Monetary

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

Highlights According to betting markets, Joe Biden is likely to become the 46th US president, with the Republicans maintaining control of the Senate. Such a balance of power could produce less fiscal stimulus than any of the other possible outcomes that were in play on Tuesday. Nevertheless, public opinion still favors a more expansionary fiscal policy. There is also an outside chance that Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House could craft a “grand bargain” that raises spending while making Trump’s corporate tax cuts permanent. The combination of continued easy monetary policy, modestly looser fiscal policy, and progress on a vaccine should be enough to keep global growth on an above-trend path next year. Bank shares have been the big losers since the election, but should start to outperform as yield curves re-steepen, worries about soaring bad loans subside, and lending growth outpaces bleak expectations. Investors should remain overweight global equities versus bonds. Be prepared to increase exposure to value stocks when clearer evidence emerges that the latest wave of the pandemic is cresting. Another Election Rollercoaster Last week, we highlighted that BCA’s geopolitical quant model was predicting a much closer election than most pundits were expecting. This indeed turned out to be the case. For a brief while on Tuesday night, betting markets were giving Donald Trump a greater than 75% chance of being re-elected. Unfortunately for the president, the good news did not last long. As more mail-in ballots and ballots cast in large urban areas were counted, the needle began to swing towards Joe Biden. At the time of writing, betting markets are giving Biden an 88% chance of becoming President. Trump still has a chance of winning, but assuming he loses Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin, he would need to win Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia. That is a tall order. According to PredictIt, the latter three states are all leaning towards Biden (Chart 1). Chart 1The Distribution Of Electoral College Votes According To Betting Markets More positively for the GOP, the Republicans gained a net six seats in the House of Representatives, and held onto the Senate thanks to surprise victories for their candidates in Maine and North Carolina. That said, the Senate could still revert to Democratic hands depending on the final vote tally in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alaska; PredictIt assigns a 22% probability to the Democrats taking the Senate. Moreover, even if they fall short this time around, the Democrats still have a chance of winning a 50-seat de facto majority in the Senate if both Georgia races go to a run-off election on January 5. Stimulus In Peril? Assuming that Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate, tax hikes will remain off the table. This is good for stocks. Joe Biden would also lower the temperature on trade tensions with China. This, too, is good for stocks. Conversely, the odds of a major fiscal stimulus package have dropped. Donald Trump is not averse to big spending programs. In contrast, the Republicans in the Senate have rejected calls for a large stimulus bill. With Joe Biden as President, Republican senators would have even less incentive to give the Democrats what they want. Nevertheless, there are three reasons to think that Republicans will agree on a new stimulus bill. First, the economy needs it. While US growth should remain reasonably firm in the fourth quarter, this is only because households were able to build up some savings earlier this year which they can now draw on. As Chart 2 shows, since April, labor earnings have only grown one-third as much as personal spending. Transfer income has also plunged, resulting in a renewed drop in savings. Once households run out of accumulated savings, there is a risk that they will cut back on spending. Second, government borrowing rates remain extremely low by historic standards. Real rates are negative across the entire yield curve (Chart 3). Chart 2Savings Have Dropped Since April As Transfers Declined Chart 3Real Rates Are Negative Across The Entire Yield Curve   Third, and perhaps most politically salient, public opinion favors more expansionary fiscal policy. About 72% of voters support a hypothetical $2 trillion stimulus package that extends emergency unemployment insurance benefits, distributes direct cash payments to households, and provides financial support to state and local governments (Table 1). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. It is noteworthy that when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Table 1Strong Support For Stimulus All this suggests that Republicans will accede to a medium-sized stimulus bill in the neighbourhood of $700 billion-to-$1 trillion in order to avoid being perceived as stingy and obstructionist. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted on Wednesday that getting a deal done was “job one.” While not our base case, a significantly larger bill is also possible. Most Republicans are not opposed to bigger budget deficits per se. It is increased social spending that they do not like. Budget deficits in the service of tax cuts are perfectly acceptable to the majority of Republicans. This raises the possibility that Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House could strike a grand bargain that raises spending while also promising additional tax relief. Most of Trump’s corporate tax cuts expire in 2025. A sizeable stimulus bill that makes these tax cuts permanent while increasing long-term spending on infrastructure, health care, education, and other Democratic priorities could still emerge from a divided Congress.   Wall Street Versus Main Street If one needed any more proof that what is good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for Main Street, the last three trading days provided it. The S&P 500 is up 6% since Monday’s close, spurred on by the reassurance that corporate taxes will not rise. In contrast, the 10-year bond yield has fallen 8 basis points on diminished prospects for a big stimulus package. The drop in bond yields since the election has raised the present value of corporate cash flows, leading to higher equity valuations. Growth companies have benefited disproportionately from falling bond yields. In contrast to value companies, investors expect growth companies to generate the bulk of their earnings far in the future. This makes their valuations highly sensitive to changes in discount rates. It is not surprising that tech shares – the FAANGs in particular – soared following the election (Chart 4). Chart 4Growth Equities Benefited Disproportionately From A Post-Election Drop In Yields A Bottom For The Big Banks? Bank shares tend to be overrepresented in value indices. Unlike tech, banks normally lose out when bond yields fall. As Chart 5 shows, net interest margins have collapsed for banks this year as bond yields have cratered. The drop in yields since the election has further punished bank shares. Chart 5Bank Net Interest Margins Have Collapsed As Bond Yields Have Cratered This Year Chart 6Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check Yet, as our earlier discussion suggests, bond yields could rise again if the US Congress delivers more stimulus than currently expected. This would help banks, while potentially taking some of the wind from the sails of tech stocks. The combination of further fiscal easing and a vaccine next year could help banks in another way. If the global economy bounces back, banks would suffer fewer loan defaults. The biggest US banks have set aside more than $60 billion to cover potential loan losses. They have done so even though commercial bankruptcies have declined so far this year (Chart 6). A stronger economy would allow banks to release some of those provisions back into earnings.   Bank Regulation Is Not A Major Worry Anymore Wouldn’t the potential benefits to banks from more fiscal support and higher bond yields be outweighed by a greater regulatory burden under a Biden administration? Probably not. For one thing, a Republican Senate could block legislation that expanded regulation. Moreover, Biden hails from Delaware, a state that derives more than a quarter of its GDP from the finance and insurance sectors. He was only one of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it more difficult for households to discharge their debts. It should also be stressed that most of the regulatory reforms that the Democrats sought after the financial crisis have already been encoded in the Dodd-Frank Act. The Act was passed during the Obama administration. While the Trump administration did water down some of its provisions, the changes were modest and had bipartisan support. Big Banks Are More Resilient Than Small Ones Today, US banks are better capitalized than they were in the years leading up to the financial crisis (Chart 7). The largest banks – the so-called Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) – are required to hold an additional capital buffer, which arguably makes them even safer. Unlike the smaller regional banks, the SIFIs have only modest exposure to the troubled commercial real estate sector. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, big banks have only 6% of their assets tied up in commercial real estate compared to 25% for smaller banks (Table 2). Chart 7US Banks: Better Capitalized Today Than Right Before The Financial Crisis Table 2Most US Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Held By Small Banks The largest US banks have more exposure to residential real estate than to commercial real estate. The US housing market has been firing on all cylinders recently. Single-family housing starts were up 24% year-over-year in September. Building permits and home sales are near cycle highs. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index rose 5.2% in August, up from 4.1% in July. The FHFA index surged 8.1% in August over the prior year. Homebuilder confidence hit a new record in October (Chart 8). Homebuilder stocks are up more than 20% versus the broad market this year. Chart 8US Housing Market: Firing On All Cylinders According to TransUnion, consumer delinquencies have been trending lower across most loan categories (Table 3). Notably, the 60-day delinquency rate on residential mortgages stood at 1% in September, down from 1.5% the same month last year. Table 3A Snapshot Of Consumer Delinquencies The Forbearance Time Bomb? Some investors have expressed concern that various pandemic-related forbearance programs are distorting the delinquency data. Reassuringly, that does not appear to be the case. Summarizing the results from the latest round of earnings calls with top bank executives, BCA’s Chief US Investment Strategist Doug Peta wrote: “Last week’s calls assuaged our concerns … It now appears that consumer requests for forbearance at the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak were analogous to businesses’ credit line draws: exercises of emergency options that turned out not to be necessary, and are on their way to being unwound with little ado.”1 Banks Are Cheap From a valuation perspective, relative to the broad market, US banks trade at one of the largest discounts on record on both a price-to-book and price-to-earnings basis (Chart 9). Earnings estimates are also starting to move in the banks’ favor. Relative 12-month forward earnings estimates for US banks are trending higher even against the tech sector (Chart 10). This largely reflects the expectation that bank earnings will grow more quickly than other sectors in 2021/22. Chart 9Bank Stocks Are Cheap Chart 10Bank Earnings Estimates Are Catching Up   A Few Words About Global Banks Chart 11Euro Area Banks Have Fared Especially Badly Since The GFC Chart 12Banks: A Low Bar For Success Banks in a number of markets outside the US face greater structural challenges than their US counterparts. Most notably, euro area bank earnings remain well below their pre-GFC highs (Chart 11). That said, investors are not exactly expecting European bank profits to recover to their glory days anytime soon. Chart 12 shows that if euro area bank EPS were to simply go back to last year’s levels, banks would trade at 5.4-times earnings. This implies a very low bar for success. Investment Conclusions Stocks have run up a lot over the past few days on fairly weak breadth. A short-term pullback would not be surprising. Nevertheless, investors should remain overweight global equities versus bonds over a 12-month horizon. The combination of ongoing fiscal and monetary support, together with a vaccine, will buoy global growth. As Chart 13 shows, it’s rare for stocks to underperform bonds when the global economy is strengthening. Chart 13Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 14Value Stocks Typically Do Well When Economic Activity Is Picking Up   Value stocks typically do well when economic activity is picking up (Chart 14). That said, we are less sure about when the inflection point in the value/growth trade will arrive. As we have noted before, the “pandemic trade” benefits growth stocks, while the “reopening trade” benefits value stocks. For now, the number of new infections has not shown signs of peaking in either the US or Europe (Chart 15). Investors should continue monitoring the daily Covid data and be prepared to increase exposure to value stocks when clearer evidence emerges that the latest wave of the pandemic is cresting.   Chart 15The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally... But Mortality Rates Are Lower Than Earlier This Year Chart 16The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency As a countercyclical currency, the dollar should weaken next year as policy remains accommodative and pandemic risks recede (Chart 16). EM Asian currencies are especially appealing. A hiatus in the trade war should allow the Chinese yuan to strengthen even further. This will drag other regional currencies higher. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, October 2020,” dated October 19, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights COVID-19 In Europe: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. ECB: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. European Bond Strategy: Stay overweight core European government debt, particularly versus US Treasuries. Remain overweight Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well, which remain supported by both ECB asset purchases and perceptions of increases European fiscal integration. Stay cautious on euro area corporate debt, however, as the renewed recession risk comes at a time when yields and spreads offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. Feature Chart of the WeekA Bad Time For A Second Wave Today’s long anticipated US election will be the focus for investors in the coming days (and, potentially, weeks) as all votes are counted. We have discussed our views on the potential bond market impact of the election - bearish for US Treasuries with both Joe Biden and Donald Trump promising big fiscal stimulus in 2021 – in our previous two reports. We will provide an update of those views as soon as we get clarity on the election result. This week, we discuss a new concern for jittery markets - the explosion of new COVID-19 cases in Europe that has already led to governments imposing aggressive lockdown measures. The timing of the new viral surge could not be worse for the euro area economy, which had recovered smartly from the massive lockdown-related demand shock this past spring. Real GDP for the entire euro area exploded higher at a 12.7% rate in Q3/2020, a big rebound from the 11.8% drop in Q2. Yet the second wave of coronavirus is starting to weigh on the more domestically focused service sectors most vulnerable to lockdowns and declining consumer confidence (Chart of the Week). From the perspective of European fixed income strategy, the imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. This will support the performance of euro area government bond markets, both in absolute terms and especially versus US Treasuries where yields are drifting higher and should continue to do so after the US election. Another Deflationary Shock To Europe From The Virus The surge in COVID-19 cases has hit the euro area hard and fast. France has seen the most stunning increase, with a population-adjusted daily increase of 596 new cases per million, a nearly six-fold increase in just two months (Chart 2). Importantly, this second wave has so far been nowhere near as lethal as the first wave. The “case fatality ratio” – confirmed deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases – is down in the low single digits for the largest euro area countries (bottom panel). The imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. Even with this second wave being less deadly, governments are taking no chances. France and Germany announced national lockdowns last week for at least the month of November, and Italy and Spain have put new restrictions on activity as well. The new lockdowns are already denting consumer confidence across the euro area and this trend will continue as people choose to spend less time outside of their homes to avoid infection. If the case numbers do not begin to stabilize and the lockdown measures extend into December or beyond, governments will likely be forced to consider new fiscal stimulus measures. According to the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, the largest euro area economies are projected to have a negative “fiscal thrust” – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of potential GDP – in 2021 of at least -3% of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 22nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal Chart 3A Big European Fiscal Drag Coming Next Year In the case of Italy, the fiscal thrust is expected to be a whopping -6.6% of GDP. The main cause is reduced government spending as the massive temporary stimulus measures to fight the 2020 COVID-19 recessions roll off. Chart 4The ECB Has A Deflation Problem A fresh set of lockdowns will result in a need for more government support measures for unemployed workers, especially those in service-related industries like hospitality and tourism most exposed to lost business as consumers stay home. This poses a serious problem in countries like Spain and Italy that saw a rise in unemployment during the first lockdown but have seen no reversal since (Chart 4). More elevated unemployment rates suggest a lack of inflationary pressure, a point confirmed by recent inflation data. Overall headline HICP inflation fell to -0.3% in September, while core inflation is now a mere +0.4%. Headline HICP inflation rates are now below 0% in the largest euro area economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain), while core HICP inflation in Italy fell to -0.3% in September. The collapse in oil prices earlier in 2020 has been the main cause of the negative headline inflation prints in the euro area, but is not the only source of weak inflation. According to a decomposition of inflation presented in the Bank of Italy’s October 2020 Economic Bulletin, a falling contribution from services inflation was responsible for about one-third of the entire decline in euro area headline HICP inflation since January (Chart 5). This comes from the part of the euro area economy most exposed to COVID-19 restrictions, highlighting the deflationary risk of the second wave. Chart 5Euro Area Deflation Is Mostly, But Not Only, Driven By Oil Simply put, the second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Policymakers need to spring into action to help provide support for the euro area economy during this time, starting with the ECB. The second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Bottom Line: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. The ECB Will Deliver New Stimulus In December At last week’s policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde announced that the Governing Council would reassess its monetary policy stance at the December meeting, when a new set of economic projections would be presented that factored in the negative impact of the second COVID-19 wave. Lagarde was very candid about the expected outcome of that next meeting, when she stated that the ECB would “recalibrate its instruments” based on the new economic forecasts. Chart 6European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards In our view, the ECB’s next policy options can only realistically focus on three options: Cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory Increasing the size, or altering the composition of its bond-buying programs Altering the terms of its current Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs) We view a rate cut as a low probability outcome. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. According to the ECB’s latest Bank Lending Survey, euro area banks tightened credit conditions in Q3/2020 (Chart 6). Worsening perceptions of risk and a deteriorating economic outlook were cited as the main reasons for tightening lending standards. The tightening was most severe in Spain, but Italy also saw a big swing away from the easing standards seen in the Q2/2020 survey. Within the details of the Q3/2020 survey, the demand for loans from companies was expected to improve in Q4/2020. The demand for housing and consumer credit increased due to favorable borrowing conditions and a softening in negative contribution from consumer sentiment. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. The ECB’s bond buying programs – the Asset Purchase Program (APP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – were deemed to have a positive impact on bank liquidity and financing but a negative impact on profitability. Chart 7Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Therein lies the problem of the ECB’s negative interest rate policy and large-scale bond buying – it has lowered borrowing costs for euro area governments, consumers and businesses, but has crushed the profits of Europe’s banks. That can be seen when looking at the ongoing miserable performance of euro area bank stocks, which continue to plumb new lows. The relative performance of euro area banks versus the broad equity market benchmark index tracks the slope of government bond yield curves quite closely in the major euro area economies (Chart 7), highlighting the link between the level of euro area interest rates and bank profits. In Chart 8A, we show the Tier 1 capital ratio, as well as the non-performing loan (NPL) ratio for the five largest banks in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. The message from the chart is clear – European banks remain well capitalized, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios well in excess of regulatory minimums, and have a relatively low share of assets that are non-performing. This is especially true in Italy, where the NPL ratio has collapsed from a high of 20% to 7% over the past five years. In Chart 8B, we present the return on equity and return on asset ratios for the same banks presented in the previous chart. Most large euro area banks suffer from a very low return on assets, not materially above 0%, reflecting the non-existent interest rates banks earn on their government bond holdings as well as the low rates on their loan books. Chart 8AEuropean Banks: The Good News Chart 8BEuropean Banks: The Bad News So given the fragile state of euro area bank health, and with banks already tightening lending standards in anticipation of slower economic activity because of second wave lockdowns, we can rule out a policy interest rate cut as an option to ease policy in December. This leaves only two other easing options, both associated with an expansion of the ECB’s balance sheet – more asset purchases of sovereign bonds and encouraging bank lending through cheap funding via TLTROs (Chart 9). The impact of either policy in offsetting slowing growth is debatable. Government bond yields are already miniscule, if not outright negative, across the euro area and do not represent a hindrance to increased government spending. The ECB can tweak some of the terms of the existing TLTRO programs, like maturity or the price of funding, but that may not encourage new lending if both borrowers and lenders fear a double-dip recession because of the second wave. The pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. Nonetheless, the pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. While real interest rates are still negative, they are increasingly becoming less so as inflation expectations continue to drift lower. The 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap rate is now down to 1.1%, and was last trading near the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2% in 2013-14 (Chart 10). Unsurprisingly, the rising real rate backdrop has helped boost the value of the euro, especially versus the US dollar, which has suffered under the weight of falling real US interest rates this year. Chart 9The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet In the end, greater fiscal stimulus will be the only option available to get Europe through the second wave. All the ECB can do is provide a backdrop of loose monetary policy that supports easy financial conditions, so that any stimulus will have the maximum effect on growth. Chart 10Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Bottom Line: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. Stay Overweight European Government Bonds, But Stay Cautious On Euro Area Credit With the ECB set to deliver some form of easing in December, core European bond yields are likely to remain stable over at least the next six months. The ECB has shown no reservations about expanding its balance sheet via bond purchases when needed. A surge of buying similar in size to that of the first COVID-19 wave is not out of the question if Europe faces a double-dip second wave recession (Chart 11). Chart 11Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Chart 12Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit In an environment where we see US Treasury yields having more upside on the back of post-election fiscal stimulus, this makes the likes of German bunds and French OATs good “defensive” lower-beta plays to replace high-beta US Treasury exposure in global USD-hedged bond portfolios. We also like core Europe as a pure spread trade versus Treasuries, as we see scope for the UST-Bund spread to widen further – a tactical trade we initiated last week (see our Tactical Overlay table on page 15). We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying.  We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying (Chart 12). The ECB has already been purchasing a greater share of Italy in the PEPP, allowing significant deviations from the Capital Key weights that limit purchases in the older APP. ECB President Lagarde noted last week that those deviations will continue over the life of the PEPP, which should help support further declines in Italian bond yields over at least the next six months. We are maintaining a relatively cautious stance on European credit, however, even with the ECB likely to make a move in December. The renewed recession risk from the second wave comes at a time when low yields and spreads for euro area corporate bonds offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. We continue to prefer owning US corporate credit, both investment grade and high-yield, versus US equivalents in USD-hedged bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Duration: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Monetary Policy: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Economy: Weekly claims data are consistent with a continued decline in the unemployment rate, due mostly to fewer temporarily unemployed workers. All in all, the US economy is recovering, but it remains very far from full employment. Feature Chart 1Real Yields Have Troughed After having advocated “at benchmark” portfolio duration since March, we officially lowered our recommended duration stance to “below benchmark” in last week’s Special Report.1 Two main catalysts led us to this decision. First, there was the Fed’s late-August adoption of an Average Inflation Target. This was an important bond-bearish catalyst because it signaled that the Fed’s reaction function has reached its maximum dovishness. Treasury yields stayed low throughout the summer even as the economy recovered because the Fed was simultaneously guiding the market toward a more dovish reaction function. As evidence for this dynamic, notice that between March and August the uptrend in the cost of inflation compensation was completely offset by falling real yields (Chart 1). But now, the Fed has officially adopted its new Average Inflation Targeting framework. In addition, it has promised not to lift rates at all until inflation is above its 2% target and is expected to overshoot that target for some time. To get more dovish from here, the Fed would probably need to actually increase its long-run inflation target from 2% to 3%, a step it is not prepared to take. For this reason, we expect that the Fed has exhausted its ability to push real yields lower as the economy recovers. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. Such a shock would cause investors to anticipate a slower return of inflation and thus push bond yields down, even if the market’s assessment of the Fed’s willingness to respond to inflationary pressures (aka its reaction function) remains constant. The failure of Congress to deliver additional fiscal stimulus after the expiry of the CARES act’s main income-supporting provisions is the sort of thing that could cause such a shock. However, September’s market action made it clear that investors are willing to look past the failure to deliver a bill if they can look forward to a larger fiscal stimulus in January. As we wrote last week, the most likely election outcome of the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House would certainly deliver on that promise. Bottom Line: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Will  The Fed Use Its Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 2Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time One possible counterargument to our bond-bearish view is that, even if the Fed’s interest rate guidance is as dovish as it will get, the central bank will simply ramp up asset purchases to prevent any significant rise in long-maturity bond yields. Certainly, the Fed has not shied away from transacting in the Treasury market this year (Chart 2). In fact, the Fed took down more than 100% of gross note and bond issuance in the second quarter (Chart 3) and its current stated policy is to purchase at least $80 billion of Treasury securities per month. At present, the Fed holds more than 35% of all outstanding Treasuries with more than 10 years to maturity and about one quarter of the outstanding supply for all other maturities (Chart 4). This is a significant presence in the Treasury market, but not so large that the Fed would think twice about increasing its pace of Treasury purchases if such a policy was deemed necessary. But what would actually make the Fed increase its pace of asset purchases? Would a modest bear-steepening of the Treasury curve (our base case outlook) be enough? We doubt it. Chart 3Fed Purchases Peaked In Q2 Chart 4Fed Owns A Good Chunk ##br##Of The Market Chart 5Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative The Fed would be concerned if broad measures of financial conditions started to tighten, as that would indicate a looming period of slower economic growth. But that’s very different from long-maturity Treasury yields moving somewhat higher in response to an improving economic outlook. In fact, to get a meaningful tightening in broad measures of financial conditions, we would need to see significant credit spread widening and weaker equity prices (Chart 5). A bear-steepening Treasury curve, even if long-dated yields move 40-50 bps higher, will not prompt a selloff in credit markets or equities as long as the market believes that the Fed is committed to maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance. Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Can  The Fed Use It’s Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 6Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Of course, in the extreme, the Fed could decide to set a cap on the 10-year Treasury yield and promise to purchase as many securities as necessary to maintain that cap. This sort of Yield Curve Control would effectively prevent long-maturity Treasury yields from rising, even as the economy recovered. As discussed above, we think the economic situation would have to turn quite dire for the Fed to pursue such a policy. A more relevant question is whether, in the absence of a stated yield cap, the Fed’s current pace of $80 billion of Treasury purchases per month (or even $100 billion per month) will prevent Treasury yields from rising. Our sense is that, without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. In fact, we see very little evidence to support the notion that changes in Fed Treasury purchases influence the trend in bond yields, beyond what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the Fed’s intentions with regards to interest rate policy. Consider Chart 6, which shows the 10-year Treasury yield alongside the Global Manufacturing PMI and two different measures of Fed Treasury purchases. At first blush, between 2010 and 2012, there is a fairly strong relationship between a falling 10-year Treasury yield and an increase in Fed Treasury holdings greater than five years. However, the correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Manufacturing PMI during this period is even stronger. This suggests an alternative explanation where the decline in bond yields is driven by the market shifting its rate hike expectations out into the future in response to slowing economic growth. Greater Fed purchases only served to reinforce the Fed’s increasingly dovish interest rate guidance during this time. Without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. The key point from Chart 6 is that it is difficult to identify periods when the Fed’s balance sheet policy and interest rate guidance suggest opposite outcomes for bond yields. Typically, when the Fed is ramping up asset purchases it is also signaling to the market that it will shift toward a more dovish interest rate policy. Similarly, when the Fed is reducing its asset purchases, it tends to also be preparing the market for eventual rate hikes. This makes it impossible to say conclusively whether a given move in bond yields is driven by interest rate guidance or balance sheet actions. In our minds, this casts a lot of doubt on the notion that the Fed could maintain its current interest rate guidance during the next 6-12 months while also preventing a rise in Treasury yields by increasing asset purchases. The policy of increasing asset purchases would appear incoherent if it wasn’t also paired with increasingly dovish forward rate guidance, guidance that the Fed is likely unwilling to deliver. Bottom Line: Even if the Fed modestly increases its monthly pace of Treasury purchases, or shifts some purchases further out the curve as some FOMC participants have suggested, the impact on long-dated Treasury yields will be negligible without a concurrent shift in interest rate guidance. The Hedging Effectiveness of Treasuries Is Diminished, But Not Gone Completely One topic that has come up a lot recently in our client interactions is the idea that Treasury securities are no longer an effective hedge for equity portfolios. There are two possible reasons why this could be true. The first is that with Treasury yields so close to the zero-lower-bound there is very little scope for capital appreciation in bonds. The second is that Treasury yields may not respond to falling equity prices by declining, as they have in the past. We don’t currently see much evidence for the second reason. The only way that bond yields wouldn’t decline alongside a major equity sell-off is if that sell-off was driven by high and rising inflation and expectations that the Fed would aggressively hike rates to combat higher prices. Inflation is nowhere near high enough for this to be a concern. The first reason, however, could hold some water. To test it, we first looked at this year’s COVID-driven 34% drop in the S&P 500 that occurred between February 19th and March 23rd (Table 1). If an investor purchased a 5-year Treasury note on February 19th and sold it on March 23rd, they would have earned 5.21% on that trade, offsetting some portion of the equity decline. The same trade in a 30-year T-bond would have earned 16.65%. Long-maturity Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios. But with starting bond yields much lower today, Treasuries may not offer the same protection. Table 2 shows how much an investor would earn if they bought a Treasury security today, held it for six months, and during that timeframe the entire spot yield curve fell to zero. We also show what returns would be earned if the yield curve shifted in the same way it did during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd equity selloff, except we don’t let any yields fall into negative territory.2 Table 1Total Returns From Stock Market Peak (Feb. 19th) To Stock Market Through (Mar. 23rd) Table 2Treasury Total Returns Over A Hypothetical 6-Month Period Notice that projected returns for shorter maturities in Table 2 are significantly lower than the returns earned during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd episode. A 5-year Treasury note will earn only 1.90% during the next six months if the entire yield curve falls to zero, this is well below the 5.21% earned in February and March. However, for maturities beyond 10 years, returns are similar between Table 1 and Table 2. This makes sense because, unlike the short-end, those long-dated yields are still fairly far from the zero bound. Bottom Line: Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios, but investors now have to move further out the curve, and thus take more interest rate risk, to get the same protection they received from less-risky shorter-maturity notes in the past. US Economy: Digging Into Claims Chart 7Labor Market Update Initial unemployment claims spooked some investors when the weekly number jumped to +898k two weeks ago, even as the consensus was calling for a small decline.3 But that spike was completely reversed last week, and a good chunk of it was actually revised out of the data. A delay in California’s reporting was one reason for the big swing. The state had failed to report claims data for two consecutive weeks at the beginning of the month. This meant that the national claims number was based on an assumed figure for the state. California resumed reporting last week and the result was a big drop in overall claims, back down to +787k. Stepping back from the large swings of the past two weeks, a good portion of which are statistical artifacts stemming from California’s reporting delay, we see that overall employment trends haven’t changed much. Initial claims have flattened-off since late-August, but continuing claims are still falling rapidly (Chart 7). This suggests that the unemployment rate will drop again next week when October’s employment report is released. The big question in next week’s employment report will be whether the decline in the unemployment rate is once again driven by falling temporary unemployment, or whether the number of permanently unemployed workers will reverse its uptrend (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the labor market data continue to paint a picture of an economy that is recovering but that still has a very large output gap. In other words, the economy is a long way from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Blank cells in Table 2 mean that returns are the same as in the “Spot Curve Falls To 0%” scenario. 3 Please see BCA Daily Insights, “Slowing US Labor Market Momentum: Investors Should Not Have Been Surprised”, dated October 15, 2020, available at din.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights For now, there is little evidence that the pandemic has adversely affected the global economy’s long-run growth potential. Even if one counts those who will be unable to work due to long-term health complications from the virus, the pandemic will probably reduce the global labor force by only 0.1%-to-0.15%. Labor markets have healed more quickly over the past few months than after the Great Recession. In the US, the ratio of unemployed workers-to-job openings has recovered most of its lost ground. Thanks in part to generous government support for businesses and the broader economy, commercial bankruptcy filings remain near historic lows. Meanwhile, new US business formation has surged to record highs. The combination of a vaccine and a decline in rents in city centres should persuade some people who were thinking of fleeing to the suburbs to stay put. This will ensure that most urban commercial and residential real estate remains productively engaged. Judging from corporate surveys, capital spending on equipment and intellectual property should continue to rebound. While the pandemic has caused numerous economic dislocations, it has also opened the door to a variety of productivity-enhancing innovations. An open question is whether all the debt that governments have taken on to alleviate the economic damage from the pandemic could in and of itself cause damage down the road. As long as interest rates stay low, this is not a major risk. However, today’s high government debt levels could become a problem if the pool of global savings dries up. Investors should continue to overweight stocks for the time being, while shifting their equity exposure from “pandemic plays” to “reopening plays.” A more cautious stance towards stocks may be appropriate later this decade.  The Pandemic’s Potentially Long Shadow In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF revised up its growth estimates for this year. Rather than contracting by 4.9%, as it expected in June, the Fund now sees the global economy shrinking by 4.4%. That said, the IMF’s estimates still leave global GDP in 2020 7.5% below where it projected it to be in January. Perhaps even more worrying, the IMF expects the global economy to suffer permanent damage from the pandemic (Chart 1 and Chart 2). It projects that real global GDP will be 5.3% lower in 2024 compared to what it expected last year. In the G7, real GDP is projected to be nearly 3% lower, with most of the shortfall resulting from a downward revision to the level of potential GDP (Chart 3). Chart 1Covid-19: The IMF Expects The Global Economy To Suffer Permanent Damage (Part I) Chart 2Covid-19: The IMF Expects The Global Economy To Suffer Permanent Damage (Part II)     The Congressional Budget Office is no less gloomy in its forecast. The CBO expects US real GDP to be 3.7% lower in 2024 than it projected last August. By 2029, it sees US GDP as being 1.8% below what it had expected prior to the pandemic, almost entirely due to slower potential GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 3G7 Real GDP Growth Projections Have Been Revised Sharply Lower Due To The Pandemic Chart 4A Gloomy Forecast For The US Thanks To Covid-19 The worry that the pandemic will lead to a major permanent loss in output is understandable. That is precisely what happened after the Global Financial Crisis. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, there are good reasons to think that the damage will not be as pervasive as widely believed. The Drivers Of Potential GDP An economy’s potential output is a function of three variables: 1) the number of workers available; 2) the amount of capital those workers have at their disposal; and 3) the efficiency with which this labor and capital can be transformed into output, a concept economists call “total factor productivity.” Let us consider how the pandemic has affected all three variables. The Impact Of The Pandemic On The Labor Market At last count, the pandemic has killed over 1.1 million people worldwide, 222,000 in the US. While the human cost of the virus is immense, the economic cost has been mitigated by the fact that about four-fifths of fatalities have been among those over the age of 65 (Table 1). In the US, less than 7% of the labor force is older than 65. A reasonable estimate is that Covid deaths have reduced the US labor force by 55,000.1 Table 1Pandemic-Related Deaths Are Tilted Towards The Elderly, Who Are The Least Active Participants Of The Labor Force Chart 5The Number Of New Cases Continues To Increase Globally Granted, mortality is not the only way that the disease can impair one’s ability to work. As David Cutler and Larry Summers point out in a recent study, for every single person who dies from Covid-19, seven people will survive but not before manifesting severe or critical symptoms of the disease.2 Based on the experience from past coronavirus epidemics, Ahmed, Patel, Greenwood et al. estimate that about one-third of these survivors will suffer long-term health complications.3 If one assumes that half of these chronically ill survivors are unable to work, this would reduce the US labor force by an additional 65,000.4 Of course, the pandemic is not yet over. The number of new cases continues to rise in the US and globally (Chart 5). The only saving grace is that mortality and morbidity rates are lower than they were earlier this year. Nevertheless, many more people are likely to die or suffer debilitating long-term consequences before a vaccine becomes widely available. Using the US as an example, if the total number of people who end up dying or getting so sick that they are unable to work ends up being twice what it is so far, the pandemic will reduce the labor force by about 240,000. This is not a small number in absolute terms. However, it is less than 0.15% of the overall size of the US labor force, which stood at 164 million on the eve of the pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on the labor forces of other major economies such as Europe, China, and Japan will be even smaller. Labor Market Hysteresis People can drop out of the labor force even if they do not get sick. In fact, 4.4 million have left the US labor force since February, bringing the participation rate down from 63.4% to 61.4%. How great is the risk of “hysteresis,” a situation where the skills of laid-off workers atrophy so much that they become unwilling or unable to rejoin the labor force? At least so far, hysteresis has been limited. According to surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most US workers who have dropped out of the labor force still want a job. The pandemic has made it more difficult for people to work even when they wanted to. During the spring, more than four times as many employees were absent from work due to childcare requirements than at the same time last year. Now that schools are reopening, it will be easier for parents to go back to work. Admittedly, not everyone will have a job to return to. While about a third of US unemployed workers are still on temporary layoff, the number of workers who have suffered permanent job losses has been steadily rising (Chart 6). The good news is that job openings have recovered most of their decline since the start of the year. Unlike in mid-2009, when there were 6.5 unemployed workers for every one job vacancy, today there are only two (Chart 7). Chart 6US: Permanent Job Losses Have Been Rising Steadily... Chart 7...But Job Openings Have Recovered Most Of Their Decline Since The Start Of The Year It is also worth noting that the vast majority of job losses during the pandemic has been among lower-income workers, especially in the retail and hospitality sectors. Most of these jobs do not require highly specialized sector-specific skills. Thus, as long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, unemployed workers will be able to find jobs in other industries. Wither The Capital Stock? The pandemic may end up reducing the value of the capital stock in two ways. First, it could render a portion of the existing capital stock unusable. Second, the pandemic could reduce the pace of new investment, leading to a smaller future capital stock than would otherwise have been the case. Let us explore both possibilities. On the first point, it is certainly true that the pandemic has left a lot of the capital stock idle, ranging from office buildings to shopping malls. However, this could turn out to be a temporary effect. Consider, for example, the case of China. After the pandemic began in Wuhan, China first shut down much of its domestic economy and then implemented an effective mass testing and contact tracing system. The strategy worked insofar as China is now nearly free of the virus. Today, few Chinese wear masks, the restaurants are full again, and domestic air travel is back to last year’s level. Even movie theatre revenue has rebounded. The rest of the world may not be able to replicate China’s success in combating the virus, but then again it won’t need to if an effective vaccine becomes available. Chart 8US Housing Is In A Good Place Even if the pandemic ends up leading to deep and lasting changes in the way people live, work, and shop, the market mechanism will ensure that all but the least desirable parts of the capital stock remain productively employed. As first year economics students learn, if the supply curve is vertical and the demand curve shifts inward, the result will be lower prices rather than diminished output. By the same token, if more companies and workers decide to relocate to the suburbs, urban rents will fall until enough people decide that they are better off staying put. An economy’s productive capacity does not change just because rents go down. What falling demand for urban real estate and increased interest in working from home will do is encourage people to buy larger homes in suburban areas. We have already seen this play out this year. Despite flagging commercial real estate construction in the US, residential construction has boomed. Single-family housing starts were up 24% year-over-year in September. Building permits and home sales have reached new cycle highs. Homebuilder confidence hit a new record in October (Chart 8). The Service Sector Is Not Particularly Capital Intensive Most recessions take a greater toll on the goods-producing sectors of the economy than the service sector. The pandemic, in contrast, has mainly afflicted services. The service sector is the least capital-intensive sector of the economy. This is especially the case when it comes to spending on capital equipment and investment in intellectual property (Chart 9). Chart 9Capex-Intensive Industries Have Let Go Of Less Workers During The Pandemic Chart 10Capex Intentions Have Bounced Back As such, it is not surprising that investment in equipment and IP fell less during this recession than one would have expected based on the historic relationship between investment and GDP growth. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, investment in equipment and IP is set to increase by 23% in the third quarter. The snapback in the Fed’s capex intention surveys suggests that investment spending should continue to rise in the fourth quarter and into next year (Chart 10). Productivity And The Pandemic Just as the impact of the pandemic on the labor supply and the capital stock is likely to be limited, the same is true for the efficiency with which capital and labor is transformed into output. For every person whose productivity is hampered by having to work from home, there is another person who feels liberated from the need to spend an hour commuting to work only to attend a series of pointless meetings. In fact, it is quite possible that the pandemic will nudge society from various “low productivity” equilibria to “high productivity” equilibria. For example, greater use of video conferencing could negate the need to take redeye flights to attend business meetings in person. Remote learning could enhance educational opportunities. More widespread use of telemedicine could eliminate the need to waste time waiting in a doctor’s office. Who knows, the pandemic could even fulfill my life-long mission to replace the unhygienic handshake with the much more elegant Thai wai. Granted, disruptive shifts could produce unintended consequences. There is a fine line between creative destruction and uncreative obliteration. If the pandemic forces otherwise viable businesses to close, this could adversely affect resource allocation. Chart 11New Business Applications Have Surged To Record Highs Chart 12Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check Fortunately, at least so far, this does not seem to be happening on a large scale. After dropping by 25%, the number of active US small businesses has rebounded to last year’s levels. New business applications have surged to record highs (Chart 11). According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, commercial bankruptcy filings remain near historic lows. While Bloomberg’s count of large-company bankruptcies did spike earlier this year, it has been coming down more recently (Chart 12). Fiscal Stimulus To The Rescue Chart 13Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic How did so many households and businesses manage to avoid the financial suffering that usually goes along with deep recessions? The answer is that governments provided them with ample income support. In the US, real personal income rose by 11% in the first few months of the pandemic (Chart 13). Small businesses also benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program, which doled out low-cost loans to businesses which they will be able to convert into grants upon confirmation that the money was used to preserve jobs. Similar schemes, such as Germany’s Corona-Schutzschild, Canada’s Emergency Business Account program, and the UK’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme were launched elsewhere. The failure of the US Congress to pass a new stimulus bill could undermine the sanguine narrative presented above. Small businesses, in particular, are facing a one-two punch from the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and tighter bank lending standards. Ultimately, we think the US Congress will pass a new pandemic relief bill. However, the size of the bill could depend on the outcome of the election. In a blue sweep scenario, the Biden administration will push through a $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion stimulus package early next year, while laying the groundwork for a further 3% of GDP increase in government spending on infrastructure, health care, education, housing, and the environment. A fairly large stimulus bill could also emerge if President Trump manages to hang on to the White House, while the Democrats take control of the Senate. Unlike some Republican senators, Donald Trump is not averse to big increases in government spending. A continuation of the current political configuration in Washington would result in the smallest increase in spending. Nevertheless, some sort of deal is likely to emerge after the election. Even most Republican voters favor a large stimulus bill (Table 2). Table 2Strong Support For Stimulus A Double-Edged Sword? Bountiful fiscal support has undoubtedly lessened the economic scarring from the pandemic. However, could the resulting increase in government debt lead to supply-side problems down the road? The answer depends on what happens to interest rates. As long as interest rates stay below the growth rate of the economy, governments will not need to raise taxes to pay for pandemic relief. In fact, in such a setting, the public debt-to-GDP ratio will return to its original level with absolutely no change in the structural budget deficit (Chart 14). GDP growth in most developed economies has exceeded government borrowing rates for much of the post-war era (Chart 15). Thus, a free lunch scenario where governments never have to pay back the additional debt they incurred for pandemic relief cannot be ruled out. That said, it would not be prudent to bank on such an outcome. If the excess private-sector savings that have kept down borrowing costs run out, interest rates could rise. In a world awash in debt, this could lead to major problems. Thus, while the structural damage to the global economy from the pandemic appears to be limited for now, that could change in the future. Chart 14A Fiscal Free Lunch When r Is Less Than g Chart 15The Rate Of Economic Growth Has Usually Been Higher Than Interest Rates     Investors should continue to overweight equities for the time being. With a vaccine on the horizon, it makes sense to shift from favoring “pandemic plays” such as tech and health care stocks to favoring “reopening plays” such as deep cyclicals and banks. A more cautious stance towards stocks will be appropriate later this decade if, as flagged above, a stagflationary environment leads to higher interest rates and slower growth.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 To estimate the direct impact of Covid-19 on the labor force, we calculate the decline in the labor force by age cohorts using Covid-19 death statistics and labor participation rates. 2 David M. Cutler, and Lawrence H. Summers, “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus,” JAMA Network, October 12, 2020. 3 Hassaan Ahmed, Kajal Patel, Darren Greenwood, Stephen Halpin, Penny Lewthwaite, Abayomi Salawu, Lorna Eyre, Andrew Breen, Rory O’Connor, Anthony Jones, and Manoj Sivan. “Long-Term Clinical Outcomes In Survivors Of Coronavirus Outbreaks After Hospitalisation Or ICU Admission: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Follow-Up Studies,” medRxiv, April 22, 2020. 4 Calculated as 0.5 x (decline in labor force due to Covid-19 deaths) x 7 x (1/3).   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart 1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart 1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table 1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Table 1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. The US output gap would close more rapidly under a President Biden, likely triggering a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance.  At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart 3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart 3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 45%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 30%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 20%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 5%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 80%, versus a 20% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 80%, 35 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market Chart 4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart 4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. A complete re-convergence to long-run fed funds rate estimates would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart 5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart 5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart 6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart 5How High For Treasury Yields? Chart 6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart 6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart 7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart 8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart 7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart 8, bottom panel).6 Two More Curve Trades Chart 9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart 9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. The Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. Chart 10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart 10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart 11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart 11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart 12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart 12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

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

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