Global

As 2021 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2022. Highlights Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. For now, we remain of the view that the pandemic will recede in importance over the course of the next year. Relative to the assessment that we published in our 2022 Outlook report, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Our base case view of above-trend growth and above-target inflation remains the most likely scenario for 2022. We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. The true risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. Beyond 2022, the main risk to financial markets is that investors raise their longer-term interest rate expectations closer to the trend rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the coming year, investors should watch for the following when deciding whether to reduce exposure to risky assets: a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, a significant flattening in the yield curve, or a rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%. Feature Our recently published 2022 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations.1 In this month’s report, we discuss the most relevant risks to our base case view in more depth, and update our fixed-income view in the wake of the December FOMC meeting. The Near-Term Risks Chart I-1DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System Over the coming 0-3 months, the greatest risks to economic growth stem from the likely impact of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 on the medical system and the evolution of Europe’s energy crisis. News about the Omicron variant emerged just a few days prior to the publication of our annual outlook, and considerable uncertainty remains about its impact. Some early evidence suggests that the variant causes less severe disease, with a recent press release from South Africa’s largest private health insurance administrator suggesting that the risk of hospital admission was 29 percent lower for adults with the Omicron variant after adjusting for age, sex, underlying health conditions, and vaccine status. More recent studies from South Africa have suggested a much larger reduction in the severity of disease,2 but it is not yet clear whether these findings are applicable to advanced economies,given South Africa’s more recent vaccination campaign and higher proportion of a previously infected population. If Omicron turns out to result in 30 percent less hospitalizations, that only reduces the net impact on the medical system if the Omicron variant is no more than 1.5x as transmissible as the Delta variant. The sheer speed at which Omicron is spreading suggests it is far more contagious than this, the result in part to its ability to evade two-dose immunity. The potential for Omicron to quickly overwhelm available health system resources has alarmed authorities in several advanced economies, especially given that cases and hospitalizations have already trended higher in several countries even while Delta remained the dominant variant (Chart I-1). Additional restrictions on economic activity in the DM world appear to be likely over the coming weeks, and may be in effect until booster doses have been fully administered and/or Pfizer’s drug Paxlovid becomes widely available. For Europe, a worsening of the COVID situation has the potential to exacerbate the economic impact of the region’s ongoing energy crisis. Chart I-2 highlights that European natural gas prices have again exploded, reaching a new high that is fourteen times its pre-pandemic level. We noted in our Outlook report that European natural gas in storage is well below that of previous years, and Chart I-3 highlights that the gap in stored gas relative to previous years persists. This is occurring despite roughly average temperatures in central Europe over the past month (Chart I-4), underscoring that, barring atypically warmer temperatures, European natural gas prices are likely to remain elevated throughout the winter. Chart I-2Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Chart I-3 Chart I-5For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices Chart I-4   For now, it appears that the rise in COVID cases is having a more pronounced effect on the European economy than the energy price situation. Chart I-5 highlights that the flash December euro area manufacturing PMI fell only modestly, and that Germany’s manufacturing PMI actually rose in December. By contrast, the euro area services PMI fell over two points, reflecting the toll that recent pandemic control measures have taken on non-goods producing activity. Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies to some degree, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. Investors will have more information on hand in a few weeks by which to judge the extent of this risk. We will provide an update to our own assessment in our February report. Risks Over The Next Year In our Outlook report, we assigned a 60% chance to an above-trend growth and above-target inflation scenario next year, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, and a 10% chance of a recession. We present below our assessment of the risk that one of the latter two scenarios occurs in 2022. The Risk Of “Stagflation-Lite” Chart I-6Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Over the past few months, supply-side pressures have been modestly improving outside of Europe. Chart I-6 presents our new BCA Supply-Side Pressure Indicator, which measures the impact of supply-side restrictions across four categories: energy prices, shipping costs, the semiconductor shortage impact on automobile production, and labor availability. When we include all eleven components, the index has been trending higher of late, but trending flat-to-down after excluding European natural gas prices. While Omicron has the potential to reduce energy price pressure outside of Europe, it has the strong potential to cause a further increase in global shipping costs and postpone US labor market normalization. On the shipping cost front, we noted in our Outlook report that supply-side effects have been a significant driver of higher costs this year. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has been seemingly caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May. While China has made enormous progress in vaccinating its population over the course of the year, and has prioritized the vaccination of workers in key industries, recent reports suggest that the Sinovac vaccine provides essentially no protection against contracting the Omicron variant of COVID-19. It is possible that Sinovac will offer protection against severe illness, but in terms of preventing transmission of the disease, Omicron has essentially returned China’s vaccination campaign back to square one. Chart I-7Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending That fact alone makes it almost certain that China will maintain its zero-tolerance COVID policy for most of 2022, which significantly raises the risk of additional factory and port shutdowns – and thus even higher shipping costs and imported goods prices. One optimistic point is that these shutdowns are more likely to occur in mainland China than in Taiwan Province or Malaysia, two key semiconductor exporters. This is because these two regions have distributed doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, and thus presumably have the ability to provide three-dose mRNA protection to workers in crucial exporting industries (should policymakers choose to do so). Still, US consumer goods prices would clearly be impacted by even higher shipping costs, which would likely have the combined effect of slowing growth and raising prices. Chart I-7 highlights that the recent sharp deterioration in US households’ willingness to buy durable goods has been closely linked to higher goods prices, arguing that goods spending may slow meaningfully if prices rise further alongside renewed weakness in services spending. Omicron’s contagiousness may also exacerbate the ongoing US labor shortage. The shortage has occurred because of a surge in the number of retirees, difficult working conditions in several industries, and increased childcare requirements during the pandemic. The increase in the number of retirees has not happened for structural reasons; it has been driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”, which has occurred because of health concerns. None of these factors are likely to improve meaningfully while Omicron is raging, suggesting that services prices are likely to remain elevated or accelerate further even if services spending falls anew. Chart I-8 To conclude on this point, we estimate that the odds of a stagflation-lite scenario have risen to 35% (from 30%), and the odds of our base-case scenario of above-trend growth and above-target inflation have fallen to 55% (Chart I-8). Still, our base-case view remains the most probable outcome, given that we do not believe the odds of a recession next year have risen. The Risk Of Recession We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. Such a scenario would have a material impact on cyclical investment strategy, and thus warrants a discussion. Following the December FOMC meeting, BCA’s baseline expectation is that a first Fed hike will occur in June 2022 and that rate increases will proceed at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter through the end of the year. BCA’s house view on this question is now in line with the view of The Bank Credit Analyst service, which published in a September Special Report that the Fed could hit its maximum employment objective as early as next summer.3 The Fed’s shift implies that the 2-year yield should rise to 1.85%, and the 10-year yield to 2.35%, by the end of next year (Chart I-9).  Chart I-9A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year We doubt that US monetary policy will become economically restrictive next year. If the Omicron variant of COVID-19 causes a serious slowdown in economic activity, the Fed will ramp down its expectations for rate hikes. And if the Fed meets our baseline expectations for hikes next year in the context of above-trend economic growth, we do not believe that a 2.35% 10-year Treasury yield will be, in any way, limiting for economic activity. However, investors do not agree with our view about the boundary between easy and tight monetary policy, and may begin to fear a recession in response to Fed tightening next year. We noted in our Outlook report that we believe the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) is likely higher that investors believe, but the fact remains that the Fed and market participants have judged, with deep conviction, that the neutral rate remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy. Chart I-10 presents the fair value path of the 2-year Treasury yield based on our expectations for the Fed funds rate, alongside the actual 10-year Treasury yield. The chart highlights that the 2/10 yield curve could flatten significantly or even invert in the second half of 2022 if long-maturity yields rise only modestly in response to Fed tightening, which could occur if investors focus on the view that the neutral rate of interest is low and that Fed rate hikes will not prove to be sustainable. Based on two different measures of the yield curve, fixed-income investors believe that the current economic expansion is already 50-60% complete (Chart I-11), implying a recession at some point in the first half of 2023. Chart I-10The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally Chart I-11More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve Chart I-12A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks If the yield curve were to flirt with inversion and investors began to price in the potential for a recession, it would cause significant financial market turmoil regardless of whether the risk of recession is real or not. Chart I-12 highlights that the S&P 500 fell 20% in late 2018 as the 2/10 yield curve flattened towards 20 basis points, in response to the economic impact of the China-US Trade War and the global impact of US tariffs on the auto industry. So it is possible that a “recessionary narrative” negatively impacts risky asset prices in the second half of 2022, even if an actual recession is ultimately avoided. Based on this, we would be much more inclined to reduce our recommended exposure to equities if the US 2/10 yield curve were to flatten below 30 basis points next year. In our view, the risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only legitimately rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. We noted in our Outlook report that this has not yet occurred for either household or market-based expectations, although it is a risk that cannot be ruled out. The odds of a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations will rise the longer that actual inflation remains elevated, and our inflation probability model suggests that core PCE inflation will remain well above 3% next year and potentially above 4% – although Chart I-13 highlights that the odds of the latter are falling. Chart I-13US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year A dangerous breakout in inflation expectations would raise the risk of a recession because of the Fed’s awareness of the “sacrifice ratio”, a very important economic concept that has been mostly irrelevant for the past 25 years. The sacrifice ratio is an estimate of the amount of output or employment that must be given up in order to reduce inflation by one percentage point. Table I-1 highlights some academic estimates of the sacrifice ratio, which have typically varied between 2-4% in output terms. For comparison purposes, real GDP has typically fallen no more than 2% on a year-over-year basis during most post-war US recessions. Real GDP growth fell 4% year-over-year in 2009, highlighting that the cost of reducing the rate of inflation by 1 percentage point is effectively a severe recession. Chart I- In his Senate testimony in late-November, Fed Chair Jay Powell noted that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery. He also implied that to reach its maximum employment goal, the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. This was implicit recognition of the sacrifice ratio, and should be seen as an expression of the Fed’s desire to avoid a scenario in which persistently high inflation causes inflation expectations to become unanchored (to the upside), as it would force the Fed to sacrifice economic activity in order to ensure price stability. By acting earlier to normalize monetary policy, the Fed hopes to keep inflation expectations well contained. Chart I-14Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control For now, we see no signs that the Fed will fail to keep inflation expectations from rising dangerously. Chart I-14 highlights that long-dated market expectations for inflation have been falling over the past two months, and are essentially at the same level that they were on average in 2018. Given this, we maintain the 10% odds of recession that we presented in our Outlook report, although investors will need to monitor inflation expectations closely over the coming year to judge whether the risks of a monetary policy-induced recession are indeed rising. Risks Beyond The Next Year Beyond 2022, the main risk to risky asset prices is probably not overly tight monetary policy. Instead, the risk is that investors will come to the conclusion that the Fed funds rate will ultimately end up rising above what the Fed is currently projecting, and that the economy will be capable of tolerating interest rates that are closer to the prevailing rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. Chart I-15US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth Chart I-15 drives the point home by comparing the current S&P 500 forward P/E ratio to a “justified” P/E. Here, we calculate the justified P/E using the average ex-ante equity risk premium (ERP) since 1980, and real potential GDP growth as a stand-in for the real risk-free rate of interest. The chart highlights that US stocks would experience a 30% contraction in equity multiples should real long-maturity bond yields approach 2%. A decline in the ERP could potentially reduce losses for equity holders in a higher interest rate scenario, but it is very likely that the net effect would still be negative for stocks. We detailed in our Outlook report why we believe that the neutral rate of interest is higher than most acknowledge. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but we strongly question that it is as low as the Fed and investors believe. The neutral rate of interest fell during the first half of the last economic cycle because of a persistent period of household deleveraging and balance-sheet repair, which was a multi-year consequence of the financial crisis and the insufficient fiscal response to the 2008-09 recession. We highlighted in our Outlook report that US household balance sheets have been repaired, and that the household debt service ratio has fallen to mid-1960s levels. However, Chart I-16 highlights that even the corporate sector, which has leveraged itself significantly over the past decade, has seen its debt service ratio plummet. In a scenario in which long-maturity Treasury yields were to rise to 4%, we estimate that the debt service burden of the nonfinancial corporate sector would rise to its 70th-80th percentile historically. Chart I-16The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise That would be a meaningful increase from current levels, but it would not be unprecedented, and thus would not render a 4% 10-year Treasury yield to be economically unsustainable. In addition, we strongly suspect that corporations would reduce their interest burden in such a scenario by issuing equity to retire debt. That would lower firms’ debt burden and reduce the economic impact of higher interest rates, although it would be additionally negative for equity investors given that this would dilute earnings per share. We argued in our Outlook report that a shift in investor expectations about the neutral rate of interest is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, presented further evidence of this perspective in a Special Report earlier this week.4 Ryan highlighted results from a recent academic paper, which showed that the entire decline in the 10-year Treasury yield since 1990 has occurred during three-day windows centered around FOMC meetings (Chart I-17). Ryan argued that this suggests investors change their neutral rate expectations in response to Fed interest rate decisions, rather than in response to independent macroeconomic factors that are distinct from monetary policy action. This argues that a shift in neutral rate expectations is unlikely before the Fed begins to lift interest rates in the middle of the year, and probably not until the Fed has raised rates a few times. We are thus unlikely to recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure in response to this risk until 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the Fed’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which is 80 basis points above current levels (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart I-18We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5% We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5% We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5%   Investment Conclusions We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the following 12-months, we expect the following: Global stocks to outperform bonds Short-duration fixed-income positions to outperform long High-yield corporate bonds to outperform within fixed-income portfolios Value stocks to outperform growth Non-resource cyclicals to outperform defensives Small caps to outperform large A modest rise in commodity prices led by oil A decline in the US dollar However, our discussion of the risks to our views has highlighted three things for investors to monitor next year when deciding whether to reduce exposure to stocks (and risky assets more generally): A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, as that would likely cause the Fed to raise interest rates more aggressively than it currently projects. A significant flattening in the yield curve, as that would indicate that investors ultimately expect existing Fed rate hike projections to prove recessionary. A rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%, as that would indicate that investors may be upwardly shifting their expectations for the neutral rate of interest. Over the shorter-term, our discussion also underscored that the Omicron variant will likely disrupt economic activity to some degree over the coming three months, and that the risks of a stagflation-lite scenario next year have modestly increased because of the likely maintenance of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy. We continue to expect that the widespread rollout of booster doses, as well as the progressive availability of effective and safe antiviral drugs, will limit Omicron’s impact on economic activity to the first half of 2022, and that the pandemic will recede in importance next year on average in comparison to 2021. As noted above, this assessment will be monitored continually in response to the release of new information, and we will provide an update in our February report. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 23, 2021 Next Report: January 27, 2022 II. Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Dear Client, This month’s Special Report is a guest piece by Doug Peta, BCA Research’s Chief US Investment Strategist. Doug’s report examines the impact of US stock buybacks using a median bottom-up approach, and presents a different perspective of the value vs. growth distribution of buybacks than we did in our October Section 2. I trust you will find his report interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Elected officials’ antipathy for buybacks is unfounded, … : For the companies that are the primary drivers of buyback activity, returning cash to shareholders is more likely to have a positive impact on employment and investment than retaining it.  and the idea that they boost stock returns may be, as well, … : Over the last ten years, a cap-weighted bucket of large-cap stocks that most reduced their share counts underperformed the bucket that most increased their share counts by 2% annually.  especially within the Tech sector, which has most enthusiastically executed them: Despite the success of Apple, which has seen its market cap soar since embarking on a deliberate strategy to shrink its shares outstanding, a strategy buying Tech’s biggest net reducers and selling its biggest net issuers would have generated sizable negative alpha over the last ten years. The problem is the relative profile of net buyers and net issuers: In general, companies that consistently buy back their own stock are mature companies that cannot earn an accretive return by redeploying the capital their incumbent business generates. Net issuers, on the other hand, are often young companies seeking fresh capital to realize their abundant growth opportunities. The next year is likely to see a pickup of share buybacks nonetheless, … : Our US Equity Strategy service’s Cash Yield Prediction Model points to increased buyback activity in 2022. … as management teams are wedded to them and buying back stock is the best use of capital for the mature companies executing them: Better to return cash to shareholders than to enter new business lines beyond the company’s area of expertise or embark on dubious acquisitions, even in the face of a potential 1% surtax. In Capitol Hill’s current polarized state, stock buybacks are in select company with the tech giants and China as issues that unite solons on both sides of the aisle. They are also a hot-button issue for some investors, who see them as telltale signs of a market kept aloft by sleight of hand. Although we do not think they’re worth getting worked up over – they do not promote the misallocation of capital and they may not actually boost stock prices – they come up repeatedly in client discussions and are likely to remain a feature of the landscape even if they are eventually subjected to a modest federal surtax. We have therefore joined with the BCA Equity Analyzer team to pore over its bottom-up database for insights into the buyback phenomenon. After ranking nearly 600 stocks in our large-cap universe in order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding across the last ten years, we were surprised to discover that the companies that most reduced their share count underperformed the companies that most grew it. We were also surprised to find that Tech was by far the worst performer among the six sectors with negative net issuance. Ultimately, the performance story seemed to boil down to Growth stocks’ extended recent edge over Value stocks. We present the data, our interpretation of it, and some future investment implications in this Special Report. Buybacks’ Bad Rap From Capitol Hill to the White House, prominent Washington voices bemoan buybacks. In a February 2019 New York Times opinion piece,5 Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Schumer (D-NY) argued that equity buybacks divert resources from productive investment in the narrow interest of boosting share prices for the benefit of shareholders and corporate executives. To counter the increasing popularity of buybacks, they proposed legislation that would permit buybacks only after several preconditions for investing in workers and communities had been met. Echoing their concerns, the White House's framework for the Build Back Better bill included a 1% surcharge on stock buybacks, “which corporate executives too often use to enrich themselves rather than investing in workers and growing the economy.” Chart II-1The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back Buybacks’ opponents may mean well, but they seem to be missing an essential point: by and large, the companies that buy back their own stock lack enough attractive investment opportunities to absorb the cash their operations generate. Companies with more opportunities than cash don’t buy back stock; they issue it (and/or borrow) to get the capital to pursue them. The simple generalization that large, mature companies buy back shares while small, growing companies issue new ones is borne out by rolling 12-month percentage changes in shares outstanding by large-cap and small-cap companies (Chart II-1). On an equal-weighted basis, large-cap companies’ rolling share count was flat to modestly down for ten years before the pandemic drove net issuance. Adjusting for market cap, rolling net issuance has been uninterruptedly negative, shrinking by more than 2% per year, on average. The equally weighted small-cap population has been a net issuer to the tune of about 4% annually, with the biggest small-caps issuing even more, pushing the cap-weighted annual average to north of 6%. The bottom line is that large-cap companies in the aggregate have been modestly trimming their share counts, with the biggest companies retiring more than 2% of their shares each year, while small-cap companies are serial issuers, led by their largest (and presumably most bankable) constituents. We are investors serving investors, not policymakers, academics or editorial columnists charged with developing and evaluating public policy. Our mandate is bullish or bearish, not good or bad. We point out the flaws in the prevailing criticism of buybacks simply to make the point that buybacks are not an impediment to productive investment and that no one should therefore expect that productivity and income will rise if legislators or regulators restrict them. On the contrary, since we believe that buybacks represent an efficient allocation of capital, we would expect that successful attempts to limit them will hold back growth at the margin. The Buyback Calculus A company that buys back more of its shares than it issues reduces its share count. All else equal, a company with fewer shares outstanding will report greater earnings per share and a higher return on equity. Increased earnings per share (EPS) does not necessarily ensure a higher share price; if a company’s P/E multiple declines by more than EPS rises, its price will fall. Distributing retained earnings to shareholders reduces a company’s capital buffer against shocks and limits its ability to fund investment internally, but companies that embark on the most ambitious buyback campaigns likely face limited investment opportunities and have much more of a buffer than they could conceivably require. Revealed preferences suggest that management teams like buybacks. They have every interest in getting share prices higher to maximize the value of their own compensation, which typically contains an equity component that accounts for an increasing share of total compensation the more they rise in the company’s hierarchy. It is unclear, however, just how much their attachment to buybacks is founded on an expectation that buying back stock will boost its price. The opportunity to extend their tenure by pursuing a shareholder-friendly policy may well offer a stronger incentive. Do Buybacks Boost Share Prices? Returning cash to shareholders is widely perceived as good corporate governance. It increases the effective near-term yield on an equity investment and denies management the cash to pursue dubious expansion schemes or squander capital on lavish perquisites. It facilitates the reallocation of capital away from cash cows to more productive uses. Buybacks are squarely beneficial in theory, but are they good for investors in practice? (Please see the Box II-1 for a description of the methodology we followed to answer the empirical question.) Box II-1 Performance Calculation Methodology After separating stocks into large- and small-cap categories based on Standard & Poor’s market cap parameters for inclusion in the S&P 500 and the SmallCap 600 indexes, we ranked the constituents in each category in reverse order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding at the end of each month from 2011 through 2021. We then placed the top three deciles (the biggest reducers of their share counts) into the High Buybacks bucket and the bottom three deciles (the biggest net issuers) into the Low Buybacks bucket. We used the buckets to backtest a zero-net-exposure strategy of buying the stocks in the High bucket with the proceeds from shorting the stocks in the Low bucket, calling it the High-Minus-Low (“HML”) strategy. We computed two sets of HML results for the large-cap and small-cap universes. The first populated the buckets without regard for sector representation (“sector-agnostic”) and the second populated the buckets in line with the sector composition of the S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 Indexes (“sector-neutral”). We also track equal-weighted and cap-weighted versions of each HML bucket to gain a sense of performance differences between constituents by size. The experience of the last ten years fails to support the widely held view that stock buybacks boost share prices. Following a zero-net-exposure strategy of owning the top three deciles of large-cap companies ranked by the rolling 12-month percentage reduction of shares outstanding and shorting the bottom three deciles generated a modest positive annual return above 1% (Chart II-2). Small caps merely broke even, largely because their biggest share reducers sharply underperformed in Year 1 of the pandemic. On a cap-weighted basis, however, the large-cap strategy generated a negative annual return a little over 1% during the period, indicating that the largest companies pursuing buyback programs lagged their net issuer counterparts. For small caps, the cap-weighted strategy also lagged the equal-weighted strategy, albeit by a smaller margin. On a sector-neutral basis, the large-cap HML strategy roundly disappointed. The equal-weighted version was never able to do much more than break even, slipping into the red when COVID arrived, while the cap-weighted version continuously lagged it, shedding about 1.5% annually (Chart II-3). Though it was hit hard by the pandemic, the equal-weighted small-cap HML strategy managed to generate about 1% annually, and boasted a 3.5% annualized return for the eight years through 2019. Chart II-2Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Chart II-3... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor   Drilling down to the sector level offers some additional insights. While changes in shares outstanding vary across large-cap sectors, with six sectors reducing their shares outstanding and five expanding them, every small-cap sector has been a net issuer in every single year, ex-Discretionaries and Industrials in 2019 (Chart II-4). Relative sector capital needs are largely consistent regardless of market cap, however, with REITs, which distribute all their income to preserve their tax-free status, unable to expand without raising cash in the capital markets, and Utilities, Energy and traditional Telecom Services being capital-intensive industries (Table II-1). Many Tech niches are capital-light, and established Industrials and Consumer businesses often throw off cash. Chart II-4 Chart II- There is less large- and small-cap commonality in HML relative sector performance than in relative sector issuance. Away from Real Estate, Tech and Discretionaries, small-cap HML sector strategies generated aggregate positive returns, led by Communication Services and Energy (Chart II-5). For the large caps, most HML sector strategies produced negative alpha, though the four winners and the one modest loser (Financials) are among the six sectors that have net retired shares outstanding since 2012. Tech is the conspicuous exception, with its HML strategy yielding annualized losses exceeding 3%, contrasting with the sector’s enthusiastic buyback embrace. Chart II-5 The Corporate Life Cycle Surprising as they may be on their face, negative cap-weighted ten-year HML returns do not mean that buybacks are counterproductive. We simply think they illustrate that net issuance activity follows from a company’s position in the corporate life cycle (Figure II-1). Investors have prized growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and the companies with the best growth prospects are often younger companies just beginning to tap their addressable markets. They have a long pathway of market share capture ahead of them and need to raise capital to begin traveling it. Many of these strong growers populate the Low basket, especially in the Tech sector. Chart II- Chart II- Companies that return cash to their owners via share repurchases are often more mature. Their operations are comfortably profitable and generate more than enough cash to sustain them. They have already captured all the market share they’re likely to gain in their primary business and may not have an outlet for its proceeds in a space in which they have a plausible competitive advantage. Lacking a clear path to bettering the returns from their main operations, they have been steadily accumulating cash for a long time. Through the lens of the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) growth share matrix,6 a successful business in the Maturity stage of the business life cycle is known as a Cash Cow. Cash Cows have gained considerable market share in their industry, affording them a competitive advantage based on scale, brand and experience, but little scope for growth because they have saturated a market that is itself mature (Figure II-2). BCG advises management teams with a portfolio of business lines to milk Cash Cows for capital to reinvest in high-share, high-growth-potential Stars or low-share, high-growth-potential Question Marks that could be developed into Stars. In the public markets, a mature large-cap company that retains its excess capital impedes its owners’ ability to redeploy that capital to faster growing investments, subverting the overall economy’s ability to redirect capital to its best uses. Walmart, Twentieth-Century Growth Darling Chart II-6From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder Walmart fits the business life cycle framework to a T and has evolved into a textbook Cash Cow. It is a dominant player that executed its initial strategy so well that it has maxed out its share in the declining/stagnating brick-and-mortar retail industry. Its international attempts to replicate its domestic success have uniformly failed to gain traction, and it currently operates in fewer major countries than it's exited. Given Walmart’s star-crossed international experience and the dismal history of large corporate combinations, returning cash may be the optimal use of shareholder capital. Walmart began life as a public company in fiscal 1971 squarely in the Growth phase. It was profitable from the start and grew annual revenues by at least 25% for every one of its first 23 years of public ownership (Chart II-6, top panel). It was a modest issuer of shares during its Growth phase, conducting just one secondary common stock offering 12 years after its IPO and otherwise limiting growth in shares outstanding to acquisitions, management incentive awards and debt and preferred stock conversions. Once its revenue growth slipped into the low double-digits in the late nineties, it began retiring its shares at a deliberate pace (Table II-2). That retirement inaugurated a ramping up of Walmart’s annual payout ratio (Chart II-6, bottom panel) and cash yield (dividend yield plus buyback yield), underlining its transition from Growth to Maturity. Walmart’s 2010 admission into the S&P 500 Pure Value Index marked its ripening into full maturity, and it has been a Pure Value fixture since 2013. Today’s stolid icon is a far cry from the ambitious disruptor on display in its 1980 Annual Report: Chart II- Subsequent to year end, your Company’s directors authorized [a one-third] increase in the annual dividend[.] This continues your Company’s approach of distributing a portion of profits to our shareholders and utilizing the balance to fund our aggressive expansion program. [T]he decade of the ’70’s … has been a tremendous growth period for your Company. In January 1970, we … had 32 stores …, comprising less than a million square feet of retail space. In the next ten years, we added 258 … stores, … constructed and opened three new distribution facilities, and increased our retail space to 12.6 million square feet. During that same period of time, we increased our sales and earnings at an annual compounded rate well in excess of 40 percent. Reflecting upon the progress we have made in the ‘70’s makes it apparent that there is even more opportunity in the ‘80’s for your Company, and we are better positioned to maximize our opportunities … than ever before. The Exception That Proves The Rule Apple has shined so far in the twenty-first century much like Walmart did in the latter stages of the twentieth, growing its revenues and net income at compound annual rates exceeding 20% and 25%, respectively. Unlike Walmart, however, Apple hasn’t required a steady stream of capital to grow. While Walmart had to plow its earnings right back into the business to fund the acquisition and buildout of property to create stores, warehouses and distribution centers, Apple has simply had to make incremental improvements to its music players, phones and tablets while shoring up the moats around its virtual app and music marketplaces. As a result, cash and retained earnings began silting up on Apple’s balance sheet, lying fallow in short-term marketable securities and crimping a range of return metrics. Chart II- Beginning in its 2013 fiscal year, Apple embarked on a lengthy strategy of returning that cash to shareholders, buying back stock at a rate that has allowed it to reduce its shares outstanding by 37.5% in the space of nine years (Table II-3). It has reduced its retained earnings by more than $90 billion over that span and is on course to wipe them out completely in the fiscal year ending next September. Equity issuance in the form of incentive compensation augments Apple’s capital by about $5 billion per year, but if it continues to distribute more than 100% of its annual earnings in the form of dividends and repurchases, it could wipe out the rest of its recorded equity capital as well. Does this mean Apple is in danger of sliding into insolvency? Not in the least. The value of its assets dramatically exceeds the value of its liabilities, as evidenced by its nearly $3 trillion market cap and the top AAA credit rating Moody’s awarded it this week. Its reported book value is artificially suppressed by generally accepted accounting principles’ inability to value organically developed intellectual property (IP). Apple’s book value and that of other companies that generate similar IP, or benefit from internally generated moats, are dramatically undervalued. Takeaways For now, Apple is an anomaly when it comes to aggressively returning cash to shareholders while it is still in the Growth stage of its life cycle. Returning cash is typically the province of mature companies with steady operations that are unlikely to grow. It is generally good for the economy when those companies return excess cash to shareholders, freeing it up for more productive uses. If lawmakers or regulators manage to restrict the flow of capital from cash-cow companies to potential stars, we should expect activity to slow at the margin, not quicken. The experience of the last ten years suggests that companies that shrink their share counts do not outperform their counterparts that expand them. The trading strategy of shorting the biggest net share issuers to purchase the biggest net share reducers has produced negative returns. It is unclear if shareholders of companies who cannot redeploy their internally generated capital to augment the returns from their primary operations would be better served if their manager-agents retained the capital, though we suspect they would not. It seems inevitable that manager-agents with access to too much capital will eventually get into mischief. If buying back stock represents good corporate stewardship at mature companies, their shareholders should someday be rewarded for it. Given that the companies most suited to buying back stock tend to fit in the Value style box, the zero-net-exposure HML strategy may continue to accrue losses. Apple remains an outlier among Growth companies as an avid buyer of its stock; much more common are the S&P 500 Life and Multi-Line Insurer sub-industry groups, without which the S&P 500 Pure Value Index would have a hard time reaching a quorum (Table II-4). Their constituents have assiduously bought back their stock over the last ten years, albeit to no relative avail (Chart II-7). However, they should be better positioned once Value returns to favor and rising interest rates make investing their cash flow a more attractive proposition. Chart II- Chart II-7... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to move in a tighter direction over the coming year, which is in line with the Fed’s recent hawkish shift. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are rolling over, but there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury Yield remains well below the fair value implied by a mid-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is quite likely. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6 months. We expect stronger metals prices in the back half of 2022. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?", dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in South Africa by Wolter et al., medRxiv preprint, December 21, 2021. 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy “The Fed In 2022”, dated December 21, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5   Opinion | Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed December 17, 2021. 6   https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix Accessed December 19, 2021. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Long-only investors with a minimum horizon of two years should buy the interactive entertainment sector. Hedge fund investors with a minimum horizon of two years should go long interactive entertainment versus technology. Despite a trebling of sales since 2014, interactive entertainment comprises just 0.2 percent of world GDP, and just 0.3 percent of US consumer spending, providing scope for substantial further growth. Looking ahead, we identify four specific drivers of growth: cloud gaming, e-sports, 5G, and ‘gaming as a service’. After this year’s sell-off, the sector’s relative valuation has fallen below its long-term average. Even more striking, the sector now trades at a record 20 percent discount to the tech sector. Yet we think we can do better than the sector index and reveal our preferred basket of interactive entertainment stocks. Feature In the future, a typical day will be divided into three. A third we will spend sleeping and dreaming; a third we will spend in reality; and a third we will spend in virtual reality. Parents of teenagers may already recognise this pattern, and will certainly do so over the coming holiday season! But many people in their twenties and thirties are also spending more of their time in the virtual world entered through the portal of interactive entertainment (meaning video gaming, and we will use these terms interchangeably throughout this report). Since 2014, interactive entertainment has experienced explosive growth. Since 2014, interactive entertainment has experienced explosive growth. Sales have trebled, outperforming even the tech sector whose sales have doubled, and far outperforming the total stock market’s sales (and global GDP) which are up a sedate 30 percent (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Yet despite this explosive growth, interactive entertainment comprises just 0.2 percent of world GDP, and just 0.3 percent of US consumer spending, providing scope for substantial further growth (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-1Since 2014, Interactive Entertainment’s Sales Have Almost Trebled… Since 2014, Interactive Entertainment's Sales Have Trebled... Since 2014, Interactive Entertainment's Sales Have Trebled... Chart I-2…And Its Profits Have More Than ##br##Trebled ...And Its Profits Have Quadrupled ...And Its Profits Have Quadrupled Chart I-3 Chart I-4…And 0.3 Percent Of US Consumer Spending ...And 0.3 Percent Of US Consumer Spending ...And 0.3 Percent Of US Consumer Spending Meanwhile, the interactive entertainment sector’s profit margin has also trended higher, to 14 percent. This compares with 16 percent for tech, and around 10 percent for the total stock market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Interactive Entertainment’s Profit Margin Has Trended Higher Interactive Entertainment's Profit Margin Has Trended Higher Interactive Entertainment's Profit Margin Has Trended Higher The combination of explosive sales growth and higher margins has resulted in spectacular profit growth. Interactive entertainment profits have skyrocketed by 250 percent, outperforming tech profits which are up 150 percent, and far outperforming total stock market profits which are up 50 percent. We expect this strong outperformance in profits to continue. Cloud Gaming, E-Sports, 5G, And ‘Gaming As A Service’ Will Drive Sales Growth Looking ahead, we identify four specific drivers of growth: cloud gaming, e-sports, 5G, and ‘gaming as a service’. Cloud gaming (gaming-on-demand) streams high quality interactive content that is running on remote servers, akin to how remote desktops work. Thereby, gamers can play using just a device and an internet connection. Cloud gaming displaces physical disks, powerful hardware, and the need to download games onto a platform – analogous to how the on-demand streaming of media and entertainment has displaced DVDs and cable TV. Cloud gaming benefits both content developers and players. Developers do not have to worry about piracy, illegal downloads or digital rights management. Players benefit from a high (and equal) server processing power, creating a level-playing field in games. Which brings us nicely to the second driver of growth: e-sports. E-sports refers to competitive video gaming, a sector which is experiencing massive growth. 175 colleges and universities have already become members of the National Association of Collegiate Esports (NACE), offering varsity e-sports programs, and recognizing student gamers through scholarship awards. E-sports are hugely popular not only for their competitive element but also for their opportunity for social engagement, albeit virtually. The third major driver of interactive entertainment profits is the widespread rollout of 5G cellular networks, which makes cloud gaming accessible to mobile devices, rather than just to consoles and PCs. Mobile gaming revenues have become the most powerful engine of growth. This is significant because revenues from mobile gaming have now overtaken the combined revenues from the console and PC platforms. As such, mobile gaming revenues have become the most powerful engine of growth (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6 Chart I-7 The fourth driver of profits is the ‘gaming as a service’ (GaaS) revenue model, which is analogous to the software industry’s standard ‘software as a service’ (SaaS) revenue model. Instead of a one-time sale, revenue comes from a continuous stream of in-game sales and subscriptions. For example, Activision Blizzard’s doubling of revenues since 2014 has come mostly from in-game subscriptions. Product sales now comprise less than 30 percent of total revenues (Chart I-8). Chart I-8 As well as being a major contributor to strong sales growth, GaaS boosts profit margins by lengthening the sales derived from the fixed costs of developing a given game.  But Isn’t Video Gaming An Unhealthy Addiction? In 2018, the World Health Organization recognized 'gaming disorder' as an addictive behaviour and has officially defined it in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Then in August this year, the Chinese government imposed harsh restrictions on video gaming for minors. Under-18s can play video games for a maximum of three hours a week, one hour each on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. These developments beg the question, is the interactive entertainment sector exposed to significant regulatory risks? The crackdown and regulation of illicit activities should be welcomed, not feared. China’s crackdown on video gaming for minors is consistent with its other crackdowns – for example, on cryptocurrencies – that decree that ‘the Chinese government knows what’s best for its people.’ However, libertarian western economies are unlikely to follow suit. In any case, even the World Health Organization concedes that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people.   Another regulatory issue is so-called ‘gamblification’. Popularly known as loot boxes, or mystery boxes, the contents of some in-game virtual goods are unknown to gamers who purchase them in the hopes of attaining rare items that boast high in-game utility. The features resemble gambling and raise concerns of predatory monetization. Calls for regulatory action refer to gamblification as a contributing cause to gaming disorder. Still, such features are not significant enough in most games to change the structural outlook. A final putative concern is that in-game tradable virtual currencies create a haven for cyber criminals and money launderers. The solution could be know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations akin to those in the online gambling/betting industry. Ultimately, just as in the cryptocurrency space, and indeed the internet space, the crackdown and regulation of illicit activities should be welcomed, not feared. As such, it strengthens rather than weakens the structural outlook. The Investment Case This year’s sell-off in the interactive entertainment sector provides a good entry point for long-term investors (Chart I-9). The sell-off was exacerbated by two bits of bad news: first, the revelation of a toxic and sexist workplace culture at Activision Blizzard – since when the company has suffered a wave of bad publicity, numerous resignations, and a 40 percent plunge in its stock price; then, the Chinese crackdown on video gaming for minors. Chart I-9Interactive Entertainment’s Recent Sell-Off Provides A Good Long-Term Entry Point Interactive Entertainment's Recent Sell-Off Provides A Good Long-Term Entry Point Interactive Entertainment's Recent Sell-Off Provides A Good Long-Term Entry Point Both items of bad news seem well discounted. The sector’s relative valuation to the market has fallen below its long-term average. Even more striking, the sector now trades at a record 20 percent discount to the tech sector (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10Interactive Entertainment Now Trades At A 20 Percent Discount To Technology… Interactive Entertainment Now Trades At A 20 Percent Discount To Technology... Interactive Entertainment Now Trades At A 20 Percent Discount To Technology... Chart I-11…And Its Relative Valuation To The Market Is Below The Long-Term Average ...And Its Relative Valuation To The Market Is Below The Long-Term Average ...And Its Relative Valuation To The Market Is Below The Long-Term Average Given that the structural outlook for the sector’s sales and profits remains intact, long-only investors with a minimum horizon of two years should buy the interactive entertainment sector (Table I-1). Hedge fund investors with a minimum horizon of two years should go long interactive entertainment versus technology. Chart I- Yet we think we can do better than the sector index by filtering out the riskiest stocks, based on overvaluation, commercial risk, and regulatory risk. For example, we exclude the Chinese stocks that are most exposed to the Chinese government crackdown and future whims.  Long-only investors with a minimum horizon of two years should buy the interactive entertainment sector. On this basis, our interactive entertainment basket comprises: (Table I-2). Chart I- Nintendo Activision Blizzard Electronic Arts Zynga Konami Capcom Square Enix   This is the final Counterpoint report of the year. We wish you all a very happy and restful holiday season.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Mohamed El Shennawy Research Associate mohamede@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience US Resilience US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). Chart 2 ​​​​​ Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown ​​​​​​ Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). Chart 6 China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). Chart 7 True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) ​​​​​ Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production  peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place ​​​​​ Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized ​​​​​​ Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. Chart 17 ​​​​​​ Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Chart 18 Chart 19 Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Chart 21 Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22).  Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable ​​​​​​ Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets ​​​​​​ We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound.     We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks.   -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail.   Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2     Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1.  How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2.    Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend   Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). Image The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4.    How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock ...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock ...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive.  This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5.    Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6.    How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Chart I-11 Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7.    Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Chart I-12 Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Our theme for the year, “No Return To Normalcy,” is largely vindicated. Inflation is back! The geopolitical method still points to three long-term strategic themes: multipolarity, hypo-globalization, and populism. All are inflationary in today’s context. Our three key views for 2021 produced two hits and one miss: China sold off, oil prices held up, but the euro fell hard. Our view on Iran is still in flux. COVID-19 proved more relevant for investors than we believed, though we took some risk off the table before the Delta and Omicron variants emerged. Our biggest miss was long Korea / short Taiwan equities. Our geopolitical forecast was spot on but our trade recommendation collapsed. Our biggest hit was long India / short China equities. China’s historic confluence of internal and external risk drove investors to India, the most promising strategic EM play. Feature Every year we conduct a review of the past year’s geopolitical forecasts and investment recommendations. The intention is to hold ourselves to account, prepare for our annual outlook, and improve our analytical framework. Our three key views for 2021 were: 1.  China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk = bearish view of Chinese equities; 2.  The US pivot to Asia runs through Iran = neutral-to-bullish view of oil prices; 3.  Europe wins the US election = bullish view of the euro and European equities. The first view on China was a direct hit. The second view is in flux. The third view was initially right but then turned sour. A crude way of assessing these views would be to look at equity performance relative to long-term trends: China sold off, the UAE rallied, and Europe sold off (Chart 1). Chart 1Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss This is not the whole story. We modified our views over the course of the year as new information came to light. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar, with negative implications for the euro. In June we adjusted our position on Europe overall, arguing that European political risk had bottomed and would rise going forward. In August we adjusted our position on Iran, warning of an imminent crisis due to the Biden administration’s refusal to lift sanctions and Iran’s pursuit of “breakout” uranium enrichment capacity. We stayed bearish on China throughout the year. Going forward, given that a near-term crisis is necessary to determine whether Iran will stay on a diplomatic track, we would short UAE or Saudi equities. We would expect oil to remain volatile given upside risks from geopolitics but downside risks from the new Omicron variant and China’s slowdown. China’s slowdown was also a controlling factor for the Europe view. The energy crisis and showdown with Russia can also get worse before they get better. So we prefer US assets for now and will revisit this issue in our annual strategic outlook due in the coming weeks. Before we get to the worst (and best) calls of the year, we have a few words on our analytical framework in the context of this year’s signal developments. The Geopolitical Method: Lessons From 2021 As with any method rooted in practice, the geopolitical method has many flaws. But it has the advantage of being systematic, empirical, probabilistic, and non-partisan. How do we check ourselves on the thorny problem of partisanship? First, geopolitics requires practicing empathetic analysis, i.e. striving to understand and empathize with the interests of each nation and nation-state when analyzing their behavior. For example: China: China’s ruling party believes it is necessary to have an all-powerful leader to deal with the urgent systemic risks facing the country. We refrain from criticizing single-party rule or China’s human rights record. But we do see compelling evidence that the Communist Party’s shift from consensus rule to personal rule will have a negative impact on governance and relations with the West.1 China obviously rejects foreign diplomatic and military support for Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a renegade province, and hence the odds of a war in the Taiwan Strait are high over the long run. Russia: Russia is threatening its neighbors on multiple fronts not because it is an evil empire but because of its insecurity in the face of the US and NATO, and particularly its opposition to western defense cooperation with Ukraine. Its unproductive domestic economy and vulnerability to social unrest are additional reasons to expect aggression abroad. Second, we take very seriously any complaints of bias we receive from clients. Such complaints are rare, which is encouraging. But we treat all feedback as an opportunity to improve. At the same time, the need to draw clean-cut investment conclusions for all clients will always override the political sensitivities of any subset of clients. Geopolitics is based in the idea that politics is rooted in structural forces like geography and demography, i.e. forces that limit or constrain individual actors and only change at a glacial pace. Geopolitical analysts focus on measurable and material factors rather than ever-changing opinions and ideas. It is impossible for investors today to ignore the global political environment, so the important thing is to analyze it in a cold and clinical manner. To combine this method with global macroeconomic and investment research, one must assess whether and to what extent financial markets have already priced any given policy outcome. The result will be a geopolitically informed macro conclusion, which should yield better decisions about conserving and growing wealth. This is the ideal for which we aim, even though we often fall short. Over the years our method has produced three primary strategic themes: Great Power struggle (multipolarity); hypo-globalization; and domestic populism (Table 1). Table 1Our Major Themes Point To Persistent Inflation Risk Geopolitical Report Card: 2021 Geopolitical Report Card: 2021 The macro impact of these themes will vary with events but in general they point toward a reflationary and inflationary context. They involve a larger role of government in society, new constraints on supply, demand-side stimulus, and budget indiscipline. Bottom Line: Nation-states are mobilizing, which means they will run up against resource constraints. A Return To Normalcy? Or Not? As the year draws to a close, our annual theme is vindicated: “No Return To Normalcy.”  The term “normalcy” comes from President Warren G. Harding’s election campaign in 1920. It was an appeal to an American public that yearned to move on from World War I and the Spanish influenza pandemic. A hundred years later, in December 2020, the emergence of a vaccine for COVID-19 and the election of an orthodox American president (after the unorthodox President Trump) made it look as if 2021 would witness another such return to normalcy. We foresaw this narrative and rejected it. Primarily we rejected it on geopolitical grounds – global policy will not revert to the pre-Trump status quo. We also argued that the pandemic and the gargantuan fiscal relief designed to shield the economy would have lasting consequences. Specifically they would create a more inflationary context. Chart 2No Return To Normalcy In 2021 No Return To Normalcy In 2021 No Return To Normalcy In 2021 The most obvious sign that things have not returned to normal in 2021 is the “Misery Index,” the sum of unemployment and headline inflation. Misery Indexes skyrocketed during the crisis and today stand at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% in 2019, respectively (Chart 2). Unemployment rates are falling but inflation has surged to the highest levels since the 1990s. For investors to be concerned about inflation at the beginning of a new business cycle is unusual and requires explanation. It suggests that inflation will be a persistent problem going forward, as the unemployment rate falls beneath NAIRU and participation rates rise. While we expected inflation, we did not expect the political blowback to come so quickly. President Biden’s approval rating collapsed to 42.2% this fall. Approval of his handling of the economy fell even lower, to 39.6%, below President Trump’s rating at this stage. Consumer confidence has fallen by 15.1% since its post-election peak in June 2021. Republicans are automatically favored to win the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections – but if the economy does not improve they will also win the Senate. Despite Biden’s unpopularity, we argued that his $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill and his $1.75 trillion partisan social spending bill would pass Congress. So far this view is on track, with infrastructure signed into law and the Senate looking to vote on the social bill in December (or January). These bills illustrate the strategic themes listed above: the US is reviving public investments in civil and military sectors, reducing global dependencies, and expanding its social safety net. However, large new government spending when the output gap is virtually closed will tend to be inflationary. Russia and China also have high or rising misery indexes, which underscores that political and geopolitical risks will rise rather than fall over the coming 12 months. Unemployment rates are not always reliable in authoritarian states, so the Misery Index is if anything overly optimistic regarding social and economic conditions. China is not immune to social unrest but Russia is particularly at risk. Quality of life and public trust in government have both deteriorated. Inflation will make it worse. Russians remember inflation bitterly from the ruble crisis of 1998. President Putin is already ratcheting up tensions with the West to distract from domestic woes. While we were positioned for higher inflation in 2021, we were too dismissive of the global pandemic. We expected vaccination campaigns to move faster, especially in the US, and we underrated the Delta variant as a driver of financial markets, at least relative to politics. A close look at Treasury yields, oil prices, and airline stocks shows that the evolution of the pandemic marked the key inflection points in the market this year (Chart 3). Chart 3COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging Bottom Line: Tactically the market impact of the newly discovered Omicron variant of the virus should not be underrated. It is critical to find out if it is more harmful to younger people than Delta and other variants. Cyclically inflation will remain a persistent risk even if it abates somewhat in 2022. Worst Calls Of 2021 We now proceed to our main feature. As always we begin with the worst calls of the year: Chart 4Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea 1.  Long Korea / Short Taiwan. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. US-China conflict is a secular trend and contains elements of all our major themes: Great Power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism. Taiwan is the epicenter of this conflict and a war is likely over the long run. For 2021 we predicted a 5% chance of war but a 60% chance of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis,” i.e. a diplomatic crisis, and our contrarian short of Taiwanese equities was premised on this expectation. Investors are starting to respond to these self-evident geopolitical risks, judging by the TWD-USD exchange rate and the relative performance of Taiwanese equities, which have peaked and are lagging expectations based on global semiconductor stocks. But our choice of South Korean equities as the long end of the pair trade was very unfortunate and the trade is down by 22% (Chart 4). Korea is suffering from a long de-rating process in the face of China’s industrial slowdown and a downgrade to Korean tech sector earnings, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has highlighted. 2.  Short CNY Versus USD And EUR. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. This year we argued that President Biden would be just as hawkish on China as President Trump and would not remove tariffs or export controls. We also argued that the SEC would punish US-listed China stocks and that bilateral relations would not improve despite a likely Biden-Xi summit. These views proved correct. But our neutral view on the dollar and bullish view on the euro betrayed us and the trade has lost 4% so far. The euro collapsed amid its domestic energy crisis and China’s import slowdown (Chart 5). China’s exports boomed while the People’s Bank kept the currency strong to fend off inflation. Chart 5China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank Chart 6Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks 3.  Long Value Versus Growth. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. We have long favored value over growth stocks, expecting that our strategic themes would lead to more muscular fiscal spending, government intervention in the economy, and a return of inflation. In 2021 we bet that rising inflation expectations and higher bond yields would favor value over growth. This was only one aspect of our larger pro-cyclical view that tech-heavy US equities would underperform their global peers and emerging markets would outpace developed markets. These expectations came true during the first part of the year when exuberance over the “reflation trade” led to a big pop in value (Chart 6). By the second quarter we had pared back our pro-cyclical leanings but we maintained value over growth, ultimately at a loss of 3.75%. The reality nowadays is that value is a byword for low quality, as our colleagues Juan Correa-Ossa and Lucas Laskey have shown. Growth stocks continue to provide investors with innovation and robust earnings amid a lingering pandemic. 4.  Long Aerospace And Defense Stocks. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. We are perennially bullish on defense stocks given our strategic themes. We expected aerospace and defense stocks to recover as vaccines spread and travel revived. We successfully played the rebound in absolute terms. But the slow pace of vaccination and the emergence of the Delta variant dealt a blow to the sector relative to the broad market. And now comes Omicron. As for defense stocks specifically, investors are downplaying Great Power struggle and worried that government defense budgets will be flat or down. Significant saber-rattling is occurring as expected in the major hotspots – the Taiwan Strait, the Persian Gulf, and Russia’s periphery – but investors do not care about saber-rattling for the sake of saber-rattling. Geopolitical tensions went nowhere so far this year and hence defense stocks floundered relative to the broad market (Chart 7). Still we would be buyers at today’s cheap valuations as we see geopolitical risk rising on a secular basis and the odds of military action are non-negligible in all three of the hotspots just mentioned. 5.  Long Safe Havens. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. Measured geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty collapsed over the second half of 2020. By early 2021 we expected it to revive on US-China, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions. As such we expected safe-haven assets to catch a bid, especially having fallen as the global economy reopened. We stayed long gold (up 22.6% since inception, down 5.2% YTD) and at various times bought the Japanese yen and Swiss franc. Some of these trades generated positive returns but in general safe havens remained out of favor (Chart 8). As with defense stocks, we are still constructive on the yen and franc. Chart 7Market Ignored Saber-Rattling Market Ignored Saber-Rattling Market Ignored Saber-Rattling 6.  Long Developed Europe / Short Emerging Europe. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. Our pessimistic view of Russia’s relations with the West, and hence of Russian currency and equities, clashed with our positive outlook on oil and commodity prices this year. To play Russian risks we favored developed European equities over their emerging peers (mainly Russian stocks). But emerging Europe has outperformed by 5% since we initiated the trade and other variations on this theme had mixed results (Chart 9). Of course, geopolitical tensions are escalating in eastern Europe we go to press. Chart 8Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection ​​​​​​ Chart 9Refrain From The Russia Rally Refrain From The Russia Rally Refrain From The Russia Rally We do not think investors can afford to ignore the US-Russia conflict, which has escalated over two decades. President Putin has not changed his strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The US is internally divided and distracted by a range of challenges, while it continues to lack close coordination with its European allies. Western responses to Russian aggression have failed to change Russia’s cost-benefit analysis. Thus we continue to expect market-negative surprises from Russia, whether that means a seizure of littoral territory in Ukraine, a militarization of the Belarussian border, more disruptive cyber attacks, or some other big surprise. Bottom Line: While our geopolitical forecasts generally hit the mark this year, global financial markets ignored most geopolitical risks other than China. The global recovery, inflation, and the pandemic, vaccines, variants, and social distancing remained the key dynamics. This threw many of our trades off track. However, we are sticking with some of our worst calls this year given the underlying geopolitical and economic forces motivating them beyond a 12-month time frame. Best Calls Of 2021 1.  Long India / Short China. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Our number one view for 2021 was that China would suffer a historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk that would be negative for equities. This view contrasted with our bullish view on India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had won another single-party majority in the 2019 elections and stood to benefit from the attempts of the US and other democracies to diversify away from China. We favored Indian stocks and local currency bonds – both trades saw a sharp run-up (Chart 10). Unfortunately, we took profits too soon, only netting 12% on the long India / short China equity trade. Some of our other India trades did not go so well. Going forward we expect a tactical reset given India’s tremendous performance this year. 2.  Booking Gains At Peak Biden. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. We closed several of our reflation trades in the first quarter, when exuberance over vaccines and the Democrat’s election sweep reached extreme levels (Chart 11). We captured a 24% gain on our materials trade and a 37% gain on energy stocks. We turned a 17% profit on our BCA Infrastructure Basket relative trade. We were prompted to close these trades by dangers over Taiwan and Ukraine that soon dissipated. But we also believed that markets were priced for perfection. By the second quarter we had taken some risk off the table, which served us well throughout the middle of the year when the Delta variant struck. While global energy and materials rose to new highs later in the year, the Fed and Omicron interrupted their run. Chart 10Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China 3.  Long Natural Gas On Russia Risks. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. All year we held the contrarian view that the new Nord Stream II pipeline linking Russia and Germany would become a major geopolitical flashpoint and that it was much less likely to go into operation than consensus held. Chart 11Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron ​​​​​​ We also fully expected Russia to act aggressive in its periphery. In March we argued that while Russia probably would not re-invade Ukraine, long-term risk was substantial (and accordingly a new military standoff began in the fall) We also noted that Russia had other tools to coerce its neighbors. As a result we went long natural gas futures, following our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. While the trade returned 20%, we took profits before the European energy crisis really took off (Chart 12). 4.  The “Back To War” Trade. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. Cyber warfare is one of the ways that the Great Powers can compete without engaging in conventional war. We have long been bullish on cyber-security stocks. However, the pandemic created a unique tactical opportunity to initiate a pair trade of long traditional defense stocks / short cyber stocks that returned 10%. It was a geopolitical variation on the “back to work” trades that characterized the revival of economic activity after pandemic lockdowns. Cyber stocks will enjoy a tailwind as long as the pandemic persists and working from home remains a major trend. But over the cyclical time frame defense stocks should rebound relative to their cyber peers, just as physical geopolitical tensions should begin to take on renewed urgency with nations scrambling for territory and resources (Chart 13). Chart 12Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Chart 13The 'Back To War' Trade The 'Back To War' Trade The 'Back To War' Trade Chart 14Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge 5.  Long Rare Earth Metals. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We have long maintained that rare earth metals would catch a bid as US-China tensions rose. The pandemic stimulus galvanized a new capex cycle with a focus on strategic goals like supply chain resilience, military-industrial upgrades, and de-carbonization that will boost demand for rare earths. Our trade made a 9% gain, despite difficulties throughout the year arising from our homemade BCA Rare Earth Basket, which proved to be an idiosyncratic instrument. Going forward we will express our view via the benchmark MVIS Rare Earth Index (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Our successful trades hinged on broad geopolitical views: China’s confluence of internal and external risk, Biden’s reflationary agenda, persistent US-Russia conflict, and India’s attractiveness relative to other emerging markets. The change in 2022 is that Biden’s legislative agenda will be spent so the market will shift from American reflation to the Fed and global concerns. If China does not stabilize its economy, more bad news will hit China-related plays and global risk assets. Honorable Mentions: For Better And For Worse Short EM “Strongmen.” Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We shorted the currencies of Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines relative to benchmark EM currencies. Though we closed the trade too early, earning a paltry sum, the political analysis proved correct and the market ultimately responded in a major way (Chart 15). Upcoming elections for these countries in 2022-23 will ensure that their dysfunctional politics remain negative for investors, while other emerging market currencies continue to outperform. Chart 15Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders ¡Viva México! Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Mexico benefited from US stimulus, the USMCA trade deal, the West’s economic divorce from China, and the resumption of tourism, immigration, and remittances. In general Latin America stands aloof from the Great Power struggles afflicting emerging markets in Europe and East Asia. But Latin America’s perennial problem with domestic populism and political instability undermines US dollar returns. Mexico looks to be a notable exception. Chart 16¡Viva México! ¡Viva México! ¡Viva México! Mexico suffered the biggest opportunity cost from the West’s love affair with China over the past 40 years. Now it stands to gain from the US drive to relocate supply chains, onshore to North America, and diversify from China. Two of our Mexico trades were ill-timed this year, but favoring Mexico over other emerging markets, particularly Brazil, was fundamentally the right call (Chart 16). Bottom Line: Cyclically Mexico is an emerging market with a compelling story based on fundamentals. Tactically disfavor emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Investment Takeaways Our batting average this year was 65%. 2021 will be remembered as a transitional year in which the world tried but did not quite return to normal amid a lingering pandemic. Inflation reemerged as a major concern of consumers, governments, and central banks. Developed markets adopted proactive fiscal policy but global cyclicals faced crosswinds as China resumed its monetary, fiscal, and regulatory tightening campaign. Our bearish call on China was a direct hit. China’s political risks will persist ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Cyclically stay short CNY-USD and TWD-USD. Our worst market call was long Korean / short Taiwanese equities. But the world awoke to Taiwan risk and Taiwanese stocks peaked relative to global equities. Over the long run we think war is likely in the Taiwan Strait. Re-initiate long JPY-KRW as a strategic trade. Our best market call was long Indian / short Chinese equities. Tactically this trade will probably reverse but strategically we maintain the general thesis. The US and Iran failed to rejoin their nuclear deal this year as we originally expected. In August we adjusted our view to expect a short-term Persian Gulf crisis, which in turn will lead either to diplomacy or a new war path. Oil shocks and volatility should be expected over the next 12 months. Tactically go short UAE equities relative to global. European equities and the euro disappointed this year, even though we were right that Scotland would not secede from the UK, that Italian politics would not matter, and that Germany’s election would be an upset but not negative for markets. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar and in June we argued that European political risk had bottomed and would escalate going forward. We remain tactically negative on the euro, though we are cyclically constructive. We still prefer DM Europe over EM Europe due to Russian geopolitical risks. Re-initiate long CAD-RUB and long GBP-CZK as strategic trades. We are waiting for a tactical re-entry point for the following trades: long CHF-USD, CHF-GBP, GBP-EUR, short EM ‘Strongman’ currencies versus EM currencies, long US infrastructure stocks, long European industrials, and long Italian versus Spanish stocks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   While autocracy is agreed to be negative for governance indicators, the connection between regime type and economic growth is debatable. Suffice it to say that the determinants of total factor productivity, such as human capital, trade openness, and effectiveness of the legislature, are often difficult to sustain under autocratic or authoritarian regimes. On this point see United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review," Staff Working Paper 2 (2007). For further discussion, see Carl Henrik Knutsen, "A business case for democracy: regime type, growth, and growth volatility," Democratization 28 (2021), pp 1505-24; Ryan H. Murphy, "Governance and the dimensions of autocracy," Constitutional Political Economy 30 (2019), pp 131-48. For a skeptical view of the relationship, see Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, "Political Regimes and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:3 (1993), pp 51-69.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)