreciation and the second wave’s lockdowns. Chart 35The Value Is In Europe’s Periphery We are more negative on US Treasuries than Bunds. The valuation difference between the two safe havens is minimal. However, in 2020 the US has been more reflationary than Europe and the recent decline in the USD should lift US inflation relative to Germany’s, which will widen yield differentials in favor of Bund prices (Chart 36). Besides, the US economy has a higher potential GDP growth than Europe, which warrants a superior neutral rate of interest. Consequently, investors should expect US real yields to rise relative to the euro area’s benchmark. Outside of these markets, dedicated fixed-income investors should also overweight JGBs within their portfolio. JGBs have a low yield beta, which will limit their price declines if global yields move up. If the global recovery peters off, this feature will not create a major handicap because global yields have limited room to fall from here. Moreover, Japanese bonds are the cheapest safe haven (Chart 37). Chart 36Bunds vs Treasuries: Follow The Inflation Gap Chart 37JGBs Are The More Attractive Safe Haven   We are neutral Canadian and Australian bonds. Historically, Canadian and Australian yields tend to have high betas to US T-Note yields. However, the BoC and the RBA are very active purchasers in their domestic markets, which will dampen the volatility of Canadian and Australian bonds. Ms. X: Considering the limited scope for major interest rate moves next year, what are your high-conviction trades for fixed-income portfolios? BCA: Within US government bond markets, we like curve steepeners. We also recommend positioning for rising inflation expectations by going overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. We particularly like real yield curve steepeners (within the TIPS curve). The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below that of long-maturity protection, which means that short-term inflation breakeven rates have more upside as core PCE returns to the Fed’s target. A TIPS-curve steepener benefits from both a flattening of the inflation breakeven curve and a steepening of the nominal Treasury curve. It is therefore a high-octane play on both our favored strategies. We like both Europe and Japan. Within US corporate credit, we are currently overweight investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield bonds. However, valuation at the upper-end of the credit spectrum heavily favors tax-exempt municipal bonds over corporates. Investors that can take advantage of the tax exemption should prefer munis over investment grade corporates. Elsewhere, we are underweight MBS as pre-payment risk is elevated, but we like consumer ABS due to the strong position of household balance sheets. Ms. X: Before we moved on to equities, where do you stand on EM credit? Do you expect any global search for yield to push EM bond prices higher? BCA: With a few exceptions like Mexico and Russia, we prefer US corporate bonds to dollar denominated EM bonds of similar credit quality. EM bonds offer poorer value, but EM spreads will continue to evolve in line with US corporate spreads. Because of this directional correlation, our preference for US investment grade bonds translates to EM bonds as well. Our more circumspect attitude toward EM high-yield bonds also reflects our more conservative stance on US high-yield bonds. For local-currency rates, we are receivers in the swap market because the near-term outlook for EM currencies is difficult. Most EM countries have a deflation problem, not inflation troubles. Hence, real and nominal rates in emerging economies will fall as central banks try to stimulate their economies. These declines will be positive for the local-currency performance of EM bonds but it will hurt their currencies. Over the next twelve months, this challenge will be most pronounced against non-US DM currencies. In the short-term, this hindrance will also exist against the USD because the Greenback should rebound temporarily, something we can discuss in more detail in our chat about the currency and commodity markets. Our favorite bets are to receive Mexican, Colombian, Russian, Indian, Chinese and Korean swap rates. Mr. X: I agree that the case to make a major duration bet next year is limited, but risks are slightly skewed toward upside for yields. I am a little surprised that you like European peripheral bonds so much and yet prefer Bunds to Treasuries. I will have to digest your view on EM bonds because I would have bought EM currencies outright. Finally, I find your real yield curve steepener idea extremely intriguing. Thank you for giving me ideas to ponder. Now, shall we move to next year’s equity outlook? Equity Market Outlook Chart 38The Bubble Can Grow Mr. X: I am a firm believer that growth stocks, tech in particular, are in a massive bubble. My daughter tries to convince me that we cannot generalize. Yet, both my gut and my brain tell me to seek refuge in value stocks. I appreciate that the outlook for tech stocks hinges on the evolution of monetary policy. Nonetheless, I think that any small shock can topple the so-called FANGs because they are so expensive and over-owned. I fear that where the FANGs go, so will the market. BCA: We have recently published a report broaching the question of bursting bubbles. When real interest rates are negative, when money supply is expanding at a double digit pace and when the Fed is extremely reluctant to tighten policy, the chances that a bubble will deflate are extremely low, even if stocks are furiously expensive (Chart 38). Beyond monetary tightening, an escalation in the supply of financial instruments also caused some bubbles to deflate. For example, an increase in the number of tulips following a harvest contributed to the end of the tulip mania. Bubbles from the eighteenth century, such as the South Sea Bubble and the Mississippi Company Bubble, followed stock issuances or regulatory changes. Even during the tech bubble, the large IPOs of the late 1990s added to the supply of securities available to investors. Right now, we are not witnessing this surge in supply. Buybacks, which are a contraction in supply, have acted as a key fuel to the bubble in the tech sector. Moreover, dominant tech titans have built large moats around their businesses because they often rely on pronounced network effects, if they are not a network themselves. These monopolistic behaviors account for their large profit margins, but they also prevent the emergence of viable competitors in the near term. Meanwhile, the mushrooming of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) is worrisome in the long-term. They are mostly vehicles to conduct backdoor IPOs of private firms. For now, they remain too small to topple the bubble. The real worry for tech investors is the eventual resurgence of inflation. During the tech bubble at the turn of the millennium, the rise in core CPI in early 2000 forced investors to discount more rate hikes, which toppled tech equities (Chart 39). As we discussed already, the outlook for inflation is benign for 2021, but if it were to change, tech stocks could fall in absolute terms. We expect tech names to underperform the S&P 500 over the next 12 months, but not to fall outright. This is akin to the experience of Japanese banks in the 1980s. In the first half of that decade, Japanese lenders stood at the forefront of the equity bubble. However, in the late 1980s, they lagged behind the rest of the Nikkei, even if they generated positive absolute returns (Chart 40). Chart 39Inflation Is The Threat To Tech Stocks Chart 40Without Falling, Bubble Leaders Can Still Lag   Ms. X: I agree, it is hard to be too negative on stocks next year with the Fed standing firmly on the sidelines. What do you see as the market’s main driver in 2021 and what is the biggest risk to the outlook? BCA: Many important factors underpin global equities. First, we still are in the early innings of a new business cycle upswing. Statistically, bull markets most often end when earnings permanently decline. This observation means that equity bear markets rarely develop in the absence of recession (Chart 41).  Chart 41Recessions And Bear Markets Travel Together Second, as expensive as stocks may be in absolute terms, the monetary and yield backdrop creates a large enough buffer for now. The combination of our Valuation and Monetary Indicators remains in low-risk territory, which historically is consistent with positive absolute returns for the S&P 500 over the coming 12 to 18 months (Chart 42). However, the gap between the two indicators is narrower than it was last spring, which suggests that the easy market gains lie behind us. Another tool to think about valuations is the Equity Risk Premium. Our measure, which adjusts for the lack of stationarity of the ERP’s mean as well as for the expected growth of cash flows, is not as wide as it was in Q2 or Q3, but it remains congruent with positive prospective equity returns (Chart 43). Chart 42Monetary Policy Beats Valuations, For Now Chart 43The ERP Points To Positive Stock Returns in 2021   Third, forward earnings estimates will rise further. The gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customers’ Inventories subcomponents of the ISM survey indicates that earnings revisions will continue to climb from here (Chart 44). Additionally, our Corporate Pricing Power Proxy is back into neutral territory after having flashed dangerous deflationary pressures. Thanks to the operating leverage embedded in equities, improving selling prices can quickly push the bottom line higher (Chart 45). The rollout of vaccines next year will only feed these dynamics and help profit growth even further. Chart 44Room For Positive Earnings Revisions Chart 45Less Deflation Is Good For Earnings     Fourth, our benign expectations for the credit market is consistent with both higher multiples and earnings. A well-functioning credit market is essential to risk taking and multiples. It also allows capex to remain well sustained and cyclical spending to expand. Both these forces are bullish for profits. Fifth, our negative stance on the dollar will ease global financial conditions. A weaker dollar pushes down the global cost of capital, which strengthens the global industrial cycle. Global stock markets overweight the industrial and goods sectors relative to the economy. Therefore, global bourses benefit from a weaker dollar. The greatest risk for stocks is an uncontrolled jump in bond yields, where 10-year Treasury yields climb above 1.2% in a short period, especially if real rates drive the leap. Too quick an adjustment in the cost of capital would threaten the ERP and it would hurt the multiples of growth stocks that are highly sensitive to fluctuations in the discount rate. Moreover, a rapid rise in borrowing costs would likely force a more precipitous deceleration in the housing sector, which is a key locomotive of the recovery. Another risk is that vaccine rollouts are delayed, which would rapidly sap growth expectations. Mr. X: Rather than taking a large net long exposure in equities, I would favor value stocks at the expense of growth stocks. The valuation gap between both styles is exceptionally wide, and value equities have not been this cheap on a relative basis since at least 2000, or more, depending on the indices used . As a result, they embed a much greater margin of safety than growth stocks, which makes me rest easier because I am less comfortable than you are about this equity bubble’s near-term prospects. Chart 46Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives Ms. X: As I mentioned at the beginning of our chat, I, however, prefer growth stocks. The sectors most represented in the value indices face secular headwinds such as low rates, a move away from carbon, and the increasing role of software, not goods, as the source of value added in our economies. Meanwhile, growth stocks also benefit from the aging of the population, the historically low trend growth rate of the global economy, and the network effects, which protect the profit margins of large tech firms. As you can see, my father and I have been clashing on this topic. Where do you stand? BCA: Within the firm, we have had our disagreements on this topic as well. One thing we all agree upon is that the growth-versus-value debate amounts to a sector call. One common preference we share is to favor cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. Over the coming 12 months, a weak dollar, rising inflation expectations, the strengthening of the Chinese and global economy and improving capex will all conspire to boost the profit and multiples of cyclical stocks at the expense of defensive sectors (Chart 46). Nonetheless, if the Chinese economy starts to slow in the second half of 2021, we will have to evaluate if this bet remains valid. Within the cyclicals, we prefer the more traditional ones, like industrials and materials at the expense of the tech sector. The expected growth rate embedded in tech stocks is extremely elevated compared to the rest of the market in general and other cyclicals in particular (Chart 47). This aggressive pricing is rooted in the recent experience, whereby tech earnings significantly outperformed the rest of the market. However, this outperformance mirrored strong sales of techs goods and services during the pandemic, when households and firms prepared for long lockdowns and remote working. Gravity-defying sales in the midst of the deepest recession in 90 years stole demand away from the future. Now that the economy recovers, pent-up demand for tech goods is smaller than for other categories of cyclical spending. Thus, the current pricing of tech earnings growth leaves room for disappointments. Within traditional cyclicals, financials are a question mark. The broadening of the economic reopening subsequent to the rollout of the vaccines is positive for the quality of banks’ loan books. However, the scope for yields to rise is restricted, which will limit how steep the yield curve will become and how wide net interest margins will swell. Thus, for 2021, industrials and materials remain our favored sectors. Chart 47Too Much Earnings Optimism For Tech Stocks We also favor a basket of “back to work” stocks at the expense of “COVID-19 winners”. With vaccines coming through next year, this trade has further to run. The first group includes some airlines, hotels, oil producers, restaurant operators, capital goods manufacturers, credit card companies, automobile manufacturers and a steel producer.1 The second basket includes a bankruptcy consultant, a software company, some grocers, some biotech names, a Big Pharma company, a large e-commerce business, an online streaming service, a teleconferencing company and two household products leaders.2  For the next 12 to 18 months, we favor value stocks at the expense of growth stocks, which is a consequence of our preference for traditional cyclical names and of the “back to work” names. Moreover, since 2008, periods of economic acceleration correspond to quicker earnings growth of value stocks compared to growth equities (Chart 48). Additionally, if bond yields move up – even if not much, the multiples of value stocks should expand relative to growth firms (Chart 48, bottom panel). We also increasingly like small-cap firms relative to large-cap ones. Small cap indices have substantial underweights in healthcare and tech names, which contrasts with the S&P 500 or the S&P 100. Accordingly, the Russell 2000 both has a cyclical and value bend relative to large-cap benchmarks. Moreover, small call equities outperform the S&P 500 when the dollar declines and when commodity prices appreciate (Chart 49). Additionally, the recent sharp rebound in US railroad freight volumes will support the more-cyclical Russell 2000. Besides, greater shipments lead to upgrades of junk-bond credit ratings, which decreases the perceived riskiness of the heavily levered small cap firms (Chart 50). Chart 48Value Investors Will Like 2021 Chart 49The Case For Small Cap Stocks, Part I Chart 50The Case For Small Cap Stocks, Part II The long-term picture is less clear. Many key supports for growth stocks remain in place. Principally, the aging of the population and the risk of rising inflation in the second half of the decade should flatter healthcare stocks. In addition, the wide profit margins of tech stocks are unlikely to fully mean-revert because firms like Amazon, Google or Microsoft benefit from monopolistic positions that have decoupled their profitability from their capital stock. For now, the biggest risk to these sectors would be a regulatory onslaught from Washington and Brussels. Meanwhile, the sectors composing value indices suffer from the structural headwinds that Ms. X already noted. Counterbalancing this narrative, the extreme relative overvaluation of growth stocks suggests that their prices reflect these long-term forces already. On a very near-term basis (next two to three months), the rapid rise in investor sentiment as well as the collapse in the put-call ratio are consistent with a correction or sideways move in equities (Chart 51). When this correction materializes, no meaningful trend in growth relative to value stocks should emerge. Therefore, we recommend tactical traders play relative value within growth stocks and within value equities, where overextended sectors should correct. Within growth, we would like to rotate away from tech into healthcare. Within value, the next three months should reward financials at the expense of materials. Chart 51Near-Term Risks For Stocks Ms. X: Based on these sectoral views, I gather you would underweight the US market. But where do you stand on emerging markets? BCA: You are correct, in 2021, we expect US equities to underperform the rest of the world. Their large weight in healthcare combined with the low beta of the US economy to global growth gives a defensive twist to the S&P 500. In addition to healthcare, the most significant overweight in the US equity benchmark is tech, which reinforces the growth style of US stocks. The US’s tech overweight is greater than appears because US communication services and consumer discretionary sectors are mostly tech names such as Facebook, Google, Netflix or Amazon (Table 3). Finally, our bearish outlook on the USD creates an additional hurdle for US equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 52). Table 3Sector Representation In Various Regions While we like both Europe and Japan, the latter stands out for 2021. Japanese stocks have particularly large allocations to the most attractive deep cyclicals (industrial and consumer discretionary equities) and are very cheap, even on a sector-to-sector comparison (Chart 53). To like Japan, we do not need to bet on a multiples convergence. This equity market’s low valuations mean that we are buying each unit of profit growth at a discount to the same sectors in the rest of the world. As a result, Japanese equities are more levered to our positive view on the earnings of deep cyclicals than any other major bourse. Chart 52US Stocks Underperform When The Dollar Weakens Chart 53Japan Offers The Right Exposure At The Right Price   Finally, we are neutral on EM stocks. We like them more than US equities but less than Japan or Europe. EM stocks will benefit from a weaker dollar, but they have become tightly correlated to the NASDAQ due to the leadership of a few large tech names in Asia. Essentially, like the US, EM stocks have a very large weighting in the tech sector. If our view is correct that growth underperforms value next year, North Asian EM, which have driven EM stocks since March, will lag behind Latin America in 2021. Mr X: Thank you for your thoughts on equities. I agree that a monetary shock normally is needed to burst bubbles, but I also worry that the current extreme overvaluation of tech stocks could lead to gravity taking hold without the help of the Fed. This means that I am slightly less confident than you are that equities will rise this year. However, I agree with you that value stocks should beat growth stocks and that US equities should become the laggards after years of leadership. Ms. X: Should we move on to the currency and commodity markets? Currencies And Commodities Chart 54The Dollar Is Vulnerable Technically Mr. X: I was skeptical last year, but your bearish dollar view panned out very well. However, you did not get its cause correctly. For one, you were constructive on global growth and consequently, negative on the dollar. I am skeptical that the dollar will depreciate much further in 2021 because it possesses a considerable yield advantage over other G-10 currencies. BCA: Today, the dollar sits at a critical spot. As you mentioned, we were negative on the USD last year; since then, it has breached all the major trend lines that have defined its bull market over the past nine years (Chart 54). This technical configuration suggests that more weakness is in store.  One thing is very clear, dollar bulls have gone missing. Speculators are heavily selling the USD. Bullish sentiment on the euro is at its most elevated level in a decade. Historically, when it faces such one-sided negativity, the dollar enjoys temporary rebounds. Nonetheless, the DXY’s upside should be limited, at 2-4%, not more. A few forces cap the dollar’s upside. The currencies with the most upside against the dollar in 2021 are the European currencies. The liquidity crunch that handicapped global markets in March is over. Most foreign central banks have ample access to dollar liquidity and do not rely on the Fed anymore, as its outstanding swap lines stand close to zero (Chart 55). In 2009, this was a clear signal that the dollar liquidity shortage was behind us. The Fed has increased its supply of domestic currency more aggressively than other central banks. Today, interest rates around the world are at zero. Therefore, central banks’ balance sheet policy and forward guidance are the main tools to communicate the future path of interest rates. Chart 56 shows that other G-10 central banks have been lagging the Fed in terms of their balance sheet expansion. This has hurt the dollar and benefitted other currencies. Chart 55No More Liquidity Crunch Chart 56Currencies Respond To Balance Sheets   US growth is lagging the rest of the world. This might not last, but growth differentials will continue to drive the performance of currencies, as they did in recent years. The November PMIs showed that the US economy held up well, but 2021 growth expectations from the IMF and other agencies favor the Eurozone. Finally, we are also deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. However, negative rates are the symptom and not the disease. China has positive interest rates because its domestic demand is strong. Europe or Japan are very sensitive to Chinese growth, which could cause the US rate advantage to evaporate. Ms. X: Earlier, you mentioned that the dollar is the perfect hedge for non-US based investors, which is a view I share. Are there any other currencies outside the dollar that we should hold that provide some safety? BCA: The currencies with the most upside against the dollar in 2021 are the European currencies, especially the Norwegian krone and the Swedish krona. They are the most undervalued currencies within the G-10, and they offer some margin of safety. While less attractive than the Scandinavian currencies, the pound will nonetheless appreciate more than the euro next year. Even if most currencies should gain against the USD, the yen is the one that will offer the most protective ability in a portfolio. It would be an excellent defensive complement to the dollar for investors looking to hedge portfolio risk. Gold will not perform effectively as a deflation hedge, but its ability to protect portfolios against long-term inflation risks remains intact. First, the yen is cheap. Over the years, falling Japanese price levels have tremendously improved the value of the yen. This cheapness makes Japanese equities an attractive investment, especially on an unhedged basis. These unhedged flows into Japan are very positive for the yen. Second, Japan offers the highest real interest rates in the G10. This attribute will incite investors to purchase JGBs. Moreover, Japanese investors could represent a major source of fixed-income flows into the country because of a large proportion of US Treasuries will mature, which will invite repatriation flows. Chart 57The Yen Likes A Weaker USD Finally, the yen is a low beta currency versus the USD. Both the DXY and the USD/JPY are positively correlated, thus when the dollar declines, the yen rises, but less so than other currencies (Chart 57). This means that when global equity markets enter risk-off phases, the yen appreciates against non-dollar currencies, but it loses less value against these same currencies when markets are rallying. This places the yen in a very enviable “heads I win, tails I don’t lose too much” position, which is what we need out of a portfolio hedge.  Mr. X: I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the yen, but I agree that it is an interesting portfolio hedge. Nonetheless, my precious metals still provide me with a lot more comfort than any fiat currencies. Moving to commodities; it has been a remarkable year. Oil was crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic – more so than other commodities. Crude now appears to be attempting a comeback. Gold did well this year, but it recently dipped below $1,800/oz., and seems to be struggling to get back above that level. Let’s start with oil. Where do you see it going and how should we play it? BCA: Oil is about one principle: Supply and demand have to clear the market. Even more than with other commodities, the COVID-19 pandemic clobbered oil demand, especially those segments of the market tied to transportation, such as motor fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel), jet and marine fuels. While the news around vaccines are encouraging, it will be months before these treatments are available on the massive scale required to revive transportation demand. Chart 58Crude Forecasts Ms. X: Are you saying the oil prices will remain depressed in 2021?   BCA: Not really. We expect demand to recover following local – as opposed to national – lockdowns in the US and Europe. This process will become evident even before the vaccines have been rolled out on a large-enough scale to affect transportation demand. The impact on energy demand of the vaccines themselves should become visible toward the end of the first half of 2021.  On the supply side, we believe the producer coalition lead by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to adjust supply to meet demand. Hence, global oil inventories will fall further, which will tighten the market. Based on these supply/demand dynamics, Brent crude-oil prices will average $63/bbl next year, which is above the forward curve in oil markets (Chart 58). Mr. X: Oil-market risk seems very difficult to pin down right now. Do you expect downside or upside risks to dominate prices next year? BCA: At the current juncture, risks to the oil market are exceptionally two-sided. On the downside, with the exception of China, most major economies have been unable to control the rapid spread of COVID-19. If the health crisis lingers, oil demand could remain weaker than our base case anticipates. On the upside, Big Pharma has acted with unprecedented speed in developing vaccines to combat this coronavirus. Netting all these forces out, the balance of risks, in our view, favors the upside, as our price forecast indicates. Mr. X: Thank you. I would like to move on to gold. You mentioned that the dollar was your favourite hedge against equity risk for non-US based investors. As I mentioned earlier, I tend to prefer gold. BCA: Gold and the US dollar are both safe-haven assets; when risk aversion and uncertainty increase, investors buy both these assets to hedge their portfolios. Typically, a weaker dollar is good for gold, and vice versa. The past four or five years have been extraordinarily uncertain – trade wars, political uncertainty, the global rise of nationalist populism, the COVID-19 pandemic, you name it. All of these factors drove investors to hold dollars and gold at the same time.  While the bullish dollar forces are dissipating, we cannot say the same for gold. The Fed is committed to maintaining an ultra-accommodative monetary policy indefinitely, which, along with the US government’s ever-expanding budget deficits, will keep the supply of money and credit extremely high for years. As we already argued, this policy setup will have a positive impact on inflation expectations. On the geopolitical front, even if the Sino-US tensions become less acute in the near-term, an undercurrent of distrust and rivalry will prevail. This combination will let bullion prices reach $2,000/oz. next year. Despite these positive fundamentals, gold will not hedge portfolios well against temporary deflationary shocks. Stuck at their lower bound, interest rates cannot decline any more. Consequently, negative growth shocks weigh on inflation expectations, which lifts real interest rate and the dollar, albeit briefly. This process is bearish for gold. Thus, gold will not perform effectively as a deflation hedge, but its ability to protect portfolios against long-term inflation risks remains intact. Mr. X: Thank you. Any other natural resource you would highlight for 2021? BCA: In our research, we heavily focus on the evolution of the global economy toward a low-carbon regime. Hence, we have opened up a whole line of investigation on CO2 markets, particularly in the EU, which is the largest such venue in the world. We are expecting it to become a leading indicator of global efforts to price carbon going forward.  On a related note, we are very interested in the buildout and modernization of China’s electric grid as it embarks on its 14th Five-Year Plan in 2021. Similar efforts are arising globally. We think this will be very important for base metals prices, particularly copper and aluminium. Geopolitics Mr. X: Before we conclude, let us talk about global geopolitical risks. The past two years were replete with tensions, many stocked by the Trump administration. Does a change of leadership in the US will fundamentally alter global relations, especially between the US and China?   Chart 59Peak US Polarization BCA: The fundamental geopolitical dynamic at the outset of the 2020s is the division of the United States and the rise of China.   The sharp increase in US political polarization began with the decline of a common enemy, the Soviet Union, in the 1980s. Pro-growth policies that widened the wealth gap, and a series of political, military, economic, and financial shocks in the twenty-first century, drove polarization to levels not witnessed since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The anti-establishment Trump administration marked the latest peak in polarization (Chart 59). Now, in 2020, the Democratic Party-led political establishment has reclaimed the White House, but only narrowly. The popular vote was roughly evenly divided (47% to 51%) and the Republicans have likely retained the Senate. Because the popular vote and Electoral College vote are now aligned, and because Biden looks limited to center-left policies, polarization is likely to come off its highs. But it will remain elevated due to gridlock in Congress and persistent socio-economic disparities. President Xi Jinping’s “New Era” has led to a backlash from foreign powers. Polarization is globally relevant because it increases uncertainty over the US’s role in the world, particularly on fiscal policy and foreign policy. At home, gridlock produces periodic budget crises that weigh on global risk appetite. Abroad, partisanship causes new presidents to reverse the foreign policies of their predecessors (see President Obama on Iraq and President Trump on Iran). These dramatic reversals increase global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk (Chart 60). Chart 60A Bull Market In Policy Uncertainty As the US descended into internal partisan conflict, China expanded its global influence. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, the Communist Party was forced to change its national strategy to better handle demographic decline, structural economic transition, rising social ills, and foreign protectionism. Slower trend growth increases long-term risks to single-party rule, forcing the CCP to shift the basis of its legitimacy from rapid income growth to Chinese nationalism. Hence Beijing has aggressively sought a technological “Great Leap Forward” to improve productivity while adopting a much more assertive foreign policy to build a sphere of influence in Asia Pacific. President Xi Jinping’s “New Era” has led to a backlash from foreign powers, most markedly with COVID-19 but also with the removal of Hong Kong’s autonomy, saber-rattling in neighboring seas, and politically motivated boycotts of neighboring countries like Australia. The sharp decline in China’s international image has occurred despite the damage that President Trump did to America’s image at the same time (Chart 61). The Xi administration is not likely to change course anytime soon as it seeks to consolidate power even further ahead of the critical 2022 leadership transition. Chart 61A Broadening Distrust Of China American polarization and Chinese nationalism are a dangerous combination. China is increasingly fearful of US containment policy and is adopting a new five-year plan built on accelerating its quest for economic self-sufficiency and technological leadership. The US is fearful of China as the first peer competitor that it has faced since the Soviet Union, and one of the few sources of national unity is the bipartisan agenda of confronting China over its illiberal policies. The Biden administration will mark the third US presidency in a row whose foreign policy will be preoccupied with how to handle Beijing. With Biden likely facing gridlock at home, and likely a one-term president due to old age, his administration will largely amount to restoring the Obama administration’s policies. Internationally, this means an attempt to rejoin or renegotiate the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 so that the US can reduce its involvement in the Middle East and pivot to Asia. Assuming that any American or Israeli action against Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration is limited, Biden will probably achieve a temporary solution with Iran, which otherwise faces economic collapse just ahead of a critical presidential election and eventual succession of the supreme leader. But the process could involve force or the threat of force before a solution is reached, and this would temporarily trouble markets. The greatest geopolitical opportunity in 2021 lies in Europe. Biden will also seek to re-engage China to manage the dangerous rise in tensions, while making amends with US allies for Trump’s “America First” approach. There is already a tension between Biden’s commitment to multilateralism and his need to get things done. The Trump tariffs are viewed as illegal according to the WTO but give Biden leverage over China. Biden is forced to confront China and Russia over their authoritarian actions, but he also needs their assistance on Iran and North Korea. Meanwhile unforeseen crises will emerge, likely in emerging markets badly shaken by this year’s deep recession. Chart 62The Taiwan Strait Is The Top Geopolitical Risk In 2021 The greatest geopolitical risk in 2021 lies in the Taiwan Strait. If China becomes convinced that Biden is not attempting a real diplomatic reset, but is instead pursuing a full-fledged containment policy and technological blockade, then it will be increasingly aggressive over rising Taiwanese pro-independence sentiment (Chart 62). A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is still possible and would have a cataclysmic impact on markets. But Biden will start by trying to lower tensions with Beijing, which is positive for global equity markets until otherwise indicated. China’s long-run strategy has paid off in Hong Kong so it will likely think long-term on Taiwanese matters as well. Ms. X: In your opinion, which region will experience the greatest geopolitical tailwind next year? The greatest geopolitical opportunity in 2021 lies in Europe. The UK will likely be forced to accept a trade deal with the EU for the sake of the economy and internal unity with Scotland. Meanwhile Trump will not be able to impose sweeping unilateral tariffs on Europe and his maximum pressure policy on Iran will dissipate, reducing the risk of a major war in the Middle East. Germany’s transition from the era of Chancellor Angela Merkel will bring debates and concerns, but Germany is fundamentally stable and its agreement with France to upgrade European solidarity puts a lid on Italian political risk as well (Chart 63). Russia remains aggressive, but it is increasingly worried about domestic stability, and now faces an onslaught of democracy promotion from the Biden administration. Chart 63EU Solidarity Is The Top Geopolitical Opportunity In 2021 Investors are rightly optimistic about 2021 because of the vaccine for COVID-19 are the reduction in global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk as a result of the change in the White House. But a lot of optimism is being priced as we go to press, whereas the US-China and US-Russia rivalries have gotten consistently more dangerous since 2008. While geopolitical risk is abating from the extreme peaks of 2019-20, it will remain elevated in 2021 and the years after.     Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned. On the one hand, the global reflationary policies  forced through the system this year remains positive for risk assets. On the other, valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. Moreover, the pandemic is still not under control and while the news on the vaccine front is encouraging, the economy still has ample room to negatively surprise next year. Furthermore, I find the long-term picture particularly concerning, especially if inflation and populism rear their ugly heads. As a result, while I feel like I must be invested in equities rights now, I prefer to slant my portfolio toward value stocks and to keep generous holdings of cash and gold to protect myself. Ms. X: I agree with my father that the uncertain nature of the evolution of the pandemic, especially when contrasted with the demanding valuations of equities, creates many risks for investors. Nonetheless, I do not expect inflation to come back anytime soon. Thus, monetary policy will not become a threat in the near future. Moreover, I am quite optimistic on the earnings outlook. Accordingly, I am more comfortable than my father is with taking some risk in our portfolio this year, even if a slightly larger-than-normal allocation to cash and gold is reasonable. Unlike the BCA team, I believe growth stocks, not value stocks, will generate excess returns from equities in the coming years. Thus, I favor US markets and I am less negative on the US dollar than you are. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach to investing. Nonetheless, many assets have become more expensive this year and long-term inflation risks are increasing. Thus, real long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 4 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.0% over the next ten years, or 1.0% after adjusting for inflation. That is a deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.4% from last year, and also still well below the 6.1% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1990 and 2020. Table 4Lower Long-Term Returns The uncertainty around the base case scenario for the global economy and asset markets remains very large. Hence, as we did last year, we recommend a list of guideposts to evaluate whether global markets stay on track to generate gains in 2021: The rollout of the vaccines: Much of the outlook will depend on the global health crisis. As the recent weeks have shown, the subsequent waves of COVID-19 are still debilitating and deadly, even if recent lockdowns are not as stringent as in the spring. Thus, if the vaccines take longer to be distributed, the economy will suffer a greater risk of relapse, which will hurt asset prices. Realized and expected inflation: If both realized and expected inflation rise quickly, the market will price in a faster withdrawal of monetary accommodation. The market is too expensive to withstand this shock, which would prove more painful than another wave of lockdowns. A stronger dollar and a flattening yield curve: If these two phenomena develop in tandem, this will indicate that the global economy is suffering another deflationary shock. Because fiscal and monetary authorities remain on guard, this may not force any meaningful equity correction. However, growth stocks and defensive names will outperform the rest of the market. US diplomacy: Starting January 20, a new president will occupy the Oval Office. Markets have rejoiced at the anticipation of a more conciliatory approach by the US toward its allies and commercial partners. If the US proves colder than expected, markets will have to reprice their optimistic take on global relations. Bank health: We expect sour commercial real estate loans to create limited damage to the banking system. If we are wrong, credit standards will tighten further instead of easing. This would be a bad omen for global demand and would suggest that yields have downside and that growth stocks would beat value stocks. Fiscal policy: We expect fiscal policy to remain accommodative next year, even if less so than in 2020. An absence of a deal in Washington and a quicker return to fiscal rectitude in the rest of the world would mean that global growth will be weaker than we expect. This would impact equities negatively, especially value stocks. Ms. X: Thank you for this list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It would be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: In 2021, stocks will outperform bonds thanks to the global economic recovery, the lack of immediate inflationary pressures and the prospects of a resolution to the pandemic. Imbalances in the global economy are growing, and the explosion in debt loads witnessed this year will carry significant future costs. Rising inflation is the most likely long-term consequence because of rising populism and the meaningful chance of financial repression. This change in inflation dynamics will generate poor long-term returns for a 60/40 portfolio, especially because asset valuations are so expensive. Compared to the past two years, geopolitical uncertainty will recede in 2021, but will remain elevated by historical standards. China and the US are interlocked in a structural rivalry, which means that flashpoints, such as Taiwanese independence, will remain a source of tensions. Europe will enjoy geopolitical tailwinds next year. For now, no central bank or government wants to remove economic support too quickly. Monetary policy will remain very stimulative as long as inflation is low, which means no tightening until late 2022, at the earliest. Fiscal deficits will narrow, but more slowly than private savings will decline. The US will grow faster than potential thanks to this policy backdrop. Moreover, household finances are robust and industrial firms are taking advantage of low interest rates as well as surprisingly resilient goods demand to increase their capex plans. Outside of the US, China’s stimulus and an inventory restocking will fuel a continued upswing in the global industrial cycle that will push 2021 GDP growth well above trend. However, at the beginning of the year, we will likely feel the remnants of the lockdowns currently engulfing Western economies. The uncertainty around the base case scenario for the global economy and asset markets remains very large. Bond yields can rise next year, but not by much. Ebbing deflationary pressures and the global industrial cycle upswing will lift T-Note and T-Bond yields. However, the extremely low probability of monetary tightening in 2021 and 2022 will create a ceiling for yields. We favor peripheral European bonds at the expense of German Bunds and US Treasuries. Corporate spreads should stay contained thanks to a very easy policy backdrop and the positive impact on cash flows and defaults of the ongoing recovery. We also like municipal bonds but worry about pre-payment risks for MBS.   Global stocks should enjoy a robust advance in 2021, even if the market’s gains will be smaller and more volatile than from March 2020 to today. Easy monetary conditions will buttress valuations while recovering economic activity will support earning expectations. Within equities, we favor cyclical versus defensive names and value stocks relative to growth stocks. As a corollary, we prefer small cap to large cap and foreign DM-equities to US equities. We are neutral on EM equities due to their large tech sector weighting. The dollar bear market is set to continue, and high-beta European currencies will benefit most. The yen remains an attractive portfolio hedge. Oil and gold have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand. Gold will strengthen as global central banks will maintain extremely accommodative conditions and global fiscal authorities will remain generous. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 1.0% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.1% a year between 1990 and 2020. We sincerely hope that next year, we will get to see each other in person instead of via computer screens. Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 30, 2020   Footnotes 1  The tickers of the stocks in the “back to work” basket are: LUV, DAL, MAR, HLT, CVX, EOG, SBUX, MCD, CAT, HON, AXP, COF, NUE, GM. 2  The tickers of the stocks in the “COVID-19 winners” basket are: TDOC, FCN, ZM, CTXS, JNJ, AMGN, REGN, CLX, RBGLY, WMT, COST, KR, NFLX, AMZN.

Highlights President Trump’s final actions and the US fiscal impasse pose non-trivial risks to the rally. Biden’s foreign policy cabinet picks have limited impact but are mildly positive for now. Biden’s multilateralism will eventually conflict with the need to get things done. Continuities with Trump foreign policy are underrated. The RCEP trade agreement is not a game changer but a pro-trade shift in the US would be. Europe is a clear winner of the US election but continental politics risk will pick up next year from today’s lows. Book profits on select risk-on trades, but go strategically long GBP-EUR. Feature Global financial markets are surging on a raft of good news. We are booking some gains as we expect the rally to be capped in the near term either by Trump’s final actions as president or by the US fiscal impasse. First, the good news. The US power transition is officially under way, reducing US policy uncertainty. The popular vote within the critical battleground states acted as a restraint on the Republican Party’s ability to dispute the results or appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.1 Chart 1US And Global Policy Uncertainty Falling President-Elect Joe Biden is preparing the US for a return to rule by experts. This will not prevent grand policy errors in the future but it will give confidence to the market today. Biden is nominating a slate of White House advisers and cabinet members who are traditional Democrats or left-leaning technocrats. For example, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen looks to serve as Treasury Secretary, longtime Biden and Barack Obama adviser Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State, and former Hillary Clinton and Obama staffer Jake Sullivan as national security adviser. Biden may nominate a few far-left officials (e.g. for the Labor Department) but the most important positions are quickly filling up with conventional faces, a boon for financial markets. Democrats are unlikely to win control of the Senate on January 5 but even if they do their single-vote majority will probably be too small to enable any radical cabinet picks – or radical legislation.2 The downside is that spending will be constrained and monetary and fiscal policy will remain uncoordinated, regardless of Yellen’s unique ability to work with Fed Chair Jay Powell. With Biden reportedly leaning on House Democrats to cut a COVID fiscal relief deal, there is a 50/50 chance that a $500-$750 billion bill passes in the “lame duck” session of Congress prior to Christmas. This would be a positive surprise. We are not counting on a deal until the first quarter next year. Hence US policy uncertainty will remain elevated. Meanwhile global policy uncertainty could spike again as long as President Trump remains in office and seeks to achieve policy objectives on the way out. Biden does not take office until January 20, but over a 12-month horizon we see a clear case for cyclical sectors and European stocks to outperform defensive sectors and American stocks as a result of Biden’s trade peace dividend, i.e. eschewing sweeping unilateral tariffs (Chart 1). Chart 2Vaccine On The Horizon While COVID-19 spikes, consumer wariness, and partial lockdowns will weigh on fourth quarter economic activity, several vaccines are on the way. The latest wave of the outbreak is already rolling over in Europe, which bodes well for the United States (Chart 2). Again, the 12-month outlook is brighter than the near term. Over the long haul, investors also have reason to be optimistic about governance in the developed world. The takeaway from this year is that the US and UK, the two major developed markets that saw right-wing populist movements win big votes in 2016, and two governments whose handling of the pandemic was at best muddled, led the development of vaccines in record time to deal with an entirely novel coronavirus and global pandemic.3 The US constitutional system withstood a barrage of partisan assaults both from President Trump and his supporters and their opponents. The British constitutional system is handling Brexit. Most other developed markets also navigated the crisis reasonably well. Weaknesses were revealed, and there will be aftershocks, but the sky is not falling. Near term US policy uncertainty will remain elevated due to fiscal impasse. Bottom Line: The rise in global risk assets may overshoot on positive news, but the US fiscal impasse could undercut the rally, as could Trump’s parting actions over the next two months. Market Not Priced For Lame Duck Trump There is a fair chance of an American or Israeli surgical strike against Iran or its militant proxies to underscore the red line against nuclear weaponization. Financial markets are not prepared for a major incident of armed conflict. Neither Israeli nor UAE equities are priced for near-term risks to materialize. The same goes for UAE or Saudi credit default swaps (Chart 3). An even greater risk to financial markets comes from the Trump administration’s pending actions on China. Trump is highly likely to take punitive or disruptive actions against China. His major contribution to US foreign policy is the confrontation with China, which was also the origin of the coronavirus and hence his electoral defeat. Already since the election Trump has imposed sanctions on US investments in state-owned enterprises. China’s fiscal and quasi-fiscal stimulus is peaking at the moment. This provides some buffer for its economy and the global economy if Trump hikes tariffs or imposes sweeping sanctions. But there are signs of instability beneath the surface. Authorities have tightened interbank rates sharply and intervened to prevent asset bubbles. The country is seeing turmoil in the bond market as a result of these actions and ongoing economic restructuring (Chart 4). Chart 3Risk Of US Or Israeli Strike On Iran Chart 4Chinese Stimulus And Bond Market Volatility Once again the market is not prepared for another major shock in the US-China relationship. The People’s Bank has allowed the renminbi to appreciate drastically this year. This trend will reverse if President Trump punishes China. As China’s economic momentum wanes and a new US administration enters office, it would make sense to allow the currency to depreciate. After all, the Biden administration will expect the renminbi to appreciate just as all previous administrations have done, but the People’s Bank will not want the yuan to fall much below the ~6.2 level that prevailed just before the trade war started in early 2018 (Chart 5). Chart 5Renminbi Priced For Zero Trump Tariffs Biden’s Foreign Policy: Continuities With Trump It is too soon to speak of the “Biden Doctrine.” Cabinet appointments will have limited impact relative to geopolitical fundamentals. Neither Biden nor Blinken have a consistent theme to their foreign policy decisions. Michèle Flournoy may or may not be nominated as Defense Secretary. What is clear is that Biden is in favor of establishment national security policymakers who want the US to work more closely with allies and international institutions. Starting in January, this shift will make US foreign policy somewhat more predictable. On Iran, Biden will seek to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal prior to the June 18, 2021 Iranian presidential election, but he will also have reason to sustain the Arab-Israel rapprochement that the Trump administration initiated via the Abraham Accords. News reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu met with Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman along with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a “secret” meeting on November 23. The Saudis could eventually normalize ties with Israel, but only once an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is reached. The Democrats have a long-running interest in negotiating such a settlement. Progress can be made as long as the Saudis and Israelis do not try utterly to sabotage Biden’s Iran deal. They would risk isolation from American support – an intolerable risk for both states. An American détente with Iran combined with normalized Arab-Israeli relations would create something resembling a balance in the region, which is what the Biden administration needs in order to maintain the “pivot to Asia” that will be its dominant foreign policy agenda. Biden’s pivot to Asia will start with a diplomatic “reset” with China so that strategic dialogue can resume and areas of cooperation can be identified. As Chart 5 above shows, the market is priced for Biden to reduce tariffs back to their September 2018 level (25% on $50 billion of imports and 10% on $200 billion). Anything is possible, since tariffs are an executive decision, but we would not bet on Biden sacrificing all of his leverage when the US-China strategic tensions are fundamentally rooted in the US’s loss of global standing and China’s rejection of the liberal world order. What is clear is an emerging contradiction that Biden will eventually have to resolve between multilateralism and getting things done. The Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. If Biden relies on multilateral diplomacy to update and extend the Iranian nuclear deal, he will find it much more difficult to gain Russian and Chinese cooperation than Obama did. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s trade war have poisoned the well. If Biden does not give enough ground to get Russo-Chinese cooperation, then he will have to use unilateral American power (i.e. Trump’s maximum pressure policy) or just settle for rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal without any safeguards against ballistic missiles or militant proxies. The original deal expires in 2025. Chart 6Greater China Still Center Of Geopolitical Risk The same goes for Biden’s handling of Trump’s China policy. Biden wants to revive the World Trade Organization. But if he adheres to the WTO then he will have to rescind all of Trump’s tariffs, since they have been declared illegal. This will reduce his leverage on unresolved structural disagreements. Biden wants to reach out to the allies on how to handle China. It is not clear how he will respond to the Trump administration’s outgoing scheme to create an alliance of liberal democracies that would arrange to purchase each other’s goods and possibly implement counter-tariffs in response to Chinese boycotts, such as the one placed on Australia today. Biden may not adopt the scheme. But the alternative would be to leave states to succumb to China’s political boycotts, thus failing to build an effective multilateral response to China’s aggressive foreign policy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan reveals that the Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. Thus we expect the Biden administration to conduct a foreign policy that is tougher on China than the Obama administration, that retains most of the Trump tariffs and tech sanctions, and that more resolutely attempts to build a coalition to pressure China into adopting international liberal norms. This policy trajectory virtually ensures that Biden will have to adopt some of Trump’s policies. Chinese equities are not priced for this risk. The pronounced risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is just starting to be recognized (Chart 6). The risk to our view is a grand US-China re-engagement. This is possible, but we think the current trajectory of China will cause a new confrontation even if Biden is less hawkish than Trump. Bottom Line: Financial markets are underrating Chinese/Taiwanese political and geopolitical risks, both from Trump’s lame duck period and from Biden’s pivot to Asia. Did China Just Take Charge Of Global Trade? Several clients have written to ask us about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a large new free trade agreement (FTA) signed by China and its Asian trading partners. RCEP is not a game changer but it is marginally positive for the global economy. Moreover it has the potential to ignite a new round of trade agreements, for instance by provoking the US (and the UK) to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. RCEP is a traditional free trade agreement that will cut tariffs by an average of 90% for its members. Membership includes China, Japan, South Korea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia, and New Zealand. It has not been ratified and will take ten years to fully implement after ratification. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing-oriented East Asian nations have reflexively responded to global shocks and slowdowns by deepening their trade integration. RCEP shows that this trend remains intact. China is the only member of the pact that is seeing trade grow at the moment – the others are still seeing declines due to the global recession but are hoping to increase nominal growth by removing trade barriers (Chart 7). RCEP is also notable because it is China’s second multilateral trade deal (the first was the China-ASEAN FTA). Beijing normally prefers bilateral deals where its size gives it the advantage, but it is trying to demonstrate greater willingness to work multilaterally. President Xi Jinping has rhetorically positioned himself as an advocate of free trade and multilateralism on the global stage, despite his pursuit of import substitution and state industrial subsidies at home. As long as China continues expanding trade with others it will smooth the painful restructuring of its manufacturing sector and blunt some of the criticisms about mercantilism. Ironically it is Japan’s decision to join, rather than China’s, that makes RCEP distinct. Japan did not have an FTA with South Korea and it was the only member of RCEP that did not already have a free trade deal with China. (Japan also lacked a deal with New Zealand.) This decision is not new but reflects the paradigm shift in Japanese national policy that began after the global financial crisis of 2008. In 2011, Japan signed an FTA with India. Thereafter Abenomics supercharged international trade and investment policies as part of the “third arrow” of pro-growth structural reform, which Abe’s successor Yoshihide Suga is continuing. So why is RCEP not a game changer? Because all of these countries other than Japan already have FTAs with each other and their tariff rates are already quite low. Moreover there is nothing particularly advanced about RCEP. It is a traditional deal focused on trade in goods and does not really attempt anything groundbreaking with services, or to incorporate new industries, lay down standards for labor or environment, or remove non-tariff barriers. Contrast the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the trade deal originated by the United States for Pacific Rim countries that attempts to do all these things, but was hobbled by the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from it. The real significance of RCEP is that even as it shows continuity in Asian economic policy, with China at the center, it will also provoke new deal-making. Now that China, Japan, and South Korea are joining a single trade agreement, they will have a foundation on which to move forward with their long-delayed trilateral FTA. These developments will provoke the Biden administration into rejoining the CPTPP, which in turn would create a new higher standard type of trade bloc that has the potential to attract democracies into a high-standards bloc that excludes China. Biden will also revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European counterpart to the Pacific deal. On the campaign trail, Biden said that he would “renegotiate” Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to rejoin it, a Trumpian formulation. This is feasible. After the US withdrawal, the various members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership modified the deal (dubbing it the CPTPP) to remove provisions that the US had insisted on and restore provisions that the US had demanded they remove. But they will gladly readmit the US now that Trump is gone, creating a trade bloc of comparable size to RCEP but with much more ambitious aims (Chart 8). The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others will be interested in joining. But China can only join if it embraces liberal reforms that are at odds with its new five-year plan, including reduced support for state-owned enterprises. Chart 7Weak Trade Prompts Asian Trade Deal Chart 8Putting RCEP Into Perspective The Republican Senate will be required to get approval for CPTPP, which is an obstacle, but Biden’s secret weapon is that the CPTPP has special appeal for Republicans precisely because it excludes China. Pro-trade moderates will find common cause with China hawks. As long as Trade Promotion Authority is renewed by the deadline on July 1, 2021, then the US can rejoin CPTPP on a simple majority vote. This is precisely how Republicans ratified Trump’s USMCA (the revised NAFTA). Trump also signed a trade deal with Japan, revealing that even under Trump’s leadership the US agreed to TPP-like deals with its biggest trading partners within the CPTPP (Canada, Mexico, Japan). More broadly, Trump’s experiment with protectionism has revealed that American attitudes toward global trade are not uniformly hostile. Polls show that Americans are generally pro-trade, and while they are skeptical that global trade creates jobs and higher wages, they are mostly skeptical of business-as-usual with China.4 Geopolitically, the US will not be able to stand idly by while China increases its sphere of influence in Asia. Therefore we should expect the Biden administration to pursue the CPTPP and other trade initiatives. The GOP Senate is the key constraint but it is not utterly prohibitive. Bottom Line: China and Asia continue to expand trade in the face of economic slowdown. The US Senate will be the key bellwether for US trade initiatives in 2021-22, but the geopolitical need to counter China will likely force the US to rejoin the CPTPP. Strategically we are long CPTPP equities – which includes some key RCEP members – as well as RCEP equities like South Korea. Chinese equities have already rallied a lot this year due to the country’s better handling of the pandemic and quicker economic recovery – they also face headwinds from US policy. Whereas emerging Asia equities ex-China, relative to all global equities, have plenty of catching up to do and will be beneficiaries of a global recovery in which both the US and China are courting them. Not Too Late To Go Long Pound Sterling The Brexit finale is approaching as the UK and EU enter the eleventh hour in their negotiation of a post-Brexit trade deal for the period after December 31, 2020. The market expects the UK, which is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa, to capitulate to an agreement that prevents a 3% tariff hike on all of its exports to the EU. This hike would occur if the UK-EU relationship reverted to WTO Most Favored Nation status. Boris Johnson promised in the Conservative Party manifesto to negotiate a trade deal and won a resounding single-party majority in December 2019. This gives him the room to marginalize hard Brexiteers and get a deal passed in parliament. The pound has rallied by 1.45% against the dollar since the beginning of the year and it is now rallying against the euro, moving off the “hard Brexit” lows (Chart 9), suggesting that the market is tentatively anticipating a trade deal. Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Failing to get a trade deal would require Johnson to break the EU withdrawal deal, since that deal requires a system of trade checks on the Irish Sea that introduces a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Johnson has no incentive to stick to this deal if he does not have privileged access to the EU’s single market. But then a hard border of physical customs checks would arise on Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland. This would not only aggravate relations with Ireland and the EU but would alienate the incoming American administration, which would view it as a violation of the US-brokered Good Friday Agreement (1998) and refuse to agree to a trade deal with the UK. Irish equities are not behaving as if a 3% tariff on all imports from the UK is about to take effect (Chart 10). Both GBP-USD and Irish equities have considerable downside if the deal falls through. The fact that the GBP-EUR appreciation is slight suggests less downside and more upside here. Subjectively we have argued there is a 35% chance that the UK will quit the EU “cold turkey” at the end of the year. The cost of more than $6 billion in foregone trade, which would grow each year, is not prohibitive. The economy is already subsisting on monetary and fiscal stimulus due to COVID-19. Boris Johnson does not face an election until 2024. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. Northern Ireland is not likely to leave anytime soon but 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. Support for independence meets resistance at 50% of the population (Chart 11), but an economic shock stemming from a failure to get a trade deal would push it above the limit (given that 62% of Scots never wanted to leave the EU in the first place). Chart 10Irish Equities Already Priced UK Trade Deal Chart 11Scotland Drives UK Toward A Trade Deal Johnson has the ability to conclude a deal, avoid an economic shock on top of COVID, keep the Scots in the union, and then set about overseeing his government’s mammoth economic recovery plan. His popularity is tenuous enough that the other pathway is not only more economically costly but also more likely to get him unseated and potentially to burden him with the legacy of being the last prime minister of a united kingdom. Bottom Line: It is not too late to go long GBP-EUR. A near-term global risk-off move would work against this trade but it is a strategic opportunity. Low EU Political Risk Will Pick Up In 2021 In our annual outlook for 2020 we highlighted how the EU was relatively politically stable while its geopolitical competitors – Russia, China, even the US – were far from stable. Today this is still the case – Europe’s political fundamentals are fine. But risks are rising due to partial COVID lockdowns, fiscal risks, and the approach of a series of important elections from now through 2022. A major problem for the global economy is the looming contraction in fiscal deficits in 2021 as economies step down from this year’s extraordinary fiscal stimulus measures. This downshift will be especially disruptive for the US, UK, and Italy due to the size of their stimulus packages, resulting in a fiscal drag of 5% of GDP if no additional measures are taken. But even Germany, France, and other EU members face at least a 2.5% of GDP contraction (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Adding more fiscal support should be feasible in a world where the Fed and ECB are maintaining ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future and the EU has agreed to allow mutualized debt issuances. Germany has embraced deficit spending in the wake of the austerity-laden 2010s, which brought significant populist challenges to the European political establishment. However, developed market economies are still highly indebted, a constraint on deficits, and those with political blockages could still have trouble passing large enough spending measures to remove the impending fiscal drag. The US faces gridlock in 2021 and therefore its fiscal cliff is a significant headwind to financial markets. One positive factor in providing fiscal support thus far is that, with the exception of Spain and the UK, European leaders and ruling coalitions have received a bounce in popular opinion this year (Chart 13). Chart 13EU Leaders’ Approval Bounced – Now What? Mark Rutte and his People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) have benefited more than other countries but the combined support for opposition parties is rising ahead of the March 17, 2021 general election (Chart 14, top panel). A leading anti-establishment candidate has dropped out of the race. Fiscal measures will depend on the election. Chart 14Will EU Elections Really Be A Cakewalk? Chart 15European Risk To Rise On Looming Elections The German and French governments have also seen a bounce in support but need to maintain it for a longer period, as they have elections due by October 24, 2021 and May 13, 2022 respectively. French President Emmanuel Macron can still summon majorities in the National Assembly, despite losing his single party majority, and has sidelined his structural reform agenda to boost the economy. Germany is also capable of passing new measures, and has time to do so before momentum wanes amid the contest to succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel. The leadership race in the ruling Christian Democratic Union will at least raise hawkish rhetoric (Chart 14, middle panels). But markets will be placated by the fact that popular opinion is not pro-austerity at present, and the alternative to the CDU is a fiscally profligate left-wing coalition consisting of the Greens, Social Democrats, and possibly the anti-establishment hard-left, Die Linke. Spain and Italy have the least stable governments, are the likeliest to see snap elections, and thus could surprise the market with fiscal risks. Both governments lack a strong mandate and rule over a divided political scene. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has seen a swell of support but he is a fairly non-partisan character and his coalition has been flat in opinion polling. It is less popular than the combined right-wing opposition, which is striving for power ahead of the fairly consequential 2022 presidential election. In Spain, not only has popular approval dropped, but the Socialist Party and the left-wing Podemos run a minority government, meaning that there is potential for gridlock to increase fiscal risk (Chart 14, bottom panels). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections (Chart 15). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections. The silver lining is that Brussels, Berlin, and the wider political establishment have become fundamentally more accepting toward budget deficits during times of distress. The ECB and European Commission Recovery Fund provide a combined monetary and fiscal backstop. Negative interest rates on debt enable fiscal largesse with minimum implications for sustainability. And none of these elections raise systemic risks regarding EU and EMU membership, other than conceivably Italy. So while fiscal risk will become more relevant in 2021, it is not a problem while COVID is still raging, and there are better chances of maintaining a fiscally proactive policy than at any previous time over the past two decades. Bottom Line: European elections and a looming fiscal drag will keep EU political risk from collapsing after the latest round of lockdowns ease. Biden And Emerging Market Strongmen Most of the emerging market strongmen – Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro – have increased their popular support this year, benefiting from national solidarity in the face of crisis. The exception is Narendra Modi, who is struggling (Chart 16). Still, Modi has a single-party majority and four years on the election clock, and is thus more stable than Bolsonaro, who fundamentally lacks a political base despite his bounce in polls, and Erdogan, whose increase in support will fade amid a host of domestic and international challenges ahead of the 2023 elections. The US election will have limited impact on these leaders. None of them have good relations with the Democratic Party and some were openly pro-Trump. But this is only marginally negative and may not have concrete ramifications. The key is that the Biden administration will be more conducive toward a global trade recovery, will relax restrictions on immigration, will favor US diversification away from China, and will put pressure on authoritarian regimes. Chart 16Strongman Popularity Boost Will Fade Other things being equal, Biden is therefore positive for India, neutral for Brazil and Turkey, and negative for Russia. Our GeoRisk Indicators suggest that political risk has peaked for Brazil and Russia and equities could bounce back, but we think Russian political risk will surprise to the upside (Chart 17). Chart 17Political Risk Still High In Emerging Markets In the case of Russia, the Biden administration will take a more confrontational approach than previous presidents, including Obama and Bush as well as Trump. However, it still needs to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and extend the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia through 2026, so the pro-democracy pressure campaign will have to be balanced with negotiations. Russia, for its part, is increasingly focused on the need for domestic stability, at least until Biden makes concrete steps with NATO that threaten Russian core interests. Bottom Line: Emerging market political risk is high, the vaccine will arrive more slowly, and the Biden administration will take a tougher approach toward authoritarian regimes. This creates an opportunity for India but a risk for Russia, and is neutral for Brazil and Turkey. Strategically we are constructive on EM equities but in the near 0-3 month time frame all bets are off. Investment Recommendations With clear near-term political and geopolitical risks, and extremely elevated equity prices and sentiment, we think it is a good time to book some profits. We are closing our long global equities relative to bonds trade for a gain of 27%. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Global Aerospace/Defense Stocks We are closing our long investment grade corporate bonds relative to similarly dated Treasuries for a gain of 15%. We are closing our long China Play Index trade for a gain of 7% in recognition that China’s stimulus is nearing its peak while the Trump administration will take punitive measures in his final two months. We will also retain our long gold trade. Gridlock in the US government is not reflationary but gold is still attractive due to geopolitical risk. Strategically we recommend going long GBP-EUR. We also recommend reinitiating a strategic long position in defense stocks. Specifically, global aerospace and defense stocks relative to the broad market (Chart 18). We have been long defense stocks since 2016 but COVID decimated the trade. The coming vaccines promise to reboot the aerospace part of this trade while there was never any reason to doubt the strong basis for global defense spending amid geopolitical great power struggle.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   We Read (And Liked) … Black Wave “What happened to us?” Black Wave seeks to answer the cardinal question facing both Middle Easterners and those looking into the Middle East from the outside.5 It takes us back four decades to events that shaped the region and walks us through time and space, politics, religion, history and culture, to where we stand – in the crosshairs of the very clash that started it all. Few are better equipped than author Kim Ghattas in doing so. A native of Beirut, she grew up amid the Lebanese civil war, living the events that created the post-1979 Middle Eastern reality. Later, she spent two decades covering the Middle East as a journalist for the BBC and Financial Times. A term first coined by Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, “black wave” characterizes the religious tide that swept Egypt in the 1990s from the Persian Gulf – one that Chahine saw as alien to Egyptians. Instead he argued that while Egyptians had always been very religious, they also had joie de vivre – enjoying art, music, talent, all taboos according to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Iranians in the late 1970s were not much different from Egyptians in the 1990s. At the time, they were unified in their opposition to the Pahlavi dynasty for being too Western and corrupt. As an exile in the sacred Iraqi city of Najaf and later in the French village of Neauphle-le-Chateau, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s speeches were capable of inspiring minds, galvanizing support, and gathering crowds. He was the right character, at the right time, but with the wrong ideas. Ideologically, Khomeini was an outsider in Najaf. The Iraqi clergy considered him too politically involved and his vision of wilayat al-faqih – a state based on Islamic jurisprudence – did not have widespread appeal. It was dismissed as outlandish by those around him who aimed to take advantage of his widespread appeal for their own gains, while hoping to limit Khomeini’s ideological influence on his audience. This proved to be a grave disregard for Iranians. 1979 was also a transformative year for Saudi Arabia. The young monarchy faced a national awakening as Juhayman al-Otaybi staged a siege on the Muslim world’s most sacred site, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It was the first act of terrorism in opposition to Western influence – the birth of Saudi extremism – and was echoed in subsequent acts of violence in the kingdom, in 1995 and later in 2003. Fearing the spread of political Islam, the House of Saud responded by emphasizing Wahhabism, Riyadh’s homegrown Islamic movement, by empowering clerics and religious authorities. The quid pro quo was that the clerics supported the monarchy from both internal and external threats. The clash between the Iranian Revolution and Saudi Wahhabism in 1979 gave rise to the first sectarian killings. The 1987 Sunni-Shia clash in Pakistan marked the beginning of the modern day Sunni-Shia divide, spreading through Pakistan and eventually the Middle East to Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Today, as youth across the Middle East struggle in despair of the aftermath of these events, Ghattas sees hope. Protests ringing from Beirut to Baghdad call for a post sectarian political system. The Saudi monarchy is relaxing its puritanical grip, and a new generation brings newfound hope of rectifying past miscalculations. We ultimately agree with Ghattas’s optimism that these changes are hopeful indications that the people of the Middle East are ready to shift gears and move past the conflicts that have dominated the past four decades. However, there are other forces at play and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is still a dominant feature of the region’s geopolitical landscape. True, Ghattas’s account not only highlights how deeply engrained the conflict is, but also that the early signs of tidal shifts can be easily missed. But we cannot ignore the specter of near-term risk facing the Middle East that continue to challenge its economic and political ascent. Thus, from an investment standpoint, we favor a more cautious approach and remain on the lookout for a better entry point once the near-term manifestation of these long-standing hurdles are overcome.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court could still rule that Pennsylvania should have stuck with its November 3 deadline for ballots, but such a ruling would not change the outcome of the election. As with Florida following the disputed election in 2000, the various states’ electoral systems will likely be stronger as a result of this year’s polarized contest and narrow margins. 2 Biden could use the Vacancies Act or recess appointments to ram through his cabinet picks, but it would be controversial and at present he looks to be taking advantage of the Republican veto to nominate center-left figures that are more ideologically lined with his lane of the Democratic Party. 3 US-based Moderna developed one vaccine while US-based Pfizer and Germany-based BioNTech developed another. The Anglo-Swedish company AstraZeneca jointly developed its vaccine with Oxford University. Vaccine trials were administered across these countries and others, including South Africa, India, Brazil, and the entire global health care and pharmaceutical supply chain contributed. 4 See Pew Research. 5 Kim Ghattas, Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 2020), 377 pages. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil   Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The vaccine promises an eventual return to “normal” life – just as Americans voted to “return to normalcy.” Markets are cheering and hinting at an eventual rotation into value stocks. The contested US election can still cause volatility even though Trump is highly unlikely to change the result. The fiscal stimulus cliff is still a risk to the normalcy rally in the short run. But gridlock is the best political outcome over the coming 12-24 months. Stay strategically long global stocks over bonds. Tactically maintain safe-haven positions, add risk gradually, and stay short China/Taiwan. Feature The news of Pfizer’s success in developing a COVID-19 vaccine galvanized financial markets this week. America’s leading public health official Anthony Fauci also predicted that Moderna’s vaccine candidate would be similarly effective. It will take time to distribute these vaccines but the world can look toward economic recovery next year. Stocks rallied, bonds sold off, and value outperformed growth on the back of the news (Charts 1A and 1B). Chart 1ABiden: Return To Normalcy Chart 1BVaccine: Return To Normalcy The vaccine announcement super-charged the “return to normalcy” rally that followed the US election. The election’s likeliest policy outcome is that President Elect Joe Biden will not raise sweeping tariffs while Republican senators will not raise taxes next year, the best-case scenario for markets. This is genuinely positive news. The benefits are very clear over the next 12 months. But the risks are also very clear over the next three months: the virus will remain a problem until the vaccine is widely distributed, the US is in the midst of a contested election that could still cause negative surprises, the Republican senators are less likely to agree to fiscal relief, and President Trump will take aggressive actions to cement his legacy during the “lame duck” period of his last 68 days in office. The takeaway is that the US dollar will see a near-term, counter-trend rally and developed markets will outperform emerging markets for a while longer. We are only gradually adding risk to our strategic portfolio as we keep dry powder and maintain tactical safe-haven trades. Is The Election Over Or Not? Yes, most likely the election is over. But our definitive guide to contested US elections will teach any reader to be sensitive to the tail risks. The counting of ballots is not finished and the Electoral College does not vote until December 14. First, it is still possible that President Trump could pull off a victory in Georgia, which will now recount ballots by hand. Biden’s margin of victory of 14,045 votes is not so large there as to make it impossible that Trump would come back with a win (though history suggests recounts only change hundreds, not thousands, of votes). Trump is also narrowing the gap in Arizona, where counting continues, though the latest reports suggest he is still falling short of the roughly 60% share of late ballots that he needs to close the 11,635 vote gap and win the state. Second, there is a 50/50 chance that the Supreme Court will rule that Pennsylvania must stick to the statutory November 3 deadline, i.e. not accept mail-in ballots that arrived in the three days after that date. While the high court would prefer to let Pennsylvania settle its own affairs, this case is of the sort that the court could feel compelled to weigh in. The constitution is crystal clear that legislatures, not courts, decide how a state’s electors are chosen. Such a ruling probably would not reverse Biden’s projected victory in Pennsylvania. Trump is currently trailing Biden by 53,980 votes in this state. State officials say that the ballots that arrived late amount to only 7,800 and would not be able to change the outcome.1 This may be understating the risk but it is probably accurate in the main. Table 1 shows the share of mail-in votes that arrived late in this year’s primary elections. The share was 1.07% in Pennsylvania and up to 3% in other states. Applying the high water mark of 3% to the November 3 general election mail-in ballots, it is possible that 77,187 votes arrived late and would be excluded by a Supreme Court ruling. However, 85% of those ballots would have to have gone to Biden in order for Trump to come out the winner. This is far-fetched. Table 1Share Of Ballots Arriving Late In Primary Election Extrapolated To General Election It is also unlikely that Republican legislatures will take matters into their own hands and defy the election boards of their state by nominating their own slate of Republican electors – a scenario we entertained in our definitive guide. If Biden leads the statewide vote, then a state legislature would be politically suicidal to appoint the state’s electors to vote for Trump. It would invite a popular backlash. In the case of Pennsylvania, Republican leaders of the lower and upper chambers have explicitly denied any willingness or ability to choose electors other than those entailed by the popular vote. Thus the 1876 “Stolen Election” scenario is extremely unlikely in this critical state. It is just as unlikely in Arizona, Nevada, or Georgia.2 Nevertheless, if President Trump wins in Georgia or gets a favorable Supreme Court verdict, investors will have to increase the probability that the election result will be overturned, which currently stands at 16% (Chart 2). This will cause a bout of volatility even if it changes nothing in the end. If somehow Trump pulls off a Rutherford B. Hayes and overturn the result, markets should sell off. Yes, Trump is an exclusively commercial and reflationary president, but his election on a constitutional technicality would create nearly unprecedented social and political instability in the United States and it would presage major instability globally. Chinese, European, and Canadian assets would be hardest hit (Chart 3). Chart 2Trump’s Tiny Chance Of Reversing Election Otherwise Trump and the Republicans are trying to do four things with their litigation: (1) probing for weaknesses that can delay or change the Electoral College math (2) conducting due diligence in case fraud really did tip over one of the states (3) saving face for President Trump and his allies, who otherwise would be exposed as failures (4) keeping their base motivated for the showdown in Georgia on January 5, which will determine control of the Senate. Chart 3Trump's Loss Favors Euro, Renminbi, Loonie In Georgia, opinion polls show Republican David Perdue slightly leading Democrat Jon Ossoff, in keeping with his superior showing on November 3. However, Republican Kelly Loeffler is trailing Democrat Raphael Warnock (Charts 4A and 4B). Last week we argued that the odds of Democrats winning both races stood around 20%. If anything this view is generous – given that Perdue already beat Ossoff, and Warnock will continue to suffer attacks for associating with Fidel Castro – but it is in line with online betting markets (Chart 5). Chart 4AVoters Split On Georgia Senate Runoffs Chart 4BVoters Split On Georgia Senate Runoffs Chart 5Democrats Have ~20% Chance To Win Senate Investors should plan on the US government being gridlocked unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the Georgia race. Gridlock is positive, so if Trump’s election disputes keep the Republican political base spirited for the Georgia runoffs, then Trump’s activities have an ironic upside for markets. That is, as long as he doesn’t succeed in overturning the election result and the flames of discontent do not break out into a significant violent incident. Other fears about the transition period are less concerning. Several clients have asked us what should happen if President Elect Biden came down with COVID-19 or were otherwise incapacitated. The answer is that Vice President Elect Kamala Harris would take his place, as she now has popular consent to do exactly that. Prior to the Electoral College voting on December 14, the Democratic National Committee would have to nominate a candidate to replace Biden, almost certainly Harris. After December 14, the regular succession would apply under the twentieth amendment and Harris would automatically fill Biden’s shoes. Harris is only slightly more negative for equities than Biden: her regulatory pen would be more anti-business, but like Biden her main policies depend entirely on control of the senate. Bottom Line: It ain’t over till it’s over. The big picture is positive for risk assets but a surprise from ongoing election disputes or the unusually rocky transition of power would trigger a new bout of volatility. Stay long Japanese yen and health stocks on a tactical time frame. Trump’s Lame Duck Risk An investor in the Wild West has often criticized us for arguing that Trump would become a “war president” as he became a political lame duck at home. This war president view did pay off with Iran in January 2020, but otherwise the criticism is valid (see Trump’s Abraham Accords). Now Trump is almost certainly a lame duck so we will find out what he intends to do when unshackled from election concerns. Stay long Japanese yen and health stocks on a tactical time frame.  Since losing the election, Trump has fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, several defense officials have resigned, and CIA Director Gina Haspel is rumored to be next on the chopping block. Most of the officials to depart had broken with the president over the course of the election year, so he may just be dishing out punishment now that the campaign is over. But it is possible that Trump is planning a series of final actions to cement his legacy and that these officials were removed because they got in the way. Chart 6Trump's Lame Duck Risk To China And Taiwan Strait First, there is no doubt that Trump is already tightening sanctions on China and Iran. China was the origin of the coronavirus pandemic and Trump has called for reparations, which could mean more tariff hikes. His outstanding legacy in US history will be his insistence that the US confront China. We are fully prepared for this outcome and remain short the renminbi and Taiwanese equities, despite their strong performance year-to-date (Chart 6). Trump could also raise tariffs on Europe. However, investors should be used to tariffs and sanctions by now. The impact would be fleeting and the next administration could reverse it. In the case of the renminbi, or any tariffs that weigh on the euro, investors should buy on the dips. By contrast, there are some conceivable actions – we are speculating – that would be extremely destabilizing and possibly irreversible. These would include: Extending diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, potentially provoking a war with China. Sending aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait, like Bill Clinton did during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, to shore up US deterrence. Launching surgical strikes against Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear facilities or critical infrastructure. A prominent official has already denied that Trump intends anything of the sort. Launching surgical strikes against North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear facilities. No sign of this, but Kim Jong Un did enhance his capabilities after his meetings with Trump, thus embarrassing the president on a major foreign policy initiative ahead of the election. Providing intelligence and assistance to US allies like Israel who may seek to sabotage or attack Iran now or in future to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Withdrawing US troops from Germany or South Korea – which is much more consequential than hasty withdrawals from Afghanistan or Syria, which Trump clearly intends. War actions are largely infeasible. The bureaucracy would refuse to implement them. Assuming the Department of Defense would slow-walk any attempts to reduce troops in important regions like Germany or Korea, it would almost certainly avoid instigating a war. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan or Syria is manageable, and fitting with Trump’s legacy, but it would not be disruptive for financial markets. A diplomatic upgrade or a show of force to demonstrate the American commitment to defend Taiwan is possible and highly disruptive for global financial markets. The critical risk may come from US allies or partners that are threatened by the impending Biden administration and have a window of opportunity to act with full American support while Trump still inhabits the Oval Office. The likeliest candidate would be Israel and Saudi Arabia on the Iranian nuclear program. Trump’s onetime national security advisor, H. R. McMaster, has already warned that Israel could act on the “Begin Doctrine,” which calls for targeted preventive strikes against hostile nuclear capabilities.3 Even here, Israel is unlikely to jeopardize its critical security relationship with the United States, so any actions would be limited, but they could still bring a major increase in regional tensions. Saudi Arabia can do little on its own but President Trump could willingly or unwilling encourage provocative actions. Chart 7Big Tech Is Not Priced For Surprises Any number of incidents or provocations could occur in this risky interregnum between Trump and Biden. Some suggest Trump will release a treasure trove of documents to discredit Washington and the Deep State. If that is all that occurs, then investors will be able to give a sigh of relief, as revelations of government intrigue would have to be truly consequential for future events in order to cause a notable market impact. Last-minute executive orders on regulating domestic industries are just as likely to shock markets as any international moves. We speculate that Big Tech is in Trump’s sights for censoring his comments during the election. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security versus Regents of the University of California, the Trump administration is positively incentivized to issue a flurry of executive orders and write them in a way that makes them hard for the Biden administration to rescind them.4 Tech is priced for perfection, despite ruffles due to the vaccine this week, and investors expect Biden-Harris to maintain Obama’s alliance with Silicon Valley, not least because Biden has named executives from Facebook and Apple to his transition team and is considering putting former Google chief Eric Schmidt in charge of a Big Tech task force (Chart 7).5 Ultimately we have no idea what the Trump administration will do in its final two months. A lot of Trump’s attention will be focused on contesting the election. Drastic or reckless decisions will likely be obstructed by the bureaucracy. But the president still retains immense powers and there are executive orders that are legitimate and would benefit the US’s long-term interests even if disruptive for financial markets – and these would be harder for officials to disobey. Trump is an anti-establishment player who intends to shake up Washington, stay involved in politics, and cement his legacy. There is a reason for investors to take political risk seriously rather than to assume that the transition to a more market-friendly administration will be smooth. Bottom Line: Stay long gold on geopolitical risk, despite the potential for a counter-trend rise in the US dollar. We are neutral tech: polarization and fiscal risks are positive for tech shares but reopening and Trump lame duck risks are negative. Biden’s Cabinet Picks This “lame duck Trump” risk explains why we are not overly concerned about Biden’s cabinet picks. Insofar as Biden’s choices affect the market at all, they will confirm the “return to normalcy” theme and hence will be market-friendly. Take for example Biden’s just-announced chief of staff, Ronald Klain, who was chief of staff when Biden served as vice president from 2009- 16. The current transition is obstructed by election disputes, as occurred in November-December of 2000, but the cabinet picks are not likely to bring negative surprises. Already Biden has announced a coronavirus advisory board, a bipartisan transition team, and is pondering other picks, some of which will be known by Thanksgiving. None of the choices are in the least disruptive or radical – and most are acceptable to Wall Street. Biden will pick experts and technocrats who are known from his political career, the Obama administration, the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party, and academia. The market will invariably approve of establishment nominations after four years of anti-establishment picks and spontaneous firings. Since the Senate will remain in Republican hands, the cabinet members will have to be centrist enough to be confirmed. While Biden will inevitably nominate a few progressives, they will either fail in the Senate or take up marginal posts. Stay long gold on Trump “lame duck” geopolitical risks. Biden may have the opportunity to appoint three or even four members to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. The Trump administration failed to fill two seats, while Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term will expire in February 2022 (Diagram 1). If Biden appoints Lael Brainard to another post, such as Treasury Secretary, he will have a fourth space to fill. Diagram 1Biden Could Have Three-To-Four Fed Picks Chart 8Facing Gridlock, Biden Will Re-Regulate The implication will be a further entrenchment of dovish policy, with greater attention to new concerns that fall outside of traditional monetary policy such as climate change and racial inequality. The Fed has already committed to pursuing “maximum employment,” refraining from rate hikes till the end of 2023, and targeting average inflation – all a major boon to the Biden administration as it attempts to revive the economy. What is negative for markets is that Biden will re-regulate the economy – after Trump’s deregulatory shock – and that this will bring about political risks for small business and key industries like health, financials, and energy (Chart 8). Biden has little other option given that his legislative agenda will be largely stymied. Nevertheless, the sectors most likely to be heavily impacted are attractively valued and stand to benefit from economic normalization if not from Biden’s version of normalcy. Bottom Line: Stay long health and energy. Yes, Gridlock Is Best For Markets Some clients have asked us about our view that gridlocked government is truly the best for financial markets. Wouldn’t Democrats winning control of the Senate in Georgia be better, as it would usher in greater political certainty and larger fiscal spending? We have addressed this issue in previous reports so we will be brief. First, yes, gridlock has higher returns than single-party sweep governments on average over the past 120 years (Chart 9). Clearly the normalcy rally can go higher, but it is equally clear that it will get caught by surprise when the political reality hits home.  Second, however, the stock market’s annual returns are roughly average under single-party sweeps during this period (Chart 10). Chart 9Gridlock Best For Markets Chart 10Single-Party Sweeps Generate Average Annual Returns So while investors can cheer gridlock, it is not as if they should sell everything if Democrats do win control of the Senate on January 5. Chart 11Sweeps As Good As Gridlock Over 70 Years Indeed, looking at the period after World War II, sweep governments have witnessed average annual returns that are the same or slightly better than under gridlock (Chart 11). Whereas limiting the study to the post-Reagan era, gridlocks are clearly favored. If greater fiscal resources are needed then gridlock will quickly become a market risk rather than an opportunity. It is notable that over the past 120 years, there is not an example of a Democratic president presiding over a Republican senate and a Democratic House. There was only one case of the inverse – a Republican President, a Democratic senate, and a Republican House – which occurred in 2001-02 and coincided with a bear market. In fact, this episode should be classified as a Republican sweep, as in Table 2, since a sweep was the result of the 2000 election and the context of the key market-relevant legislation in 2001.6 Table 2Average Annual Equity Returns And Gridlock Government Chart 12Market Predicted Gridlock In 2020 In 2020 the stock market clearly anticipated a gridlocked outcome – the market’s performance matches with the historical profile of divided government (Chart 12). We argued that this was the best case for the market because it meant neither right-wing populism nor left-wing socialism. But we also highlighted that any relief rally on election results (reduced uncertainty) would be cut short by the major near-term implication of gridlock: a delay of fiscal support for the economy in the near term. This was the only deflationary scenario on offer in this election. Hence bad news in winter 2020-21 would precede the good news over the entire 2020-22 period. This is still largely our view, but we admit that the vaccine announcement erodes near-term risk aversion even further. There is little substance to the discussion of whether Americans will take the vaccine or not. Evidence shows that Americans are no less likely to take vaccines than other developed country citizens – assuming they are demonstrated to be safe and effective (Chart 13). Chart 13Yes, Americans Take Vaccines So gridlock looks even better now than it did previously. Yet we still think the near-term fiscal risks will hit markets sometime soon. Senate Republicans have been emboldened by the fact that their relative hawkishness paid off in the election on November 3. If they would not capitulate to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prior to the election, they are even less likely to do so after gaining seats in the House, retaining the Senate, and crying foul over the presidential election. McConnell could agree to a $500 billion deal before Christmas – or not. There is no clear basis for optimism. A government shutdown is even possible if the continuing resolution expires on December 12. If the economic data turns sour and/or markets sell off dramatically then the Republicans will be forced to agree to a bigger deal, but as things stand they are not forced to do anything. And that presents a downside risk to the normalcy rally. Investment Takeaways Today’s post-election environment is comparable to the period after 2010, when a new business cycle was beginning and a new President Barack Obama had to face down Republican fiscal hawks in the House of Representatives. Today’s GOP senators may prove somewhat more cooperative with President Elect Biden, but that remains to be seen. Given how tight the election was, Republicans have an incentive to obstruct, slow down the economic recovery, and contest the 2022 midterms and 2024 election on the back of another slow-burn recovery. It worked last time. The debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2012-13 were different than the fiscal stimulus cliff that Washington faces today but the market implications are similar. At the climax of brinkmanship between the president and the senate, treasuries will rally, the dollar will rally, stocks will fall, and emerging markets will underperform (Charts 14A and 14B). Today there is a greater limit on how far the dollar will rise and how far treasury yields will fall, but a fiscal impasse will still drive flows into these assets. Chart 14AObama’s Debt Ceiling Crises… Chart 14B… Presage Biden’s Fiscal Cliffs ​​​​​​​This is what we expect over the next three months. The fact that President Trump could bring negative surprises only enhances this expectation. Therefore we are only gradually adding risk to our strategic portfolio and maintaining tactically defensive positions. Clearly the normalcy rally can go higher, but it is equally clear to us that it will get caught by surprise when the political reality hits home. Since this could be anytime over the next two months, we are only gradually adding new risk. We would not deny that the outlook is brighter over the 12-24-month periods due to the vaccine and election results.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Chris Matthews, "Alleging fraud, GOP seeks to overturn election results in Michigan, Pennsylvania," MarketWatch, November 10, 2020, marketwatch.com. 2 See Senator Jake Corman and Representative Kerry Benninghoff, "Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election," Centre Daily, October 19, 2020, centredailly.com. As for the 1876 “Stolen Election,” the initial election results suggested that Democrat Samuel Tilden had won 184 electoral votes while Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had won 165. The amount needed for a majority in the Electoral College at the time was 185, so Tilden fell one vote short while Hayes fell 20 votes short. After partisan litigation, actions by state legislatures, an intervention by the US House of Representatives, and a grand political compromise, Hayes won with 185 votes. 3 See Charles Creitz, "McMaster warns Biden on Iran deal: Don't resurrect 'political disaster masquerading as a diplomatic triumph,’" Fox News, November 12, 2020, foxnews.com. 4 In this ruling, which was decided on a 5-4 split with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with liberal justices, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s effort to overturn the Obama administration’s policy known as Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which stopped the US from deporting illegal immigrants who came to the US as children. The majority opinion argued that the Trump administration had merely asserted, not demonstrated, that the Obama administration’s executive orders were unconstitutional. In doing so, it established a precedent by which the court can determine whether one president’s executive orders should overrule another’s. While future administrations may follow better procedures in attempting to revoke their predecessors’ orders, this decision likely incentivizes the Trump administration to try to issue decrees that will be difficult to revoke. See John Yoo, "How the Supreme Court’s DACA decision harms the Constitution, the presidency, Congress, and the country," American Enterprise Institute, June 22, 2020, aei.org. 5 See Kiran Stacey, “What can Silicon Valley expect from Joe Biden?” Financial Times, November 8, 2020, ft.com. 6 The election produced a Republican sweep, with a 50-50 balance in the Senate, that led to the Bush tax cuts in May 2001. The business cycle was ending, however. In June, Democrats took the senate majority when Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and began caucusing with Democrats. In September terrorists attacked the World Trade Center causing a market collapse.

Highlights US inflation expectations will moderate, and US real yields will rise. This will support the US dollar. The potential rebound in the US dollar will cap any upside in EM ex-TMT stocks. Rising US real yields are a risk to high-multiple global growth stocks. Maintain a neutral allocation to EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Feature In this week’s report we identify market-relevant issues and topics and then present the investment implications of these potential developments. Current key investment-relevant topics and issues are as follows: 1. Implications of the US elections Fiscal Stimulus: In the context of Biden’s victory and the Senate remaining Republican, the odds of a meaningful fiscal package in the next several months are quite low. The Republican Senate did not support a fiscal package going into the elections. Odds are low that it will now agree to a fiscal package larger than $750 billion. Chart 1Rising US Real Yields Are Positive For The US Dollar According to the US Congressional Budget Office’s calculations, without a new fiscal package, the fiscal thrust in 2021 will be -7.5% of GDP or $1.5 trillion. Hence, fiscal stimulus should be more than $1 trillion to avoid a slump in growth. Granted that the recovery in US consumer income and spending that has been underway since April has to a large extent been supported by US fiscal transfers, the lack of current government income support to households poses a risk to the economy.  Of course, if US economic activity tanks again and the stock market plunges, Republicans will support a much larger package. However, as things stand now, the probability of a substantial (more than $1 trillion) fiscal package is low. The lack of fiscal stimulus implies that US growth and inflation expectations will moderate. Chart 1 shows that US inflation expectations have probably reached an apex and will downshift for now. US nominal bond yields are capped on the upside (by the Fed’s purchases and its commitment not to raise interest rates for several years) and on the downside (by the Fed’s reluctance to reach negative interest rates). Consequently, swings in inflation expectations will drive fluctuations in real yields, as has been occurring in recent months. As inflation expectations decline, real yields will rise. Impact of rising US real yields on financial markets: A stronger US dollar and lower prices for Nasdaq stocks. Rising real rates will support the US dollar (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 5 on page 5 reveals that the real rates differential between the US and the euro area has recently been moving in favor of the greenback.  Chart 2Rising US Real Yields Are Negative For Growth Stocks Budding investor realization that the US might not pursue an aggressively expansionary fiscal policy, as has been expected since spring, could also support the greenback. Less issuance of Treasury securities might be interpreted as less public debt monetization and less money creation by the Federal Reserve. Such a viewpoint will also be marginally positive for the US dollar. As to the equity market, US real (TIPS) yields have been negatively correlated with the Nasdaq index (Chart 2). As US real yields continue to rise, odds are that global growth stocks will come under selling pressure. Geopolitical ramifications: The impact of the forthcoming change in the White House on US foreign policy has been widely anticipated and has already been priced in by financial markets. A Biden administration will have a positive impact on the euro area, Canada, Mexico and Asia Pacific countries with the exception of China – as was not the case under the Trump administration. On the other end, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be under heat from Biden’s White House. In our view, the impact on China will be neutral, not better than during Trump’s administration. It might be mildly positive in the near term but negative in the long run. In the short run, the new US administration will be less likely to use global trade as a weapon. In the long run, however, Biden will likely mobilize Europe to join its geopolitical confrontation with China. This will be negative for the Middle Kingdom.   One country where the impact of Biden’s administration has not been fully priced in is Brazil. The US executive branch will take a tougher stance in its dealings with Brazil’s right-wing government because their social values are not aligned and policy priorities differ. We remain short the BRL and underweight Brazilian equity and fixed-income markets within their respective EM portfolios. 2. Vaccines We have no better expertise than the market’s judgement on the timing of vaccine availability and its effectiveness in containing the pandemic in EM ex-China countries. It is clear, however, that the process of vaccine acquisition and distribution might be slower in EM ex-China than in advanced countries. On all three fronts – the spread of the pandemic, policy stimulus and vaccine distribution – EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan will continue lagging DM. Therefore, EM ex-China domestic demand will continue to underperform relative to expectations and versus those in DM. This argues for continuous underweight, or at best a neutral allocation, in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan equities versus their DM peers. Chart 3Chinese Onshore Equities Have Been In A Trading Range Since Early July 3. China: the business cycle and regulatory clampdown China’s business cycle recovery has further to go. The stimulus injected into the economy has been considerable and will continue to work its way into the economy. Even though we believe that China has reached peak stimulus, the latter works with a time lag of 6-12 months and economic growth will top only around mid-2021. That said, Chinese onshore share prices have been in a consolidation phase since early July and this is likely not over yet (Chart 3).  In turn, Chinese investable stocks have been surging in absolute terms and outperforming the global equity index (Chart 4, top panel). However, the entire Chinese equity outperformance has been due to growth stocks (TMT/new economy). Excluding these, the absolute and relative performance of Chinese investable stocks has been lackluster (Chart 4, top and bottom panels). Chart 4Chinese Investable Stocks: Surging TMT And Lackluster Performance By Ex-TMT Stocks In short, the spectacular performance of Chinese investable stocks this year has been attributed to three new economy stocks: Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan. These three stocks presently account for 40.5% of China’s MSCI Investable Index and 17.5% of the aggregate EM MSCI equity index. Concerns about regulatory clampdowns on new economy stocks have been, and remain, a major risk, not only in China but also in advanced economies. It is impossible to time regulatory actions. Nevertheless, investors should take into account the possibility that regulation may curb the profitability of new economy companies, especially if they are de-facto monopolies or oligopolies. Chinese authorities will not back down from imposing new regulation and scrutiny over the activities of giant new economy companies. Hence, risks of further de-rating remain elevated. In short, even though the mainland business cycle recovery is on a track, Chinese share prices remain at risk of correction due to overbought conditions and re-pricing of regulatory risks for new economy stocks. Will The US Dollar Capture Some Of Its Luster? US real yields are rising not only in absolute terms, but also relative to real yields in the euro area (Chart 5). Rising real yields in the US versus the euro area generally lead to a dollar rally against the euro.  Apart from rising US real bond yields, there are a number of other factors that will likely support the greenback: Investor sentiment on the US dollar is very low (Chart 6). From a contrarian perspective, this is positive. Chart 5The US Versus Euro Area: Real Yield Differentials And Exchange Rate Chart 6Investors Are Downbeat On The US Dollar   Consistently, investors are very short the US dollar, especially versus DM currencies (Charts 7and 8). Positioning is less short in the US dollar versus cyclical DM and high-beta EM currencies (Chart 8). That said, the fundamentals of EM high-beta currencies such as BRL, TRY, ZAR and IDR are poor. Chart 7Investors Are Very Long Safe-Haven Currencies… Chart 8...And Modestly Long Cyclical Currencies   The Republican Senate will block corporate tax increases and limit any regulatory initiatives by Democrats in Congress. Such business-friendly policies are currency bullish. In short, a Republican Senate is broadly positive for the US dollar, and markets have not priced it in. The fact that broad US equity averages – such as small caps and equal-weighted equity indexes – continue outperforming the rest of the world in local currency terms is also dollar bullish (Chart 9). The reasoning is that US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world suggests better profitability and return on capital in the US versus its peers. That favors a firmer US dollar. Finally, the broad-trade weighted US dollar is oversold and is sitting on a long-term technical resistance level (Chart 10). Chart 9US Relative Equity Outperformance Heralds A Stronger US Dollar Chart 10The US Dollar Is Very Oversold   Bottom Line: We have been highlighting downside risks to the US dollar since July 9. However, the conclusion of the US election raises the odds of a playable US dollar rebound. EM Strategy EM Equities We have been advocating for a neutral allocation toward EM in a global equity portfolio since July 30. If the US dollar rebounds, as we expect, EM stocks will not outperform the global equity index (Chart 11). Notably, excluding Chinese investable stocks, EM share prices have not outperformed the global benchmark (Chart 12). Besides, as shown in the top panel of Chart 4 on page 4, China’s outperformance against the global equity benchmark has been driven exclusively by new economy stocks. Chart 11EM Stocks Do Not Outperform When The Dollar Rallies Chart 12EM Versus Global Equity Performance: With And Without China   All in all, Charts 4 and 12 reveal that excluding three large Chinese new economy stocks – Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan – EM share prices have underperformed the global equity benchmark. Going forward, the potential rebound in the US dollar will cap any upside in EM ex-TMT stocks. Meanwhile, the correction in the NASDAQ and the increased scrutiny on the part of Chinese authorities over new economy stocks poses a risk to Chinese mega-cap TMT share prices. In absolute terms, we have been waiting for a pullback to buy EM equities, but they have surged following the US elections and the news on Pfizer’s vaccine. Chart 13EM Equity Index: No Breakout Yet The EM equity index could still advance and reach its 2011 or 2018 highs before rolling over (Chart 13). However, given our view on the US currency and risks to EM stemming from a rising US dollar, we refrain from playing such limited upside. EM currencies EM currencies will be at a risk if the US dollar stages a rebound. Since July 9, we have been shorting a basket of BRL, CLP, TRY, KRW, ZAR and IDR versus an equally-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. We are sticking with this strategy. Even if the US dollar rebounds, downsides in the euro, CHF and JPY against the greenback will be relatively limited. However, investors might consider adding the US dollar to the long side of this strategy. EM local bonds and EM credit markets We continue recommending long duration in EM local rates. However, we remain reluctant to take on currency risk. We maintain our recommendations from April 23 about receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, India, China and Korea. We are also receiving 2-year rates in Malaysia and South Africa as a bet on rate cuts in these economies. In the EM credit space, we are also neutral. Our sovereign credit overweights are Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights US Election & COVID-19: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Fixed Income Strategy: The big news announcements do not motivate us to change our fixed income investment recommendations. Stay below-benchmark on overall duration, and underweight the US in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US and Italy. Maintain an overweight stance on global spread product, focused on US corporates (investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield) and emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Yields Leading The Way Higher Investors have digested two major pieces of news over the past few days – the projected election of Joe Biden as the 46th US President and the positive results of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial. Both outcomes are bond-bearish, but the bigger response came after the news of a potential vaccine, with the 10-year US Treasury yield hitting an 8-month high of 0.96% yesterday. Yields in other countries rose by a lesser amount, continuing the recent trend of US Treasury underperformance (Chart of the Week). After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios.  The introduction of a successful vaccine would obviously be a game-changer for all financial markets, not just fixed income, as it would allow investors to see an end to the pandemic and a return to more normal economic activity. While we are heartened by the vaccine trial announcement, there are still many hurdles that need to be cleared before any vaccine is approved and distributed around the world. It is still too soon to adjust our bond investment strategy in anticipation of a post-COVID world. After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. While a Biden victory combined with the Republicans likely keeping control of the US Senate was the least bond-bearish outcome - thus avoiding the big surge in government spending likely after a Democratic “blue wave” - there is clear upward momentum in US economic growth that suggests more upside for Treasury yields on both an absolute basis and relative to other countries. Cross-Country Divergences Are Starting To Appear Our recent decision to cut our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark was motivated by our more bearish view on US Treasuries. However, a more defensive duration posture was justified by the rapid rebound in global growth seen since the depths of the COVID-19 recession. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic data, has been calling for a bottom in global bond yields toward the end of 2020 (Chart 2). The rise in global yields we are witnessing now appears to be right on cue. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. Chart 2Global Yields Are Bottoming Importantly, inflation expectations across the developed world have yet not risen by enough to force central banks to become less dovish. This suggests that global yield curves will have a steepening bias over at least the next six months, with longer-term yields rising more on the back of faster growth (and additional increases in inflation expectations) than shorter-maturity yields which are more sensitive to monetary policy shifts. Those trends will not be seen equally across all countries, though. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. For example, the October US manufacturing ISM and Payrolls data released last week showed robust strength, even in a month where new US COVID-19 cases rose sharply. Europe, on the other hand, has seen an even bigger surge in new cases, resulting in a wave of national lockdowns that has already begun to weigh on domestic economic activity. Thus, core European bond yields have remained stable, even with the euro area manufacturing PMI remaining elevated (Chart 3). We see similar divergences in other developed economies, with generally strong manufacturing PMIs and mixed responses from bond yields. When looking at the breakdown of nominal bond yields into the real yield and inflation expectations components, even more divergences are evident (Chart 4).1 Chart 3Mixed Responses To Rebounding Growth Chart 4Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Chart 5Discounting An Extended Period Of Negative Real Rates The real yields on benchmark 10-year inflation-linked bonds are slowly rising in the US and Canada, but remain stable in Germany, the UK and Australia. Market expectations for central bank policy rates, extracted from overnight index swap (OIS) curves, are currently priced for an extended period of low policy rates over the next few years. This is no surprise, as central banks have told the markets this would be the case via dovish forward guidance. Yet central banks are also projecting inflation rates to move higher between 2021 and 2023, even as they are signaling unchanged interest rates over that same period (Chart 5). Central banks are effectively telling markets that they want an extended period of negative real policy rates - a major reason why real bond yields are negative across the developed world. At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. Unemployment in the US and Canada has already declined sharply since spiking during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. In the US, the unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 14.7% to 6.9%; in Canada, the decline has been from 13.7% to 8.9% (Chart 6). This contrasts sharply to trends in Europe and Australia, where unemployment rates remain elevated. Chart 6Diverging Trends In Unemployment At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. With the Fed and Bank of Canada (BoC) projecting additional declines in unemployment over the next few years, markets are starting to discount a less dovish stance from both central banks. The US and Canadian OIS curves are now discounting one full 25bp policy rate hike by Aug 2023 and May 2023, respectively. This is a bit sooner than signaled by the forward guidance of the Fed and BoC. Thus, markets are now pricing in a less negative path for real policy rates – and, by association, real bond yields. Chart 7Markets Still Discounting Low Yields For Longer This contrasts to the euro area, Australia and the UK, where unemployment rates remain elevated. The recent surge in coronavirus cases across Europe means that the ECB and Bank of England will be under no pressure by markets to reconsider their current easy money policies. While in Australia, persistently weak inflation and, more recently, worries about an appreciating Australian dollar are keeping expectations for Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) policy ultra-dovish. Given the likely hit to longer-term potential growth from the COVID-19 pandemic, coming at a time of elevated debt levels (both government and private), markets are justified in pricing in a structurally lower level of policy rates for longer (Chart 7). Yet even in such a world, there will be cyclical upswings in growth and inflation that will upward pressure on bond yields. At the moment, those pressures seem greatest in the developed world in the US and Canada. This suggests that global bond investors should underweight both the US and Canada. However, the Fed seems more willing to accept a period of rising bond yields than the BoC, which has been very aggressive in the expansion of its quantitative easing (QE) program, which leaves us to only consider the US as a recommended underweight. Bottom Line: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Recommended Fixed Income Strategy After A Busy Few Days Joe Biden’s election victory and the potential COVID-19 vaccine do not lead us to make any changes to our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On duration, we continue to recommend a moderate below-benchmark overall exposure. Our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On country allocation, we remain underweight the US, neutral Canada and Australia, and overweight the UK, core Europe, Italy, Spain and Japan. The country allocations are determined by each country’s sensitivity to changes in US Treasury yields, particularly during periods of rising yields. We are overweight the countries with a lower “yield beta” to changes in US yields. We view Italy and Spain as credit instruments, supported by large-scale ECB purchases and more fiscal cooperation within Europe. We are not recommending underweights to higher-beta Canada and Australia, however, with both the BoC and RBA being very aggressive with bond purchases (Chart 8). On credit, the backdrop remains very conducive to spread product outperformance versus government bonds, particularly with the monetary policy backdrop remaining highly accommodative (Chart 9). Chart 8Global QE Has Been Aggressive We expect some additional spread tightening for developed market corporate debt as well also emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. In terms of regions and credit tiers, we prefer US investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield to euro area credit. Chart 9Central Bank Liquidity Still Supportive For Global Credit Chart 10More Global QE Is Good For Inflation-Linked Bonds Finally, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to inflation-linked bods versus nominal government debt in the US, Italy and Canada. Central banks will continue to err on the side of maintaining stimulative monetary policy settings to keep financial conditions easy to support economic growth. That means no hawkish surprises on the interest rate front, while also continuing to buy bonds via quantitative easing (Chart 10) – reflationary policies that should help boost inflation expectations.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have deliberately left Japan out of this analysis, as the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy has effectively short-circuited the link between Japanese economic growth, inflation and bond yields. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns