Policy

Highlights The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end. We are upgrading EM stocks from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. We reiterate the change in our US dollar outlook from bullish to bearish. The concentration risk in EM (specifically in North Asia) mega-cap stocks, poor fundamentals in EM outside North Asia, and a potential flare-up in US-China tensions are the reasons why we are reluctant to be overweight EM stocks. Feature We recommended the short EM equities / long S&P 500 position in late 2010,1 and have reiterated this strategy consistently over the past decade. Since its inception, this trade has produced a 193% gain with extremely low volatility (Chart 1). We recommend taking profits on this position for the reasons elaborated in this report. Chart 1Book Profits On Our Short EM Stocks / Long S&P 500 Strategy Chart 2Equity Strategy Of the Decade: The Risk-Reward Is No Longer Attractive Consistently, we are upgrading EM stocks from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. Our decade-long equity sector theme – introduced in our June 8, 2010 report2 – has been to underweight resources and overweight technology and healthcare (Chart 2). This sector strategy has been one of the reasons for underweighting EM and favoring the US market in a global equity portfolio over the past decade. Going forward, the risk-reward of this sector strategy is no longer attractive. Regarding EM absolute performance, we recommend that absolute-return investors remain on standby for a correction before going long the EM equity benchmark. The End Of US Equity Outperformance The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end.It is widely known that this decade’s US equity outperformance was largely due to FAANGM stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google and Microsoft). The FAANGM rally meets many of the criteria for a bubble, as we elaborated in our July 16 report. Our FAANGM equity index – an equal-weighted average of the six stocks – has increased almost 20-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since January 2010 (Chart 3). Chart 3Each Decade = One Mania Its rise is on par with the magnitude of the bull market in the Nasdaq 100 index through the 1990s, or of Walt Disney. through the 1960s, and it well exceeds other bubbles, as illustrated on Chart 3. All price indexes are shown in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. FAANGM stocks have greatly benefited from the recent “work from home” and other societal shifts and have been outperforming through the March financial carnage. It has made them unassailable in the eyes of investors. Yet, even great companies have a fair price, and considerable price overshoots will not be sustainable in the long term. We sense that a growing number of investors deem the US FAANGM and EM mega-cap stocks to be invincible. When some stocks are regarded as unbeatable, their top is not far. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the FAANGM will outperform in the next selloff. Rather, the odds are that they will underperform because these stocks are extremely expensive, overbought, over-hyped and over-owned. The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end. Apart from technology and FAANGM, US equities are facing a mediocre profit outlook. As long as the pandemic is not contained, America’s consumer and business confidence will remain lackluster, and, as a result, a recovery in their spending will be subdued. Chart 4US Stocks Are Not Cheap After Removing Market-Cap Bias Notably, the broad US equity market is also expensive. The equal-weighted US equity index is trading at a 12-month forward P/E ratio of 21 (Chart 4, top panel). The risks associated with domestic politics are rising in the US. Social, political and economic divisions have been magnified by both the pandemic and the economic downtrend. Social and political tensions will likely flare up around the November elections. Our colleagues from the Geopolitical team argue that a contested election is possible and could lead to a crisis of presidential legitimacy in the US. Finally, the US equity market cap has reached 58% of the global market cap, the highest on record. Gravity forces are likely to kick in sooner than later, capping US equity outperformance. Bottom Line: The tailwinds supporting the US equity outperformance are fading. We are booking gains on the short EM stocks / long S&P 500 strategy. Consistently, we are also closing the short EM banks / long US banks and short Chinese banks / long US banks positions. They have produced a 75% gain and an 11% loss, respectively. Downgrading The US Dollar Outlook = Upgrading The EM View We had been bullish on the US dollar and bearish on EM currencies since early 2011 (Chart 5, top panel), but on July 9 made a major change in our currency strategy: we switched our shorts in EM currencies away from the US dollar to against an equal-weighted basket of the euro, Swiss franc and the yen. Since then, the EM ex-China equal-weighted currency index has rebounded versus the US dollar, but has depreciated against the basket of the euro, CHF and JPY (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5EM Currencies Have Bottomed Versus The US Dollar But Not Against Other Safe-Heavens While the US dollar could rebound in the short term, especially versus EM currencies, any rebound will likely prove to be short-lived. From now on, the strategy for the greenback should be selling into strength. Here is why: As US inflation rises in the coming years and the Fed refuses to raise interest rates, US real rates will drop further and, as a result, the US dollar will depreciate. A central bank that is behind the inflation curve is bearish for a nation’s currency. The main reason for turning negative on the US dollar structurally is the rising determination by the Federal Reserve to stay behind the inflation curve in the years to come. This strategy will instigate an inflation outbreak. Falling real interest rates have caused a plunge in the US dollar, as well as a surge in precious metal prices, in recent weeks. In fact, risk-on currencies have lately underperformed safe-haven currencies, such as the CHF and JPY (Chart 6). This market move confirms that the dollar’s recent plunge is due to fears of its debasement, not to robust growth in the world economy and in EM/China. As US inflation rises in the coming years and the Fed refuses to raise interest rates, US real rates will drop further and, as a result, the US dollar will depreciate.    Colossal debt monetization. The Fed is undertaking an immense monetization of public and private debt. The current situation, involving the Fed’s purchases of securities, is different from the one following the Lehman crisis. Back in 2008-2014, the Fed’s QE program did not produce an exponential rise in money supply. The US broad money supply (M2) was rising at a single-digit rate between 2009 and 2014 (Chart 7). Presently, US M2 growth has exploded to 24% from a year ago. Chart 6Risk-On Currencies Are Underperforming Safe-Heaven Ones Chart 7Helicopter' Money in the US The pace of US broad money growth is much higher than that of many advanced and developing economies. Chart 8 shows new money creation as a share of GDP across various economies. It demonstrates that Japan and the US are now experiencing the quickest rate of new money creation in the world.   In short, even though debt monetization is occurring in many advanced and EM economies, the US is doing it on an unprecedented scale. Chart 8Money Creation As % Of GDP In 2Q2020 “Helicopter” money will eventually lift inflation. The latest surge in the US money supply has only partially offset the collapse in its velocity. Consequently, America’s nominal GDP has plunged. This stems from the following identity: Nominal GDP = Price Level x Output Volume = Velocity of Money x Money Supply Solving the above equation for inflation, we get: Price Level = (Velocity of Money x Money Supply) / (Output Volume) Going forward, the velocity of US money will likely recover, for it is closely associated with consumers’ and businesses’ willingness to spend. At that point, rising velocity of money and greater money supply will work together to exert upward pressure on nominal GDP. Meantime, the pandemic will probably reduce potential output. The outcome of higher nominal spending and reduced potential productive capacity will be higher inflation. In sum, US inflation will rise well above 2% in the coming years. Yet, the Fed will stay put amid rising inflation. The upshot will be a structural downtrend in the US dollar. Whilst there are many arguments against rising inflation, we are leaning toward the view that US inflation will begin rising as of next year. We will elaborate on this inflation outlook in our future reports.     Rising political and social uncertainty in the US will weigh on the greenback. The failure by the US authorities to contain the spread of the pandemic will continue fueling political and social upheavals. This could culminate in a harshly contested presidential election and a reduction in the US dollar’s allure for foreign investors.    Portfolio inflows into the US will turn into outflows. The stellar performance of US equities attracted portfolio inflows into the US over the last 10 years. These capital inflows, in turn, boosted the greenback. But these dynamics are about to be reversed. Chart 9The US's Net International Investment Position Is At A Record Low The top panel of Chart 9 shows that the US’s net international investment position in equities is at its lowest point since 1986. This means that foreign ownership of US stocks exceeds US resident ownership of foreign equities by a record amount. This reflects the fact that investors have by a large margin favored the US versus other bourses. As American share prices outperformed their international peers, both domestic and foreign investors have poured more capital into US equities. As the US relative equity performance reverses, equity capital will flow out of the US, thus dragging down the US dollar. Chart 10 shows that the trade-weighted dollar tracks the relative performance of the S&P500 versus the global equity benchmark in local currency terms. Regarding debt securities, the US’s net international investment position has widened to  - US$8.5 trillion (Chart 9, bottom panel). Not all fixed-income investors hedge currency risk. As the dollar slides, there will be growing pressure on foreign fixed-income investors to hedge their dollar exposure or sell US and buy non-US debt securities. Chart 10A Top In The US$ = The End Of The US Equity Outperformance? Bottom Line: Immense public debt monetization leading to higher inflation down the road and the Fed falling behind the curve, will produce a lasting and considerable downtrend in the US dollar in the coming years. Why Not Overweight EM Stocks? There are a number of reasons why – for now – we are only upgrading EM equities to neutral, rather than to overweight within a global equity portfolio, and why we are still reluctant to recommend buying EM stocks for absolute-return investors:   Concentration risk in EM mega-cap stocks. As US FAANGM share prices come under selling pressure, contagion will spill over to EM mega-cap stocks. The latter have been responsible for a large share of gains in the EM equity index and, conversely, their pullback will considerably impact the EM benchmark’s performance. The top six companies combined account for about 24% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. To compare, US FAANGM (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft) also account for 24% of the S&P 500 market cap. Hence, the concentration risk in EM equity space is as high as in the US. Geopolitical risk. A potential flare up in in geopolitical tensions will weigh on Chinese, South Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Given that they make up about 65% of the MSCI EM index equity market cap, the EM benchmark will suffer in absolute terms and be unlikely to outperform the global equity index. Faced with decreased approval in regard to his handling of the pandemic, and to a lesser extent, the economy and other social issues, President Trump could well resort to geopolitics to “rally Americans behind the flag.” He may, for example, ramp up tensions with China in an attempt to make geopolitics and China the focal points of the forthcoming presidential election. China will certainly retaliate. The South China Sea, Taiwan, technology transfers, treatment of multinational companies in both China and the US, as well as North Korea, could be focal points of a confrontation. This will weigh on business confidence in Asia and on capital spending. In our opinion, markets are vulnerable to such geopolitical risks. Poor domestic fundamentals in EM outside China, Korea and Taiwan. Fundamental backdrops remain inferior in many EM economies outside the North Asian ones. The number of new infections continues to rise in India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru. Many EM economies will only slowly return to normalcy. In certain countries, banking systems were already in poor health, and things have gotten much worse after the crash in economic activity. As to the positives for EM, they are as follows: Rising Chinese demand will boost EM exports to China and help revive their growth. EM equity valuations are very appealing versus the S&P 500 (Chart 11). The bottom panel of Chart 11 shows that EM’s cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio relative to that in the US is over one standard deviation below its mean. Based on the 12-month forward P/E ratio for an equal-weighted index, EM stocks are cheaper than US ones (please refer to Chart 4 on page 4).  EM currencies are also cheap (Chart 12). While they might experience a short-term setback, as a global risk-off phase takes place, EM exchange rates have probably seen their lows versus the US dollar. Chart 11EM Stocks Offer Value Versus The S&P 500 Chart 12EM Currencies Are Cheap The US dollar’s weakness will mitigate risks for EM issuers of US dollar bonds and, thereby, induce more flows into EM sovereign and corporate credit markets. In short, EM local currency bonds will assuredly benefit from the US dollar’s slide. We have been neutral on both EM local currency bonds and EM sovereign and corporate credit, and are waiting for a correction before upgrading to overweight. In nutshell, little or no stress in EM fixed-income markets bodes well for EM share prices. Bottom Line: Risks to EM equity relative performance are presently balanced. A neutral allocation is warranted for now. EM relative equity performance versus DM is only slightly above its recent low (Chart 13, top panel). It is, therefore, a good juncture to move the EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In addition, both the EM equal-weighted and small-cap equity indexes are not yet signaling a broad-based and sustainable outperformance (Chart 13, middle and bottom panels). Chart 13EM Relative Equity Performance Is In A Bottom-Out Phase Some FAQs Question: Wouldn’t the US dollar rally if global stocks sell off? The greenback will likely attempt to rebound from current oversold levels when and as a global risk-off phase sets in. EM high-beta currencies could experience a non-trivial setback but will remain above their March lows. Yet, any rebound in the US dollar versus European currencies and the Japanese yen will be fleeting and moderate. On July 9, in anticipation of US dollar weakness, we booked profits on the short EM currencies/long US dollar strategy and recommended shorting several EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. This strategy remains intact for now. Our short list of EM currencies includes: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, IDR, PHP and KRW. Odds are that EM stocks will likely be broadly flattish relative to those in DM amid the next sell off. Chart 14EM Stocks Have Been Low Beta Question: Aren’t EM stocks high-beta and won’t they underperform if, and as, global stocks sell off? The EM equity index has had a beta lower than one since 2013 (Chart 14). Odds are that EM stocks will likely be broadly flattish relative to those in DM amid the next sell off. Within the DM equity space, the US will likely underperform both Europe and Japan in common currency terms. Question: Which equity markets do you favor within the EM space? Our current overweights are China, Thailand, Russia, Peru, Pakistan and Mexico. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa, Chile and Brazil. Question: Which currencies and local currency bond markets do you recommend overweighting for dedicated EM managers? We recommended going long the Czech koruna versus the US dollar last week. Other currencies that we favor within the EM space are SGD, TWD, THB, MXN and RUB. As for local currency bonds or swap rates, our top picks are Mexico, Russia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Peru, Ukraine and Pakistan. As always, the list of country recommendations for equities, fixed-income and currencies is available at the end of our reports (please refer to pages 14-15) or on the website.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Reports "Inflation, Overheating And The Stampede Into Bonds," dated November 30, 2010, and "Emerging Markets In 2011: Not The Best Play In Town," dated December 14, 2010. 2Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade," dated June 8, 2010   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights The Fed’s emergency lending facilities have successfully stabilized markets … : Credit spreads have tightened dramatically since March and liquidity has been restored to the US Treasury market. … at very little cost to the central bank: Just the announcement of Fed lending facilities has been enough to push spreads lower in most cases. The facilities themselves have seen very little actual uptake. The only cost borne by the Fed has been a dramatic expansion of its balance sheet due to purchases of Treasury securities. We still want to “buy what the Fed is buying”: In US fixed income, we want to favor those sectors that are eligible for Fed support. This includes corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, municipal bonds and Aaa-rated securitizations. Keep portfolio duration at neutral: The Fed will be much more cautious about raising interest rates than in the past, and could wait until inflation is above its target before lifting off zero. Feature Back in April, we published a detailed explainer of the extraordinary actions taken by the Federal Reserve to combat the pandemic-induced recession.1 This week, we re-visit that Special Report to assess what the Fed has accomplished during the past three months and to speculate about what lies ahead. Overall, the Fed’s response has been highly effective. Stability was restored to financial markets almost immediately after the most dramatic policy interventions were announced, and it turns out that the announcements themselves did most of the work. The ultimate usage of the Fed’s Section 13(3) emergency lending facilities has been extremely low relative to their stated maximum capacities (Table 1). If you are the Fed, it is apparently enough to marshal overwhelming force and announce your willingness to deploy it. Like the ECB demonstrated in the fraught Eurozone summer of 2012, a bazooka can restore order without being fired.2 Table 1Usage Of The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities The only possible cost borne by the Fed has been an explosion in the size of its balance sheet, mostly attributable to purchases of Treasury securities. The ultimate usage of the Fed’s facilities has been extremely low relative to their stated maximum capacities. This report looks at how the Fed’s actions have influenced (and will influence) interest rates, Treasury market liquidity, the corporate bond market and other fixed income spread products. It also considers the potential impact of the size of the Fed’s balance sheet on the economy and financial markets. Interest Rates The Fed dropped the funds rate to a range of 0% to 0.25% on March 15, and since then it has aggressively signaled that rates will stay pinned at the zero-lower-bound for a long time. Investors quickly took this message on board (Chart 1). The median estimate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants has the funds rate holding steady at least through the end of 2022. Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve isn’t pricing-in a rate hike until 2024. Chart 1The Fed And Market Agree: No Hikes Through 2022 Chart 2Better Signaling From The Fed The market adjusted much more quickly to the Fed’s zero interest rate policy this year than it did during the last zero-lower-bound episode (Chart 2). The MOVE index of Treasury yield volatility has already plunged to below 50. It took several years for it to reach those levels after the Fed cut rates to zero at the end of 2008. Similarly, the yield curve is much flatter today than it was during the last zero-lower-bound episode. This partly reflects the market’s expectation that rates will stay at zero for longer and partly the downward revisions to estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate that have occurred during the past few years. The bottom line is that the Fed has successfully achieved its goal on interest rate policy. The funds rate is at its effective lower bound and the entire term structure is priced for it to stay there for a very long time. There are two main reasons for this success. First, the Fed’s forward guidance has been more dovish this year than at any point during the last zero-lower-bound episode, with many FOMC participants calling for the Fed to target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Second, the market is more skeptical about inflation ever returning to that target, as evidenced by much lower long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 2, bottom panel). What’s Next? The Fed has already made it clear that it won’t pursue negative interest rates. With those off the table, the next step will be for the Fed to make its forward rate guidance more explicit. In all likelihood this will involve the return of some form of the Evans Rule that was in place between 2012 and 2014. The Evans Rule was a commitment to not lift rates at least until the unemployment rate moved below 6.5% or inflation moved above 2.5%.3 The new version of the Evans Rule will be much more dovish. In a recent speech, Governor Lael Brainard favorably cited research suggesting that the Fed should refrain from liftoff until inflation reaches the 2% target.4 That may very well be the rule that ends up becoming official Fed guidance. If the Fed wants to strengthen its commitment to low rates even more, it could follow the Reserve Bank of Australia’s lead and implement a Yield Curve Control policy. This policy would involve setting caps for Treasury yields out to a 2-year or 3-year maturity. The Fed would pledge to buy as many securities as necessary to enforce the caps and would only lift the caps when the criteria of its new Evans Rule are met. While spreads have tightened across all credit tiers, investment grade corporates have become much more expensive than high-yield. For the time being, there is no rush for the Fed to deliver more explicit forward guidance and/or Yield Curve Control. As we noted above, bond yields are already pricing-in an extremely lengthy period of zero rates. But these policies will become more important as the economic recovery progresses and market participants start to speculate about an eventual exit from the zero bound. Explicit forward guidance and/or Yield Curve Control would then prevent a premature rise in bond yields and tightening of financial conditions. With all that in mind, we would not be surprised to see more explicit (Evans Rule-style) forward guidance rolled out at some point this year, but unless bonds sell off significantly beforehand, it probably won’t have an immediate impact on yields. The same is true for Yield Curve Control, though the odds of that being announced this year are lower as it is a tool with which the Fed is less comfortable. Treasury Market Liquidity Chart 3When Treasury Market Liquidity Evaporated As the COVID-19 crisis flared in March, there were several tense days when liquidity in the US Treasury market evaporated. Bond yields jumped even as the equity market plunged (Chart 3). Meanwhile, liquidity markers showed that it had become much more difficult to transact in US Treasuries. Treasury Bid/Ask spreads widened dramatically and the iShares 20+ Year Treasury ETF (TLT) traded at a huge discount to its net asset value (Chart 3, panel 3). During the past four months, researchers have identified hedge fund selling of Treasuries to meet margin calls and foreign bank selling of Treasuries to meet demands for US dollar funding as the proximate causes of March’s Treasury rout. However, it is clearly a failure of market structure that the Treasury market was unable to accommodate that selling pressure without liquidity disappearing. In a recent paper from The Brookings Institution, Darrell Duffie explains why the Treasury market was unable to maintain its liquidity during this tumultuous period.5 Essentially, he argues that it is the combination of rising Treasury supply and post-2008 regulations imposed on dealer banks that has led to an environment where there is a large and growing amount of Treasury supply, but where dealers have less balance sheet capacity to intermediate trading. To illustrate, Chart 4 shows the ratio between the outstanding supply of Treasury securities and the quantity of Treasury inventories for which primary dealers obtained financing. Quite obviously, the dealers’ intermediation activities have not kept pace with the expanding size of the market. Chart 4Primary Dealers Have Not Kept Up With Treasury Issuance What’s Next? Without changes to Treasury market structure or bank capital requirements (Duffie recommends abandoning the system of competing dealer banks altogether and moving all Treasury trades through one central clearinghouse), we are likely to see more episodes like March where a spate of Treasury selling leads to an evaporation of market liquidity. When that happens, the Fed will be forced to step in and buy Treasuries, as it did in March (Chart 3, bottom panel). The goal of that intervention is simply to remove enough supply from the market so that the remaining trading volume can be handled by the dealers. As this pattern repeats itself over time, it will cause the Fed’s presence in the Treasury market to grow. Bottom Line: Unless structural changes are made to the Treasury market or bank capital regulations are rolled back, we should expect more episodes of Treasury market illiquidity like we saw in March. We should also expect the Fed to respond to those episodes with aggressive Treasury purchases, and for the Fed’s presence in the Treasury market to grow over time. Corporate Bonds The Fed’s intervention in the corporate bond market consists of three lending facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) where the Fed purchases investment grade corporate bonds and recent Ba-rated fallen angels in the secondary market. This facility also purchases investment grade and high-yield ETFs. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) where the Fed buys new issuance from investment grade-rated issuers (and recent fallen angels) in the primary market. The Main Street Lending Facility (MSLF) where the Fed purchases loans off of bank balance sheets. The loans must be made to small or medium-sized firms with Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0. Chart 5Corporate Issuance Surged Following The Fed's Announcements As mentioned above, these facilities have barely been tapped. As of July 1, the Fed had purchased $1.5 billion of corporate bonds and just under $8 billion of ETFs through the SMCCF, while the PMCCF had not been used at all. However, the impact of the Fed’s promise to back-stop such a large portion of the corporate debt market has been immense. Corporate bond issuance surged following the announcement of the Fed’s facilities, and set monthly post-2008 records in March, April and May (Chart 5). The effect on corporate bond spreads has been just as dramatic. Spreads peaked on March 23, the day that the SMCCF and PMCCF were announced, and have tightened significantly since then. Further underscoring the importance of the SMCCF, PMCCF and MSLF announcements is that those segments of the corporate bond market most likely to have access to the Fed’s lending facilities have seen the most spread compression. Recall that investment grade issuers and recent fallen angels have access to the SMCCF and PMCCF, while the MSLF will benefit most issuers rated Ba or higher. Some B-rated issuers are able to tap the MSLF, but not the majority. Issuers rated Caa or below are much less likely to benefit from any of the Fed’s programs. Table 2 shows how the impact of the Fed’s facilities has played out across the different corporate credit tiers. It shows each credit tier’s option-adjusted spread and 12-month breakeven spread as of March 23 and today. It also shows the percentile rank of those spreads since 2010 (100% indicating the widest spread since 2010 and 0% indicating the tightest). While spreads have tightened across all credit tiers, investment grade corporates have become much more expensive than high-yield. The B-rated and below credit tiers are particularly cheap, with 12-month breakeven spreads all above their 80th percentiles since 2010. Table 2The Fed's Impact On Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spread Curve Back To Normal The market impact of the Fed’s corporate lending facilities is also apparent across the corporate bond term structure. In March, the investment grade corporate bond spread slope inverted, as 1-5 year maturity corporate bond spreads widened relative to spreads of securities with more than 5 years to maturity (Chart 6).6 The Fed concentrated its lending facilities on securities with less than 5 years to maturity, and it has successfully re-steepened the corporate spread curve. But the Fed’s corporate lending facilities are not all powerful. As Chair Powell likes to say: “the Fed has lending powers, not spending powers”. So while the promise of Fed lending is a big help, it still means that troubled firms will have to increase their debt loads to survive the economic downturn. Those firms that take on debt may still see their credit ratings downgraded as their balance sheet health deteriorates. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened. Ratings downgrades have jumped during the past few months, as have defaults (Chart 7). There has also been a spike in the number of fallen angels – firms downgraded out of investment grade – but not as big a jump as was seen during the last recession (Chart 7, panel 2). The Fed’s emergency lending facilities have likely prevented some downgrades, but not all. Chart 7Fed Can't Prevent Downgrades What’s Next? The Fed’s lending facilities are responsible for a huge portion of the spread compression we’ve seen since late March. That said, it is a potential problem for corporate bonds that those facilities are scheduled to expire at the end of September. Our sense is that the expiry date will be extended, and that the facilities will only be wound down after a significant period of time where they see zero usage. At that point, the Fed should be able to halt the facilities without unduly impacting markets. In terms of investment implications, we think that the Fed’s back-stop will continue to be the most important driver of corporate bond spreads during the next few months. This means we would avoid chasing the attractive valuations in bonds rated B & below, and would continue to focus our corporate bond exposure on bonds rated Ba and above. We make an exception to our “buy what the Fed is buying” rule when it comes to positioning across the corporate bond term structure. Here, we are inclined to grab the extra spread offered by longer-maturity securities even though Fed secondary market purchases are concentrated at the front-end. Our rationale is that the Fed’s secondary market purchases are already low and will likely decline as time goes on. Meanwhile, if firms with long-maturity debt outstanding need help they can still access the PMCCF if needed.  Other Fed Lending Facilities & Fixed Income Sectors Outside of the three programs geared toward the corporate bond market, the Fed also rolled out emergency lending facilities meant to back-stop: money market mutual funds (MMLF), the commercial paper market (CPFF), the asset-backed securities market (TALF), the municipal bond market (MLF) and the federal government’s new Paycheck Protection Program (PPPLF). Once again, the announcement effect did most of the work for all of these facilities and the Fed managed to quickly restore stability to each targeted market without doing much actual lending. For starters, the MMLF successfully halted a flight out of prime money market funds with a relatively modest $53 billion in loans (Chart 8). The CPFF caused the commercial paper/T-bill spread to normalize with only $4 billion of lending, and the LIBOR/OIS spread also tightened soon after the Fed rolled out its facilities (Chart 8, bottom panel). The Fed has dramatically expanded the size of its balance sheet through purchases of Treasury securities and agency MBS. In the asset-backed securities market, the Fed decided that only Aaa-rated securitizations are eligible for TALF. With that in mind, Aaa-rated consumer ABS and CMBS spreads have tightened considerably since TALF’s announcement (Chart 9). Non-Aaa consumer ABS spreads have tightened modestly despite the lack of Fed support. This is because fiscal stimulus has, so far, kept households flush with cash and prevented a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Aaa CMBS, on the other hand, have struggled due to lack of Fed support and a sharp increase in commercial real estate delinquencies. Chart 8Stability Restored Chart 9Consumer ABS & CMBS Spreads Tightened Considerably...   The announcement of the MLF also successfully led to compression in municipal bond spreads (Chart 10), though the Aaa muni curve still trades cheap relative to Treasuries. Like the other facilities, the MLF has seen very low take-up. In this instance, low MLF usage results from its expensive pricing. Municipal governments can access loans through the MLF for a period of up to three years at a cost of 3-year OIS plus a fixed spread that varies depending on the municipality’s credit rating. However, current market pricing is well below the MLF rate for all credit tiers (Chart 10, bottom 2 panels). This means that the MLF provides a nice back-stop in case muni spreads widen again, but it is not currently an effective means of getting cash to struggling state & local governments. Chart 10...As Have Municipal Bond Spreads Finally, the PPPLF is a facility that purchases loans made through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) off of bank balance sheets. Essentially, it is an insurance policy designed to make sure that banks have the necessary balance sheet capacity to deliver all of the PPP loans authorized by Congress. It has achieved this goal with relatively little usage. Banks have doled out more than $500 billon of PPP loans and the Fed has purchased only $68 billion. What’s Next? As with the corporate lending facilities discussed above, there is a risk surrounding the scheduled expiry of these other lending facilities at the end of September. Once again, we see the Fed being very cautious in this regard. All facilities will be extended until they have seen long periods of no usage. In the near-term, we think it’s possible that the Fed will make MLF loans cheaper. They will likely feel intense pressure to do so if Congress fails to pass sufficient stimulus to state & local governments in the next bailout package. In terms of investment strategy, we want to stick with what has worked so far. We are overweight Aaa consumer ABS and Aaa CMBS due to the TALF back-stop. We are also overweight municipal bonds, especially in the Aaa-rated space where yields are attractive versus Treasuries and the risk of default is low. We would also advise taking some extra risk in non-Aaa consumer ABS. These securities have no TALF back-stop, but we expect Congress to deliver enough government stimulus to keep the underlying borrowers solvent. The Size Of The Fed’s Balance Sheet As this report has made clear, the Fed’s emergency lending facilities have accomplished a lot during the past four months with the Fed taking very little actual risk onto its balance sheet. But while its usage of the emergency lending facilities has been low, the Fed has dramatically expanded the size of its balance sheet through purchases of Treasury securities and agency MBS. To restore stability to the Treasury and MBS markets, the Fed avidly bought Treasuries and agency MBS from mid-March to mid-April, ballooning the size of its balance sheet by $2 trillion in just five weeks. Tacked onto the QE programs undertaken to battle the GFC, the Fed’s balance sheet expansion has been massive, and it is roughly six times larger as a share of GDP than it was in the three decades preceding the subprime crisis (Chart 11). Chart 11Massive Expansion Of The Fed's Balance Sheet Investors and citizens may ask what that balance sheet expansion has achieved so far, and what it’s likely to achieve going forward. Are there unintended consequences that haven’t yet made their presence felt? What constitutes a normalized Fed balance sheet, and when will the Fed be able to get back to it? The immediate consequence many investors attribute to the balance sheet expansion is higher stock prices (Chart 12). Fans of the balance sheet/equities link are undeterred by the decoupling after 2015, arguing that standing pat/tapering the balance sheet by 15% helped precipitate its vicious sell-off in the fourth quarter of 2018. It probably has not escaped their notice that the spectacular bounce from March’s lows has occurred alongside a 70% balance sheet expansion. The money supply boost may prove short-lived, though, as it appears that businesses are borrowing to ensure their continued liquidity, rather than to spend or invest. We don’t think there is much to the observed relationship, however. Correlation is not causation and we have a hard time seeing how the Fed’s purchases of Treasuries, agencies and agency MBS flowed into the equity market. While the Fed’s pre-pandemic QE purchases turbo-charged the size of the monetary base, it only gently expanded the money supply, because the banks that sold securities to the Fed largely handed the proceeds right back to it as deposits (Chart 13). The net effect mainly filled the Fed’s vaults with the new money it had conjured up via its open-market operations. Chart 12Fed Balance Sheet & Stock Prices: Correlation Is Not Causation Chart 13Only A Modest Expansion Of Money Supply   Banks were not the only counterparties to the Fed’s QE purchases, of course. Fixed income mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds must also have trimmed their holdings to accommodate the Fed. They were likely obligated by prospectus mandates or regulatory oversight to redeploy the proceeds into other bonds. Surely some unconstrained investors turned QE cash into new equity investments, but the larger QE effect on financial markets was likely to narrow credit spreads as dedicated fixed income investors redeployed their proceeds further out the risk curve. Tighter spreads helped reduce corporations’ cost of servicing newly issued debt, boosting corporate profits at the margin, but we think it’s a stretch to say QE drove the equity rally. What’s Next? Chart 14Wave Of Bank Deposits The picture is slightly different today, with the money supply popping amidst frenzied corporate borrowing. The money supply boost may prove short-lived, though, as it appears that businesses are borrowing to ensure their continued liquidity, rather than to spend or invest. The largest banks were inundated with deposits in the second quarter (Chart 14), possibly driven by corporations stashing their issuance proceeds in cash just as banks previously stashed their QE proceeds in excess reserves. With households actively paying down their debt and businesses having already pre-funded two or three years of cash needs, the deposits may not be lent out, hemming in the money multiplier and limiting the self-reinforcing magic of fractional-reserve banking. Liquidity that is being hoarded is not available to drive up equity multiples, so we don’t expect the Fed’s new balance sheet expansion will directly boost stock prices any more than we think it did post-crisis. Indirectly, we think it does contribute to economic growth and risk asset appreciation because we view QE and other extraordinary easing measures as a signal that zero interest rate policy will remain in place for a long time. The importance of that signal, and the possibility that nineteen months of tapering at the start of Jay Powell’s term as Fed chair did promote volatility and increased equities’ vulnerability to a sharp downdraft, may well keep the Fed from attempting to normalize the balance sheet any time soon. An outsized Fed balance sheet may well be the new normal, and it may well breed unintended consequences, but we don’t think that kiting stock prices will be one of them. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Outright Monetary Transactions facility at the heart of ECB President Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” pledge was never actually used. The ECB did eventually purchase government securities through a separate facility. But this didn’t occur until 2015, after sovereign bond yields had already fallen. 3 This explicit forward guidance was the brainchild of Chicago Fed President Charles Evans. It was official Fed forward guidance between December 2012 and March 2014. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20200714a.htm 5 https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WP62_Duffie_v2.pdf 6 This inversion of the corporate spread curve is typical during default cycles. For more details on this dynamic please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “On The Term Structure Of Credit Spreads”, dated July 10, 2013, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Equities and other risk assets face near-term headwinds from the surge in Covid cases in the US Sun Belt and the looming fiscal cliff. We think these problems will be resolved, but the next few weeks could be rough sledding for markets. Government bond yields have moved sideways-to-down since late March even though inflation expectations have rebounded. The resulting decline in real yields has been an important, if rather overlooked, driver of higher equity prices. The failure of government bond yields to rise in line with higher inflation expectations can be attributed to the ongoing dovish shift in monetary policy. Nominal yields are likely to increase modestly over the next two years as growth recovers. However, inflation expectations should rise even more. Hence, real yields may fall further, justifying an overweight position in TIPS and a generally positive medium-term view on equities. As long as there is spare capacity in the economy, fiscal stimulus will not push up real yields. This is because bigger budget deficits tend to raise overall savings, thus creating the resources with which to finance the deficits. Once economies return to full employment in about three years, the fiscal free lunch will end. At that point, the combination of easy monetary and fiscal policies could cause inflation to accelerate. Central banks will welcome higher inflation initially. However, they will eventually be forced to hike rates aggressively if inflation continues to march upwards. When this happens, bond yields will rise sharply, while stocks will tumble. A Curious Divergence Government bond yields have moved sideways-to-down in most developed economies since stocks bottomed in late March (Chart 1). In contrast, inflation expectations have risen. As a result, real yields have declined. In the US, TIPS yields have fallen into negative territory across all maturities (Chart 2). Chart 1Nominal Yields Have Moved Sideways-To-Down, Inflation Expectations Have Risen, And Real Yields Have Declined Chart 2TIPS Yields Have Fallen Into Negative Territory Across The Board The decline in real yields has been one of the unsung drivers of higher equity prices this year. The forward P/E ratios of the major US indices have moved closely in line with real yields (Chart 3). Gold prices have also risen, as they are often wont to do when real yields go down (Chart 4). Chart 3Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Stock Multiple Chart 4Gold Prices Have Risen On The Back Of Falling Real Yields It is fairly uncommon for inflation expectations to rise without a commensurate increase in nominal bond yields (Chart 5). As a rule of thumb, when the economic data surprise to the upside, as has occurred over the past few months, bond yields go up (Chart 6). Chart 5It Is Unusual For Inflation Expectations To Rise Without A Corresponding Increase In Nominal Bond Yields Chart 6Bond Yields Usually Rise When Economic Data Surprise To The Upside An important exception to this rule occurs when monetary policy is becoming more expansionary. Bond yields tend to follow the path of expected policy rates (Chart 7). When central banks guide rate expectations lower, bond yields can fall, even as the reflationary impulse from lower yields delivers an upward kick to inflation projections. Chart 7ABond Yields Tend To Follow The Path Of Expected Policy Rates Chart 7BBond Yields Tend To Follow The Path Of Expected Policy Rates The last time such a divergence between yields and inflation expectations occurred was in early 2019. The stock market crash in late 2018 forced the Fed to abandon its plans to hike rates. Jay Powell’s dovish pivot occurred just three months after he said that rates were “a long way” from neutral. The Fed would go on to cut rates by 75 bps over the course of 2019. Real Yields Could Fall Further Chart 8Inflation Expectations Are Still Quite Depressed In Most Countries The key question for investors is how much longer the pattern of rising inflation expectations and stable bond yields can persist. Our sense is that nominal bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years as growth recovers. However, inflation expectations are likely to rise even more, justifying an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal bonds. Inflation expectations are still quite depressed in most countries (Chart 8). If global growth rebounds, both actual and expected inflation should edge higher. Chart 9 shows that the US ISM manufacturing index leads core inflation by about 12-to-18 months. Higher oil prices should also lift inflation expectations (Chart 10). Will global growth recover? The answer is “yes” if we are talking about a horizon of 12 months or so. That said, as we discuss below, there are some near-term risks to growth. This implies that equities and other risk assets could trade nervously over the next few weeks.   Chart 9Global Growth Recovery Will Lead To Higher Inflation Down The Line Chart 10Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Move In Lockstep   Near-Term Risks To Global Growth The two biggest threats to global growth over the coming months are the Covid outbreaks in a number of countries and the possibility that fiscal stimulus will be rolled back, especially in the US, where a “fiscal cliff” is looming. Despite progress in suppressing the virus in Europe, Japan, and most of East Asia, the number of reported daily infections continues to rise globally (Chart 11). In the developed world, the US remains a major hotspot. Although the number of cases appears to have peaked in Arizona, it is still rising in the other Sun Belt states (Chart 12). Among emerging markets, the epicenter has moved from Brazil and Russia to India (Chart 13). Chart 11Despite Progress In Europe, Japan, And Most Of East Asia, The Number Of Covid Infections Continues To Rise Globally Chart 12A Second Wave Is A Key Macro Risk Chart 13BRICs: Covid Leaving No Stone Unturned While efforts to contain the virus will boost growth in the long run, they will weigh on economic activity in the near term. Over half of the US population lives in states that have either reversed or suspended reopening plans (Chart 14). Chart 14Not So Fast Google data on visits to shopping malls, recreation centers, public transport facilities, and office destinations have dipped in recent weeks. The decline in visits has occurred alongside a decrease in the New York Fed’s high-frequency economic activity indicator (Chart 15). Initial unemployment claims also rose this week. At this point, it looks likely that the recovery in US consumer spending will stall in July and August. Chart 15Covid Outbreak Is Weighing On Spending While it is difficult to know what will happen starting in September, our guess is that the pandemic will ebb in the southern states, just like it did in the northeast. This is partly because mask-wearing is becoming more widespread. Back in early March, when most mainstream news sources were tweeting out misinformation such as “Oh, and face masks? You can pass on them,” we noted that both logic and evidence suggest that masks are an effective tool against the virus. Increased testing should also help identify asymptomatic people before they have had the chance to spread the virus to many others. Meanwhile, improved medical care should also help reduce the mortality and morbidity rates from the disease. Just this week, scientists presented the results of a double-blind clinical trial showing that the inhalation of interferon beta, a cytokine used to treat multiple sclerosis, reduced the risk of developing severe Covid symptoms by nearly 80%. Fiscal Cliff Ahead? In addition to the pandemic, investors have to grapple with uncertainty over whether fiscal policy will remain sufficiently accommodative to reflate the economy. Unlike the EU, which managed to cobble together a framework for creating a 750 billion euro pandemic relief fund earlier this week, the US Congress remains deadlocked on the size and complexion of a new stimulus bill. Under current law, US households will stop receiving expanded unemployment benefits at the end of July. These benefits were legislated as part of the original CARES Act and currently total over 4% of GDP. The Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses is also nearly drained, while state and local governments are facing a major cash crunch due to evaporating tax revenues and higher pandemic-related spending needs. We estimate that about $2-to-$2.5 trillion in new stimulus will be necessary to keep fiscal policy from turning unduly restrictive. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been floating a number of $1.3 trillion. If McConnell gets his way, risk assets will likely sell off. Our guess is that he will not prevail, however. President Trump favors a larger stimulus bill, as do the Democrats. Critically, more than four out of five voters, both nationwide and in swing states, support extending benefits (Table 1). Thus, there is a high probability that Senate Republicans will agree on a much larger package than what they are currently proposing. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Fiscal Stimulus And Bond Yields Could continued fiscal stimulus deplete national savings, leading to significantly higher real yields? For the next few years, the answer is no. National savings depend not just on how much people spend, but on how much they earn. To the extent that fiscal stimulus raises GDP, it also raises national income. For the global economy as a whole, savings must equal investment. If fiscal stimulus in the major economies prompts firms to undertake more investment spending than they would have otherwise, overall savings will rise. How can that be? The answer is that fiscal stimulus raises private savings by more than it reduces government savings when an economy is operating below its full capacity. From the perspective of the bond market, this means that currently, large budget deficits are self-financing. Bigger budget deficits will produce an even bigger pool of private income, allowing the private sector to buy more government bonds.   Indeed, a premature pullback in fiscal support would almost certainly raise real rates by depressing inflation expectations. If that sounds far-fetched, recall that this is precisely what happened in March. Full Employment And Beyond Chart 16Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic The fiscal free lunch will end only when economies return to full employment. At that point, bigger budget deficits will no longer be able to raise output since everyone who wants to work will already have found a job. Rather, increased government borrowing will crowd out private-sector investment. National savings will decline. If monetary and fiscal policy stay accommodative, inflation could accelerate. Central banks will probably welcome the initial burst of inflation, since they have been lamenting below-target inflation for many years now. However, if inflation continues to march higher, central banks may get spooked and start talking up the prospect of rate hikes. Higher rates would create a lot of problems for debt-saddled governments (Chart 16). It would not be at all surprising if politicians leaned on central banks to keep rates low. Governments could also end up forcing central banks to buy more debt in order to keep long-term yields from rising. In the extreme case, governments could even force central banks to cap yields. While such measures would prevent bond prices from tumbling, this would be cold comfort for bondholders. If central banks were to keep bond yields below their equilibrium level, inflation would rise even further, thus eroding the purchasing power of the bonds. In the end, central banks would still have to raise rates, probably more than they would have had they acted more swiftly to quell inflation. Investment Conclusions To answer the question posed in the title of this report, yes, bond yields will eventually go up. However, they are not likely to rise very much until inflation reaches intolerably high levels. That point is at least three years away. Despite the near-term risks posed by the pandemic and the looming fiscal cliff, investors should remain overweight equities over a 12-month horizon. Given the run-up in some of the large cap US tech names, we suggest shifting equity exposure to other parts of the stock market. The cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio is significantly lower outside the US, implying that international stocks are well placed to outperform their US peers over the coming decade (Chart 17). A weaker dollar should also help non-US stocks as well as the more cyclical equity sectors (Chart 18). Chart 17Non-US Stocks: The Place To Be Over The Coming Decade Chart 18A Weaker Dollar Should Boost Non-US Stocks Along With The More Cyclical Equity Sectors Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Monetary Policy: Central bankers worldwide are promising to keeping policy rates near 0% for at least the next two years, even if inflation begins to rise again. This is an obvious form of forward guidance designed to keep borrowing costs as low as possible until the COVID-19 pandemic ends. It may also be the start of a true shift in policymaker strategy, tolerating a rise in inflation just as many of the secular forces that have dampened global inflation are fading. Bond Strategy: The recent divergence of inflation expectations and real bond yields can persist if central banks commit to their dovish forward guidance. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US, Canada and Italy. Feature “We’re not thinking about raising rates. We’re not even thinking about thinking about raising rates.” – Fed Chairman Jerome Powell Central bankers have emptied their bags of tricks in recent months, providing extreme monetary policy accommodation to fight the deflationary impacts of the COVID-19 recession. 0% policy interest rates, large-scale asset purchases and liquidity support programs have all been implemented in some form by the major developed market central banks. Even more extreme options like yield curve control have been contemplated in the US and implemented in Australia. Perhaps the most important tool used by policymakers, however, is the most simple of all – dovish forward guidance on future interest rate moves. The Fed, European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Japan (BoJ) and others are now committing to keep rates at current levels for at least the next two years. Additional “state-based” guidance, tying future rate hikes only to a sustainable return of inflation back to policymaker targets, is the likely next step, with the Bank of Canada already making that connection at last week’s policy meeting. Given how difficult it has been for central banks to reach those targets, policy rates can now potentially stay lower for much longer. Interest rate markets have already discounted such an outcome, with overnight index swap (OIS) curves pricing in no change in policy rates in the US, Europe, UK, Japan, Canada or Australia until at least mid-2022 and only very mild increases afterward (Chart of the Week). It remains to be seen if policymakers will actually follow through on their promises to sit on their hands and do nothing for that long, even as global growth and inflation continue what will likely be an extended and choppy recovery from the deep COVID-19 recession. Chart of the WeekAggressive Forward Guidance Is Working However, if central bankers are truly serious about keeping interest rates low even if inflation picks up, in an attempt to “catch up” from previous undershoots of inflation targets, that has major implications for global bond investors – in particular, raising the value of maintaining core holdings of inflation-linked bonds in fixed-income portfolios. The First Step To Higher Inflation: Stop Talking About Rate Hikes Central bankers are increasingly using the same arguments, and even the same language, to justify their current hyper-accommodative policy stance. Here are some examples, taken from speeches and policy meetings that took place last week: ECB President Christine Lagarde: “We expect interest rates to remain at their present or lower levels until we have seen the inflation outlook robustly converge to a level sufficiently close to, but below, 2% within our projection horizon and such convergence has been consistently reflected in underlying inflation dynamics.” Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard: “Looking ahead, it likely will be appropriate to shift the focus of monetary policy from stabilization to accommodation by supporting a full recovery in employment and a sustained return of inflation to its 2 percent objective […] policy should not preemptively withdraw support based on a historically steeper Phillips curve that is not currently in evidence.” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem: "As the economy moves from reopening to recuperation, it will continue to require extraordinary monetary policy support. The Governing Council will hold the policy interest rate at the effective lower bound until economic slack is absorbed so that the 2 percent inflation target is sustainably achieved.” Chart 2Global Growth Expectations Have Rebounded We could have switched the names on those three quotes and the message would be the same. Policy rates will stay at current levels until inflation has sustainably returned to the 2% target. Raising rates on the back of a forecast of higher inflation, driven by an expectation of lower unemployment, will not be enough this time for policymakers that have been repeatedly burned by their belief in the Phillips Curve. Bond investors have taken note of the central bankers’ message and now expect both stable policy rates and higher inflation expectations. The latest data from the ZEW survey of economic and financial market sentiment, that was published last week and covers the period to mid-July, shows this shift in expectations. On the economy, the current conditions indices for the euro area, US, UK and Japan have stopped falling, while the expectations data have all soared to the highest levels seen since 2015 (Chart 2). The ZEW also poses questions on expectations for interest rates and inflation, and there the answers are more interesting for bond investors. The net balances on expectations for long-term interest rates have bottomed out for the US, euro area and UK, as have expectations for inflation over the next twelve months (Chart 3). At the same time, expectations for short-term interest rates have lagged the moves seen in the other two series, with the net balances hovering around zero for all four countries. One possible interpretation of this data is that a greater number of the financial professionals who take part in the ZEW survey are starting to “get the hint” about central bankers’ dovish messages, expecting higher inflation and bond yields but with no change in short-term policy rates. Bond investors have taken note of the central bankers’ message and now expect both stable policy rates and higher inflation expectations. We see similar pricing in inflation-linked bond markets. While nominal bond yields have stayed stable, the mix between inflation expectations and real bond yields has shifted. Breakevens on 10-year bonds have been slowly climbing across the major developed markets since the end of March, while real yields have fallen roughly the same amount as breakevens have widened (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Inflation Expectations Are Drifting Higher Chart 4Inflation Breakevens & Real Yields: Mirror Images This is a relatively unusual development in the global inflation-linked bond universe. More often, breakevens and real yields move in the same direction. Inflation expectations tend to rise when economic growth is improving, which also puts upward pressure on real bond yields – often in tandem with markets pricing in higher policy rates at the short end of yield curves. That is not the case today. The latest fall in real bond yields may simply be markets pricing in slower potential economic growth, and lower equilibrium real interest rates, in a world where the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to leave lasting scars. That would be consistent with Bloomberg growth and inflation forecasts for the major developed economies, which expect unemployment rates to remain above pre-COVID levels in 2022, with inflation rates struggling to reach 2% (Chart 5). Chart 5The Consensus Expects A Slow Global Recovery In a recent report, we presented some basic Taylor Rule estimates of the “appropriate” level of policy rates for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia after the collapse in growth seen in response to the COVID-19 lockdowns. We used the most basic formulation of the Taylor Rule that put equal weight on deviations of headline inflation from central bank target levels, and deviations of unemployment from full-employment NAIRU measures. Chart 6Taylor Rules Suggest Rates Will Need To Head Higher Given the surge in unemployment and collapse in inflation due to the COVID-19 recession, Taylor Rule estimates were calling for negative nominal interest rates across the developed economies (Chart 6). The estimates were most severe in the US, where a fed funds rate of -3.8% is deemed “appropriate” with an unemployment rate of 11% and headline CPI inflation at 0.6%. When the Bloomberg consensus forecasts for the next two years are put into the Taylor Rule, a rising path for interest rates is projected but with rates remaining below pre-COVID levels. However, if policymakers stick to their current pledge to keep rates on hold for longer to ensure that inflation not only returns to 2%, but also stays there without the help from very easy monetary policy, then the implication is that a “below-appropriate” interest rate will be maintained for an extended period. Interest rate markets have already come to that conclusion. 5-year OIS rates, 5-years forward are trading between 0% and 1% across the developed economies – levels that are below the neutral interest rate estimates we are using in our Taylor Rule forecasts (Chart 7). Chart 7Markets Priced For An Extended Period Of Below-Neutral Rates With interest rates already at or near the zero bound, any rise in inflation from current levels also near 0% will result in real policy rates turning negative if central banks do nothing. This would be consistent with the messages sent by the ZEW survey, and global inflation linked bond markets where real yields are falling deeper into negative territory. That would be a major shift of global policymaker behavior, designed as a planned erosion of inflation-fighting credibility. This is especially true for the likes of the Fed, which has a well-established history of turning hawkish at the first sign of rising inflation pressures. The Fed has already hinted that it is considering shifting its policy strategy to allow overshoots of inflation after periods of undershooting the 2% target. Other central banks, like the ECB, have announced similar reviews of their inflation targets and strategy. Such a move to tolerate higher levels of inflation is a logical response to a global pandemic and deep global recession, coming on the heels of several years of low inflation. The timing may actually be ideal to run more dovish policies to boost inflation, with many of the structural factors that have helped restrain global inflation starting to turn in a more inflationary direction. That would be a major shift of global policymaker behavior, designed as a planned erosion of inflation-fighting credibility.  Bottom Line: Central bankers worldwide are promising to keep policy rates near 0% for at least the next two years, even if inflation begins to rise again. This is an obvious form of forward guidance designed to keep borrowing costs as low as possible until the COVID-19 pandemic ends. It may also be the start of a true shift in policymaker strategy, becoming more tolerant of faster inflation. Potential Reasons Why Inflation Could Return Central bankers are talking a good game right now, pledging not to turn too hawkish, too soon and allowing inflation to move back above policy targets. It remains to be seen if they would actually follow through and do nothing if realized inflation rates were to start climbing back to 2% or even higher. It is unlikely that policymakers will be facing that choice anytime soon. The COVID-19 pandemic is showing no signs of slowing in the US and large emerging market countries, global growth remains fragile and heavily reliant on monetary and fiscal policy support, and inflation rates worldwide are currently closer to 0% than 2%. Yet at the same time, there are structural disinflationary forces now changing in a way that may create a more inflationary world after the threat of the pandemic has faded. Demographics Chart 8Demographics Have Turned Less Disinflationary BCA Research Global Investment Strategy has noted that the global demographic trends that helped restrain inflation in recent decades are shifting.1 The ratio of the number of global workers to the number of global consumers – the global support ratio - peaked back in 2013 and is now steadily falling (Chart 8). There are structural disinflationary forces now changing in a way that may create a more inflationary world after the threat of the pandemic has faded. A rising support ratio implies there are more people producing through work than consuming which, on the margin, is disinflationary. Now, with baby boomers leaving the labor force in droves and becoming consumers in retirement (especially consuming services like health care), the support ratio is falling and becoming a potentially more inflationary force. Globalization Chart 9Globalization Has Turned Less Disinflationary One of the biggest disinflationary forces of the past quarter-century has been the rapid increase in global trade. As trade barriers fell and global supply chains expanded, companies were able to lower their costs of production. This allowed companies to widen profit margins without resorting to large price increases, helping to dampen overall inflation rates. Now, with global populism and protectionism on the rise, trade as a share of global GDP is declining (Chart 9). The COVID-19 pandemic will likely exacerbate this trend as more companies bring production closer to home, reversing the disinflationary impact of global supply chains, on the margin. A Strong US Dollar The relentless rise of the US dollar in recent years has exerted a major disinflationary headwind to the world economy, with a large share of global traded goods and commodities priced in dollars. Now, with the greenback finally showing signs of rolling over on a more sustainable basis (Chart 10), fueled by less favorable interest rate differentials and signs of improving global growth, the dollar is slowly becoming a more inflationary force. Chart 10USD Weakness Would Be Inflationary Chart 11Structural Reasons Why Policy Rates Need To Stay Low Of course, these factors are slow moving and will not necessarily result in an immediate increase in global inflation. Yet the trends now in place are more inflationary, on the margin, than has been the case for many years. Coming at a time when global productivity growth is anemic, the potential for an inflationary spark from overly easy monetary policies should not be ignored. Especially given the very high levels of private and public debt in the developed world, which puts more pressure on policymakers to choose inflation as a way to reduce debt burdens (Chart 11).   Investment Implication – Stay Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Central bankers are now signaling a desire to keep interest rates lower for longer, both to provide stimulus for virus-stricken economies and to boost weak inflation. Coming at a time when secular disinflationary forces are losing potency, this raises the risk of a protracted period of negative real policy rates as inflation rises and policymakers do little to stop it pre-emptively. Against this shifting backdrop, the value of owning global inflation-linked bonds as core holdings in fixed income portfolios is compelling. Chart 12Maintain A Core Overweight In Inflation-Linked Bonds Against this shifting backdrop, the value of owning global inflation-linked bonds as core holdings in fixed income portfolios is compelling. Inflation breakevens are more likely to creep upward than soar higher in the near term given the lingering economic threat from the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet inflation-linked bonds are likely to outperform nominal government debt over the next few years – if central bankers stay true to their word and keep rates unchanged while welcoming a pickup in inflation. The experience of the years following the 2008 financial crisis, when global policy rates were kept near 0% and central banks expanded balance sheets through quantitative easing, may be a template to follow. Global inflation linked bonds, as an asset class, steadily outperformed nominal government bonds from 2012-2016, shown in Chart 12 on a rolling 3-year annualized basis using benchmark indices from Bloomberg Barclays. A similar extended period of outperformance is not out of the question over the next few years, with central banks ramping up asset purchases once again and promising to keep policy easy until inflation returns. Bottom Line: The recent divergence of inflation expectations and real bond yields can persist if central banks commit to their dovish forward guidance. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US, Canada and Italy where our models show that breakevens are most undervalued.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy "Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook, Navigating The Second Wave", dated June 30, 2020, available at gis.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

Highlights US consumer spending will stall this summer in response to the rising number of Covid cases. Worries about the looming fiscal cliff could also dampen sentiment. Markets are likely to trade nervously over the coming days, but ultimately, stocks will resume their uptrend. The number of new cases already seems to be peaking in some southern US states, and there is no political will to rescind fiscal stimulus. Many institutional investors missed out on the equity rally and will be keen to “buy the dip” on any opportunity. The drop in government bond yields since the start of the year has more than offset the decline in earnings expectations. As odd as it sounds, the pandemic may have raised the fair value of equities. If one wants to challenge this conclusion, one needs to demonstrate that: 1) earnings estimates have not fallen enough; 2) government bond yields have been artificially suppressed; or 3) the post-pandemic world justifies a higher equity risk premium. While there is some truth to all three arguments, they are unlikely to hold much sway over the next 12 months, provided that global growth rebounds and governments and central banks maintain ultra-accommodative fiscal and monetary policies. Investors should remain overweight global equities, while tilting their exposure to beaten-down cyclically-geared stocks and non-US markets. The equity bull market will only end when central banks get panicky about rising inflation, which is unlikely to happen for the next three years. From ROMO To FOMO People often talk about FOMO (the Fear of Missing Out). But for many institutional investors, the past four months has been more about ROMO – the Reality of Missing Out. Chart 1Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks Many investment professionals missed the rally that began in March, and not much has changed since then. The July BofA Merrill Lynch Survey of Fund managers revealed that fund managers are almost one standard deviation overweight cash and nearly one standard deviation underweight equities. In fact, cash allocations increased further since June. The latest sentiment survey conducted by the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) tells a similar story. Bears exceeded bulls by 15 points in this week’s tally, one of the highest spreads on record (Chart 1). This is not what market tops look like.   Near-Term Worries Granted, risks abound. The Google Mobility Index has hooked lower, reflecting the worsening Covid outbreak in the sunbelt states and parts of the Midwest. This real time index tends to track economic activity quite well (Chart 2). At this point, it is reasonable to expect the recovery in US consumer spending to stall this summer. Chart 2Covid Outbreak Is Weighing On Spending Worries about the fiscal cliff could also dampen sentiment. Unemployment benefits for the average American worker are set to fall by more than 60% at the end of July. The funds in the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses are also running out. To make matters worse, many state and local governments, which began their fiscal year in July, are facing a severe cash crunch due to evaporating tax revenues and rising social spending obligations. Meanwhile, the US elections are only four months away. If the Democrats win the White House and take control of the Senate, the Trump tax cuts will be in jeopardy. Joe Biden has pledged to lift corporate tax rates halfway back to their original levels. This would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 6%. Risks In Perspective While the discussion above suggests that stocks could trade nervously over the coming days, we should keep things in perspective. The number of new Covid cases has been trending lower in Arizona over the past week and may be close to peaking in the other southern states (Chart 3). Positive news on the vaccine front could also buoy sentiment.  Chart 3A Snapshot Of The Number Of New Cases In The Most Afflicted US States With respect to the fiscal cliff, there is a very high probability that Congress will reach a deal on a new aid package worth around $2.5 trillion. Table 1 shows stimulus remains politically popular nationwide and, more importantly, in the swing states. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus If Democrats prevail in November and raise corporate taxes, most of the revenue gained will be plowed back into the economy. Given that empirical estimates suggest that the spending multiplier from the corporate tax cuts was quite small, the net effect will probably be stimulative.1 The risk of an all-out trade war with China would also decline under a Biden administration, which is something the stock market would welcome. Some might contend that stocks are already pricing in a very rosy outlook. However, as we argue below, it is far from clear that this is the case. Has All The Good News Been Priced In? An NPV Analysis The fair value of the stock market can be represented as the expected stream of cash flows that shareholders will receive, deflated by an appropriate discount rate. The discount rate, in turn, can be expressed as a risk-free rate plus an equity risk premium (ERP). The ERP compensates investors for holding riskier stocks compared to safer government bonds. At the start of the year, Wall Street analysts expected S&P 500 earnings to increase by 9% in 2020 and by 11% in both 2021 and 2022. Today, analysts expect earnings to shrink by 23% in 2020, but then rebound by 29% in 2021. This would essentially take earnings back to last year’s levels. Looking further out, analysts expect earning to recover a further 17% in 2022, which would put them on track to reach their pre-pandemic trend by 2024. In contrast, market participants see little scope for a recovery in bond yields (Chart 4). According to the forward curve, the US 10-year is poised to rise from 0.62% at present to just 1.3% in five years’ time. At the start of 2020, investors thought the 10-year yield would be 2.5% in 2025. Along the same vein, the 30-year bond yield is down 106 bps since the start of the year. The 30-year TIPS yield has fallen by 82 bps. Since stocks are a long duration asset, the TIPS yield is a good proxy for the inflation-adjusted, risk-free component of the discount rate. Chart 4After Nosediving, Bond Yields Aren’t Expected To Rise By Much Chart 5 shows that if we combine the change in analyst earnings expectations with the drop in the TIPS yield, the net present value (NPV) of S&P 500 earnings has risen by a staggering 16.2% since the start of the year. Chart 5The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Really? It might seem preposterous to conclude  that the fair value of the S&P 500 may have increased at a time when the US and the rest of the world have plunged into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Yet, it naturally flows from the premise that the hit to earnings from the pandemic will be temporary, while the decline in bond yields will be much longer lasting. If one wants to challenge this conclusion, one needs to demonstrate that: 1) earnings estimates have not fallen enough; 2) government bond yields have been artificially suppressed; or 3) the post-pandemic world justifies a much higher equity risk premium. Let us examine all three arguments in turn. Are Earnings Estimates Too Optimistic? The short answer is yes. However, this does not say very much. As Chart 6 shows, analysts are usually too optimistic. They typically start every year with overinflated estimates, and subsequently have to scale them down. This happens even during economic expansions. Thus, if estimates end up being trimmed over the coming months, this will not necessarily prevent stocks from moving higher. Chart 6Earnings Estimates Tend To Be Revised Down Even In The Best Of Times Of course, magnitudes matter a lot. If analysts end up having to revise estimates down more than usual, this could hurt stocks. But will they? That is far from a foregone conclusion. Earnings usually follow the path of nominal GDP. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the level of nominal GDP to be just half a percentage point lower in 2021 than it was in 2019. In this light, the notion that earnings next year will be on par with last year’s levels does not seem that farfetched. Moreover, one should also note that health care and technology are highly overrepresented on Wall Street compared to Main Street. Together, they account for 42% of S&P 500 market capitalization. Outside these two sectors, S&P 500 earnings are expected to be 9% lower in 2021 relative to 2019. In any case, the conclusion that the pandemic has increased the fair value of equities would not change much if we were to assume that earnings recover more slowly than anticipated. The red colored bar in Chart 5 shows the impact on the NPV in a scenario where earnings only return to their pre-pandemic trend by 2030: the NPV still rises by 13.5%. Even if we assume that earnings permanently remain 5% below their pre-pandemic forecast, the NPV would still increase by 9.2% (blue colored bar). In order to push down the NPV by a considerable amount, one would need to assume that the pandemic will not only reduce the level of corporate earnings, but it will reduce the growth rate of earnings as well. For example, if the pandemic reduces earnings growth by one percentage point, this would cause the NPV to fall by 7.5% (gray colored bar). Is this a sensible assumption, however? We don’t think so. While the pandemic will reduce capital spending temporarily, it is unlikely to damage the long-term growth rate of either productivity or the labor force, the two key drivers of potential output. Chart 7 shows that even after the Great Depression, per capita income eventually returned to its long-term trend. Chart 7No Clear Evidence That The Great Depression Lowered Long-Term Trend Growth Are Bond Yields Distorted To The Downside? The notion that the pandemic may have increased the fair value of the stock market hinges critically on the view that the discount rate has fallen substantially this year. We will get to the question of what the appropriate level of the equity risk premium should be in a moment, but let us first examine the risk-free component of the discount rate. Many pundits argue that central bank bond purchases have pushed down yields below where they ought to be. That may be true, but it is not clear why that matters. If one is making present value calculations, one should look at the actual bond yield, not the yield that accords with one’s preconception of what is appropriate. Granted, if bond yields were to rise sharply in the future, the present value of future earnings would probably end up falling. However, this is unlikely to occur anytime soon. It will take a while for unemployment to return to pre-pandemic levels, during which time inflation will remain dormant. And even once inflation starts rising, central banks will likely refrain from hiking rates because they have been concerned about excessively low inflation for nearly two decades. Central banks could also face pressure from governments to keep rates low in order to suppress interest costs. As a result, real rates could fall initially, which would be supportive of stocks. The bull market in equities will only end when inflation reaches a level that makes markets nervous that central banks will have to raise rates. This is unlikely to happen for the next three years. The Equity Risk Premium Is More Likely To Fall Than Rise Chart 8Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields As noted above, there are many risks confronting investors. The key question is whether the stock market’s perception of these risks will subside or intensify. If it is the former, the equity risk premium will probably shrink, pushing stocks higher. If it is the latter, stocks will fall. Our bet is on the former. We have already learned a lot about the virus. We will learn even more over the coming months. This should reduce the cone of uncertainty investors are facing. On the economic side, central bank asset purchases, combined with large-scale fiscal stimulus, have reduced the tail risk of another market meltdown. If policy stays supportive for the next few years, as we expect, the equity risk premium will shrink. Starting points matter, too. Globally, the equity risk premium, which we calculate by subtracting the real bond yield from the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield, was quite high at the start of the year and is even higher now (Chart 8). This suggests that investors should favor stocks over bonds.   A Weaker Dollar Will Give Non-US Stocks An Edge The ERP is particularly elevated outside the US. Thus, valuations tend to favor non-US stocks. Of course, it helps to have factors other than valuations on your side when making investment decisions. In the case of regional and sector allocation, the outlook for the US dollar is critical. Chart 9 shows that cyclical stocks tend to outperform defensives when the dollar is weakening, while non-US stocks tend to do better than their US peers. There are five reasons to expect the US dollar to depreciate over the next 12 months. First, as a countercyclical currency, a revival in global growth should hurt the dollar (Chart 10). Second, the US has been harder hit by the virus over the past few months than most other economies. Thus, the spread between overseas growth and US growth is likely to widen more than usual (Chart 11). Chart 9Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Chart 10A Revival In Global Growth Should Hurt The Dollar Chart 11The Dollar Will Also Weaken On The Widening Gap Between Overseas Growth And US Growth Chart 12Interest Rate Differentials No Longer Favor The Dollar Third, interest rate differentials no longer favor the dollar, now that the Fed has brought rates down to zero (Chart 12). Fourth, momentum is not on the greenback’s side anymore (Chart 13). Fifth, the dollar is expensive based on measures such as purchasing power parity exchange rates (Chart 14). Chart 13Momentum Is Not On The Greenback’s Side   The right trade over the past few years was to be long the dollar and overweight US stocks. It is time to flip this trade and do the opposite. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 14USD Is Not Cheap Footnotes 1  An IMF analysis of the use of funds of listed companies found that only about one fifth of the increase in corporate cash since the adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was used for capex and R&D. The rest was utilized for share buybacks, dividend payouts, and other activities. The same study also noted that actual GDP and business investment growth in 2018 fell short of the predicted impact of the TCJA based on empirical studies of postwar US tax changes. Please see Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, "U.S. Investment Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017," IMF Working Paper, May 31, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Table 1 Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy’s 55% odds for the "Blue Wave" scenario. Therefore, it pays to examine what will be the likely impact of a blue wave on the US stock market. Specifically, Biden is planning to increase the US corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and possibly even higher. In our most recent Special Report, we have conducted a similar exercise to the one we did in late-2017, when we calculated a one time boost to S&P 500 EPS due to Trump’s tax cut. This time, however, we reversed the calculation to compute by how much S&P 500 EPS are likely to fall should Biden raise the corporate tax rate. Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. For more information, please refer to our most recent Special Report discussing Biden and his policies’ likely effects on the US stock market.  

Special Report

Dear Client, Next Monday, July 20, we will be hosting our quarterly webcast, one at 10am EST for our US and EMEA clients and one at 9pm for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our regular weekly publication will resume on Monday July 27, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. A Biden presidency would lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. Democrats would remove the Senate filibuster. Yet the macro agenda is reflationary. A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps. While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Feature Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our “Blue Wave” scenario for the US election this year. The odds are closer to 50%-55% than 35%. Hence the equity market, especially the NASDAQ, is complacent about rising political risks to US equity sectors (Chart 1). The immediate risk to the rally is not politics but the pandemic, namely the COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, which is causing governors of major states like Texas, California, and Florida to slow down the economic reopening. The US’s failure to limit the spread of the virus has not yet led to a spike in deaths in aggregate, but it is leading to a spike in major states like Texas and Florida (Chart 2). Deaths are ultimately what matter to politicians and financial markets, since governments will not shut down all of society for less-than-lethal ailments. Fear will weigh on consumer and business confidence, including fear of a deadly second wave this winter. Near-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. Chart 1Blue Wave Expected, Equities Unconcerned Chart 2COVID-19 Outbreak Still A Risk Beyond this risk, the driver of the cyclical rally is the gargantuan monetary and fiscal stimulus – and more is on the way. President Trump wants another $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, while House Democrats already passed a $3 trillion package to demonstrate their election platform that government should take a greater role in American life. Senate Republicans (and reportedly Vice President Mike Pence) want a smaller $1 trillion bill but will capitulate in the face of a growing outbreak and any financial turmoil. Congress is highly likely to pass a new relief bill before going on recess on August 10. If COVID-19 causes another swoon in financial markets and the economy, then this congressional timeline will accelerate. America’s total fiscal stimulus for 2020 is rapidly approaching 20% of GDP, or 7% of global GDP (Chart 3). Thus it is understandable that the market has not reacted negatively to an impending blue wave election. Bipartisan reflation is overwhelming the Democratic Party’s market-negative agenda of re-regulation, tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, energy curbs, price caps, and anti-trust probes. Moreover the Democrats’ agenda also includes social and infrastructure spending, cheap immigrant labor, and less hawkish trade policy ex-China, which are all reflationary. Chart 3US Stimulus Greater Than Global – And Rising In short, over the next year, the US is not lurching from massive stimulus to a mid-term election that imposes budget controls and “austerity,” as occurred in 2010, but rather from massive stimulus to a likely Democratic sweep that will be fiscally profligate (Charts 4A & 4B). After all, Democrats are openly flirting with modern monetary theory. Chart 4ADeficits Would Soar Under Democrats Chart 4BDemocrats Would Be Ultra-Dovish On Fiscal Debt monetization is the big change, regardless of the election, which makes investors cyclically bullish. China is also bound to provide massive fiscal-and-credit stimulus because its first recession since the 1970s is threatening the Communist Party’s source of legitimacy (Chart 5). The European Union is uniting under a banner of joint debt issuance to fend off deflation. Bottom Line: Near-term risks to the exuberant post-lockdown rally abound, but the cyclical view remains constructive due to the ultimate policymaker stimulus put. Chart 5China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps Pre-Election Volatility And Post-Election Equity Returns Volatility normally rises ahead of US elections and it could linger in the aftermath given extreme polarization and the risk of vote recounts, contested results, Supreme Court interventions, and refusals by either candidate to concede. This is a concern in the short run but not the long run. US equities will grind higher over the long run regardless of the election outcome. Stocks normally rise by 10% in the 12 months after a presidential election that yields single-party control, though the upside is smaller and the initial downside is bigger than is the case with a gridlocked government (Chart 6, top panel). In cases of gridlock – which is virtually assured if Trump wins – the equity pullback after the election is just as deep but tends to be later in coming. On average stocks rise by the same amount after 12 months in either case (Chart 6, bottom panel). Thus political risks are primarily relevant in their regional or sectoral effects, though investors should take note that a Democratic sweep probably limits next year’s upside. Chart 6Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep There are two likely scenarios. The first is the risk that President Trump makes a historic comeback and wins re-election, with Republicans retaining the Senate. Subjectively we put Trump’s odds at 35% though our quantitative model suggests they could be as high as 44%. The second scenario is our base case that the Democratic Party wins the Senate as well as the White House. In this scenario, the Democrats will prove more left-wing and anti-corporate than the market currently expects. Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. However, history shows that a clean sweep limits the market’s upside risk. And full Democratic rule entails major political risks that have a regional and sectoral character. Biden And The Blue Wave Our expectation of a blue sweep is not based only in polling – which is uniformly disastrous for Trump as we go to press – but in the surge in unemployment. The basis for investors to view Biden as a risk-on candidate is driven by the macro and market views outlined above, not political fundamentals. From the political point of view, Biden may prefer to govern as a centrist, but victory in the Senate would remove constraints on his party’s domestic agenda. He would move to the left. Indeed, a Democratic sweep would mark a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy that is negative for corporate profits and the capital share of national income. It would unleash pent-up ideological and generational forces in favor of redistributing wealth and restructuring the economy. Progressivism would have the tendency to overshoot and create negative surprises for investors (Chart 7). Unlike 2008-10, when Republicans were last out of power, Republicans this time would be divided over Trump and populism and would be unlikely to recuperate as quickly. Chart 7Democratic Party Would Focus On Inequality Biden would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration, promoting Big Government while restricting Big Business and re-regulating Wall Street banks. A sharp leftward turn would be in keeping with the trend in the Democratic Party and the generational shift in the electorate (Chart 8). Only if Republicans pull off a surprise and keep the Senate despite losing the White House (~10% chance) would Biden be forced to govern as a true centrist. Even then Biden would oversee a large re-regulation of the economy through executive powers alone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Generational Shift Favors Wealth Redistribution Chart 9Biden Would Re-Regulate The Economy Additional reasons to expect a left-wing policy overshoot:  · Presidents tend to succeed in passing their initial legislative priority after an election. This is incontrovertible when they control both chambers of Congress, as Obama showed in 2009 and Trump showed in 2017.2 · Biden will have huge tailwinds. He will not be launching a new agenda so much as restoring a policy status quo in most cases (laws and agreements that Trump either revoked or refused to enforce). He will also benefit from majority popular opinion and support of the bureaucracy and media (Chart 10). · Biden and the Democrats will be even more determined not to “let a good crisis go to waste” after having witnessed the Obama administration’s frustrations the last time the party took over in a sweeping victory on the back of a national disaster. · Democrats will not hesitate to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their first priority legislation with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. This is how Trump passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). This is also how progressive stalwart Howard Dean believed the party should have passed a public health insurance option in 2009. This means Biden will be capable of increasing the corporate tax rate higher than 28%, pass a minimum 15% tax rate for corporations, and raise the capital gains tax and individual taxes. Chart 10Popular Opinion Would Boost Biden Administration · Contrary to consensus, Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster in the Senate – enabling bills to pass with a simple majority rather than the 60/100 votes required to close off debate. Yes, some moderate Democrats have already spoken out against “going nuclear” and changing such a critical norm. But populism and polarization are the driving forces in US politics today and we would advise investors not to bet heavily on “norms.” If Republicans prove capable of obstructing major legislative initiatives in the Senate, then Democrats, remembering obstructionism in the Obama years, will go nuclear to enact their progressive agenda. This would mark a massive increase in uncertainty for investors on everything from taxes to wages to anti-trust laws. Bottom Line: Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. If Republicans are obstructionist, Democrats will remove the filibuster. Biden’s Legislative Priorities First, Biden would seek to restore and expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The party has fixated on health care since 1992. Investors are complacent about Biden’s plan. A public health insurance option will be a major new progressive initiative that would undercut private health insurers over time (Chart 11). The bill will also impose caps on pharmaceutical prices and allow imports, reducing Big Pharma’s pricing power (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Insurers Will Be Undercut By Biden Public Option Investors are also complacent about taxation. Biden will pay for health care reform by partially repealing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. He has proposed raising the corporate rate from 21% to 28%, but this could go higher and still fall well below the 35% that Trump inherited in 2017. Chart 12Big Pharma Faces Price Caps A rate above 28% would be a major negative surprise for financial markets and yet it is an obvious way for Democrats to raise much-needed revenue. Biden also intends to pass a 15% minimum tax that would hit large firms adept at paying lower effective taxes. Capital gains taxes and individual income taxes for high-earners could also rise by more than is expected (Table A1 in Appendix). Second, Biden will seek to offset the negative growth impact of falling stimulus and rising taxes by enacting large “Great Society” fiscal spending on infrastructure, the Green New Deal, education, and other non-defense discretionary spending (Table A2 in Appendix). Even defense spending will be largely kept flat due to rising geopolitical conflicts. As mentioned, this part of the agenda is reflationary, especially relative to a scenario in which fiscal largesse is normalized more rapidly by a Republican Senate. The redistribution effects would be marginally positive for household consumption, but marginally negative for corporate investment. On immigration, Biden will follow the Obama administration in pursuing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” (illegal immigrants brought to the US as children) and taking executive action to allow more high-skilled workers and refugees, defer deportation of children and families, and reduce border security enforcement. There will be some constraints due to the risk of provoking another populist backlash, but comprehensive immigration reform is possible. This would be positive for potential GDP, agriculture, construction, and housing demand on the margin (Chart 13). On trade, Biden will have to steal some thunder back from Trump if he is to win the election and maintain the Rust Belt. He will concentrate his protectionist policy on China, while removing virtually all risk of a trade war with Europe, Mexico, or other partners. China may get a reprieve at first but Biden will ultimately prove hawkish (Chart 14). Investors are underrating the use of import duties to punish countries like China for carbon-intensive production. Chart 13Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden will take a multilateral approach and restore international agreements that Trump revoked. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not a massive change given that even Trump agreed to trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and Japan. But it is marginally positive for the US-friendly trade bloc while contributing to the US economic decoupling from China (Chart 15). Chart 14Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Chart 15Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China On foreign policy, Biden will face the ongoing US-China cold war. He will also seek to restore the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The removal of Iran risk is positive for European companies with a beachhead in Iran as well as for the euro more generally, since regional instability ultimately threatens the EMU with waves of refugees (Chart 16). Chart 16Biden Removes Tail-Risk Of Iran War Bottom Line: A Biden presidency will lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. But Biden’s agenda is mostly reflationary in other respects. Blue Wave Equity Market And Sector Implications The most profound implication of a blue sweep of government is an SPX profit margin squeeze that will weigh heavily on EPS. Importantly, there are two clear avenues through which net profit margins will suffer: An increase in the corporate tax rate. A rise in labor’s share of national income. As a reminder these are two of the four primary profit margin drivers we discussed in detail in our “Peak Margins” Special Report last October (Chart 17). The other two are selling price inflation and generationally low interest rates. Odds are high that all four drivers are slated to dent S&P 500 margins. With regard to corporate tax rates, the mirror image of the one time fillip that SPX EPS enjoyed in 2018, owing to Trump’s 1.2% increase in fiscal thrust that year, is a drop in S&P 500 profits given that a Biden presidency will boost the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% or higher. In early-December 2017 we posited that SPX EPS would jump 14% on the back of that fiscal easing package, which is very close to what actually materialized. Chart 18 compares S&P 500 EBIT growth with S&P 500 net profit growth. The 2018 delta hit a zenith of 16%. Chart 17Profit Margin Drivers Chart 18Spot Trump's Tax Cut Assuming a blue wave, the opposite would happen, i.e. net profit growth would suffer an 11% one-time contraction according to our calculations (Table 1). The bill would pass in 2021 and take effect in 2022. Importantly, Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table The second way SPX margins undergo a squeeze is via climbing labor costs. Labor costs have been increasing since 2008/09 (labor’s share of income shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17), coinciding with the apex of globalization (third panel, Chart 17). A Biden presidency would also more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers over six years. These policies would take a bite out of corporate profits by knocking down profit margins. While S&P 500 EPS maybe recover back to trend near $162 in 2021, they would gap lower in 2022 which is not at all priced in sell side analysts’ EPS expectations of $186. A blue sweep would produce some other US equity sore spots. Small caps would suffer disproportionately compared with their large cap brethren as would banks, health care, and parts of tech (see below). Chart 19 shows that according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners grew extremely concerned about higher taxes and red tape by the end of the Obama presidency. When President Trump got elected, he cut back these fears drastically. Today concerns about taxes and regulation are probing multi-decade lows, which implies that SMEs are not prepared for the regulatory shock that a Biden administration has in store for them (Chart 19). These small business concerns will resurface with a vengeance if there is a blue sweep this November. The implication is that at the margin small caps would underperform their large cap peers, especially given that small cap indexes sport 1.5x the financials sector market cap weight compared with the SPX (Table 2). Bottom Line: A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps as they will have to vehemently contend with rising red tape and taxes. Chart 19Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Historical Parallel Of Blue Sweeps And Select Sector Performance A more detailed discussion on banks, health care, and technology sectors is in order, as they are the likeliest candidates to be at the forefront of Biden’s regulatory, wage, and tax policies. There are two recent episodes when US presidential elections resulted in a blue sweep, namely in 1992 and 2008. Both times, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House but eventually surrendered this trifecta two years later during the 1994 and 2010 mid-term elections.3 Charts 20 & 21highlight the S&P banks, S&P health care, and S&P IT sectors’ performance during the last two blue waves. In both cases, banks remained flat to down; health care equities went down sharply; while tech stocks had mixed results. Tech took off in 1993-1994, but remained flat in 2009-2010 (excluding the recovery rally off the recessionary trough). Armed with this general roadmap, we now dive deeper into each of these three sectors for a more detailed discussion. Chart 20Not Everyone Is A Fan... Chart 21...Of The Blue Sweeps Banks Face High Risk Of Re-Regulation There is little doubt that Biden will re-regulate Wall Street, especially after the recent COVID-19-related watering down of the Dodd-Frank Act. Big banks are popular scapegoats. In fact, Biden already moved to the left on bankruptcy reform by adopting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s progressive proposal after a long drawn-out battle over this issue between them. Both of the earlier blue wave elections proved challenging for the banking sector. In addition, banks are already under pressure from the recent Fed stress tests. There are high odds that a number of banks will further cut or suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance, especially if profits take a big hit, as we expect. Currently, the market is underestimating the Biden threat to the banking sector as a substantial divergence has materialized between the banks’ relative performance and the blue sweep probability series (Chart 22). As the election draws closer, a repricing in the banking sector is likely looming. Chart 22Mind The Divergence Health Care Stands To Lose The Most From A Blue Sweep The health care sector was the only sector we analyzed that clearly underperformed in both 1992 and 2008 blue waves. Health care reform will be Biden’s top priority, as outlined above. Biden will also go after pharma manufacturers. As a reminder, while Medicare has substantial bargaining power with hospitals and other drug providers due to the number of Americans enrolled, it has no leverage when it comes to pharma manufacturers leaving them free to set prices at will. Biden intends to end such practices, enabling Medicare to bargain for prices. He also wants to link the rise in drug prices to inflation and allow foreign imports. These actions will put a cap on pharma manufacturers’ pricing power. Importantly, the S&P pharmaceuticals index is the dominant player within the S&P health care universe comprising 29% of the entire health care sector. A direct hit to pharma earnings will be a hard pill to swallow, especially if the S&P biotech index (comprising 17% of the S&P health care market cap weight) is included that are similar to Big Pharma as they manufacture blockbuster drugs. In fact, as the American electorate is getting more interested in Biden’s campaign, the market is pricing in a tougher environment for US pharmaceuticals (Chart 23). Markets can rely on the fact that Biden has rejected a single-payer government health system (“Medicare For All”) – this policy position helped him beat Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. However, he is proposing a public insurance option, which will have the ability to absorb losses indefinitely and will have the insurance regulators at its side. Thus private health insurers will be undercut. Chart 23Beginning Of The End A public option is also seen even by promoters as a “Trojan Horse” that will increase the odds that Democrats will move toward a single-payer system in 2024 or thereafter. Thus the risk/reward ratio skews further to the downside for the S&P health care sector. Will Technology Escape Unscathed? In the wake of COVID-19, and facing geopolitical competition in cyber space, a Biden administration will also seek a much stronger regulatory handle on Big Tech. Social media companies are already buttering up to the Democrats to ensure that Biden maintains the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley and does not pursue extensive anti-monopoly and anti-trust investigations. Yet the tech sector cannot avoid heightened scrutiny due to its conspicuous gains in the midst of an economic bust – this is what normally prompts anti-trust actions (Chart 24). The Democrats will pursue probes into data privacy and excessive market concentration and will demand stricter patrolling of the ideological space in battles that will be adjudicated by the courts. Chart 24How Much Is Too Much? Should the monopolistic tech stocks – including FB and GOOGL, which are now classified under the GICS1 S&P communication services index – be forced to sell their crown jewel assets, then a hit to earnings is a given. The S&P technology sector plus FB & GOOGL commands more than one third on the SPX index, meaning that a dent in tech earnings will have negative ramifications for the entire market. In previous research, we drew a parallel with the chemicals industry and the regulatory shock that came in 1976 when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was introduced.The bill pushed chemical stocks off the cliff as investments in the index became dead money for a whole decade – until 1985 when chemicals finally troughed (Chart 25) In the near future, a similar shock might come as a result of privacy-related regulation. A series of anti-monopoly or anti-trust probes, whether by the US or the EU, would make investors cautious about their tech exposure. While the probes may not result in a break-up, the heightened uncertainty would dampen the allure of tech stocks. The pattern of anti-trust probes in US history is that a probe first causes a selloff in the stock of the company investigated; then another selloff occurs when it is clear that a break-up is a real option under consideration; then a buying opportunity emerges either when the company is cleared or when the long dissolution process is completed. Bottom Line: While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Chart 25Will History Rhyme?     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten YearsTable A2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years   Footnotes 1     Republicans have 13 Senate seats at risk this cycle while Democrats have only four. More conservatively, Republicans have nine at risk while Democrats have two. Opinion polling has Democrats leading in seven out of nine top races, and tied in the other two – including states like Kansas where Democrats should have zero chance. Most of these races are tight enough that they will hinge on whether the election is a referendum on Trump. If so, Democrats will likely win the net three seats they need to control the chamber. Most likely they will have a 51-49 majority if Biden wins, though a 52-48 balance is possible.   2     The Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017 but success in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reflects the fact that political constraints are higher on taking away an entitlement than they are on giving benefits (tax cuts). 3    As noted above, however, investors today cannot be assured that Republicans will come roaring back in 2022 to impose constraints. Trump’s populism threatens to divide the party if he loses and delay its ability to regroup and recover.  

Feature Over the last several years when I travelled to Europe, I would meet with Ms. Mea, an outspoken client of the Emerging Markets Strategy service. We have published our conversations with Ms. Mea in the past and this semi-annual series has complemented our regular reports. She has challenged our views and convictions, serving as a voice for many other clients. In addition, these conversations have highlighted nuances of our analysis, for her and to the benefit of our readers. With travel restrictions in force, this time we had to resort to an online meeting with Ms. Mea. Below are the key parts of our conversation from earlier this week. Ms. Mea: Let’s begin with your main thesis, which over the past several years has been as follows: China’s growth drives EM business cycles and financial markets overall. Indeed, as long as China’s growth dithers, EM growth and asset prices languish. However, since the pandemic started China has stimulated aggressively and there are clear signs that the economy is recovering. The latest surge in Chinese share prices confirms that a robust recovery is underway. Why do you not think China’s economy is on the upswing? Answer: True, we believe China’s business cycle is instrumental to EM economies’ growth and balance of payments. We upgraded our outlook for Chinese growth in our May 28 report as the National People’s Congress set the objective for monetary policy in 2020 to significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth as well as both private and public credit have accelerated since April and will continue to increase (Chart I-1). Domestic orders have also surged though export orders are still languishing (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating Chart I-2China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones     That said, financial markets, including the ones leveraged to China, have run ahead of fundamentals and a pullback is overdue. We have been waiting for such a setback to turn more positive on EM risk assets and currencies. Further, the snapback in business activity following the lockdown should not be confused with an economic expansion. As economies around the world reopened, business activity was bound to improve. Were any asset markets priced to reflect months or a whole year of closures? Even at the nadir of the global equity selloff in late March, we do not think risk assets were priced for extended lockdowns. The Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the nearterm outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. In our view, the rally in global stocks and commodities has been much stronger than is warranted by the near-term economic conditions in a majority of economies around the world. In short, we have not been surprised at all by the economic data that has emerged since economies have reopened, but we have been perplexed by the markets’ response to these data. Even in China, which is ahead of all other countries in regards to the reopening and normalization of business activity, the level and thrust of economic activity remains worrisome. Specifically: China's manufacturing PMI new orders and the backlog of orders sub-components remain below the neutral 50 line (Chart I-3). The imports subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI has shown signs of peaking below the 50 line, portending a risk to industrial metals prices (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 Chart I-4A Yellow Flag For Commodities   Marginal propensity to spend for both enterprises and households continues to trend lower (Chart I-5). These gauge the willingness of consumers and companies to spend and, hence, reflect the multiplier effect of the stimulus. These indicators contend that the multiplier so far remains low/weak. Finally, with the exception of new economy stocks (such as Ali-Baba and Tencent) that have been exceptionally strong worldwide, Chinese share prices leveraged to capital expenditure and consumer discretionary spending had not been particularly strong before last week, as illustrated in Chart I-6.  Chart I-5Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart I-6Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones In a nutshell, the Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the near-term outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. As to EM risk assets, the key risk to our stance is a FOMO-driven rally buoyed by the “visible hand” of governments. Ms. Mea: What is your interpretation of the latest policy push in China for higher share prices? Is it also a part of the “visible hand” of government? Don’t you think this could create another strong multi-month run like it did in early 2015? Answer: Yes, this is one of many instances of the “visible hand” of governments around the world. It is not clear why Beijing is boosting investor sentiment and explicitly promoting higher share prices given how badly similar efforts in 2015 ultimately ended. At the moment, we can only speculate that one or several of the following reasons are behind this move: Beijing is preparing for an escalation in the US-China geopolitical confrontation ahead of the US presidential elections. This latter is highly probable in our opinion.1 To limit the impact of this confrontation on their economy, they want to ensure that the stock market remains in an uptrend. The same can be said for the US authorities. Apparently, the “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Robust equity markets will become a prominent feature of the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. In the long run, however, this is a very negative phenomenon for the world because the two of the largest and most prominent stock markets could increasingly be driven by the “visible hand” of their governments rather than by fundamentals. As a result, equity markets could regularly send wrong price signals and will no longer serve as an efficient mechanism of capital allocation. Chart I-7Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Beijing has been luring foreign investors to buy onshore stocks and bonds and this strategy has become more vital in expectation of an escalation in the US-China confrontation. Chart I-7 shows that net inflows into onshore stocks and bonds have been surging. The more US investors buy into mainland markets, the more these investors will exercise pressure on the current and future US administrations to go soft on China. Like those US companies relying on Chinese demand, large US investment funds will have a notable exposure to Chinese financial markets and will accordingly lobby the White House and Congress to take a less adversarial stance toward China. This will reduce the maneuvering room of US politicians in this geopolitical confrontation. Finally, it is also possible that these latest media reports encouraging a bull market in China were not initiated by leaders in Beijing but were in fact spurred by mid-level bureaucrats. If that is the case, a full-blown mania akin to the one in 2015 will not be repeated and the latest frenzy surrounding Chinese stocks could end up being the final surge before a correction sets in. In brief, Chinese stocks, like other bourses worldwide, are in a FOMO-driven mania that might last for a while. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we reiterate our overweight stance on Chinese equities within the EM benchmark. Also, we have a strong conviction with respect to the merits of a long Chinese/short Korean stocks trade. Both these positions were initiated on June 18 before the latest surge in Chinese stocks. The “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Ms. Mea: What will it take for you to go long EM risk assets and currencies in absolute terms? Answer: EM equities, credit markets and currencies are driven by three, or more recently four, factors. We need to witness or foresee an imminent improvement in three out of four of these to go outright long. These factors include: (1) China’s business cycle and its impact on EM via global trade; (2) each individual EM country’s domestic fundamentals (inflation/deflation, balance of payments, return on capital, domestic economic cycles, monetary and fiscal policies, health of the banking system, domestic politics, etc.); (3) global risk-on and risk-off cycles that drive portfolio flows into EM. The direction of the S&P500 is an important trendsetter for these risk-on and risk-off cycles; (4) swings in geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. The first element – China’s impact on EM – is becoming positive. There could be a minor setback in mainland business cycles in the near term, but this should be used as a buying opportunity. As to structural problems in China like credit/money and property bubbles as well as the misallocation of capital, ongoing money and credit growth acceleration will fill in holes and kick the can down the road. That said, those structural problems will become even more challenging in the years to come. In short, Beijing is making credit, money and property bubbles even bigger. The second factor – domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – remain downbeat. The COVID-19 outbreak has been out of control in a number of EM economies (Chart I-8). In addition, outside of China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in DM economies. Critically, the monetary transmission mechanism has been broken in several developing economies. In particular, central banks’ rate cuts have not translated to lower lending rates in real terms (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies Chart I-9Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   The basis is two-fold: First, banks saddled with non-performing loans are reluctant to bring down their lending rates and lend more; and second, the considerable decline in EM inflation has pushed up real lending rates (Chart I-9). The third variable driving EM financial markets – the S&P 500 – remains at risk of a material setback. If the S&P drops more than 10 or 15%, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets will also sell off markedly. Finally, there is the fourth aspect of the EM view – geopolitics – which could be critical in the coming months. The US-China confrontation will likely heighten leading up to the US elections. This will likely involve North and South Korea and Taiwan. Chart I-10EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies Chinese investable stocks as well as Korean and Taiwanese equities altogether make up 65% of the MSCI EM benchmark. Hence, a flareup in geopolitical tensions will weigh on these three bourses. Outside these markets, EM share prices and currencies have already rolled over (Chart I-10). In sum, out of the four factors listed above only the Chinese business cycle warrants an upgrade on overall EM. The other three drivers of the EM view are still negative. This keeps us on the sidelines for now. Importantly, we have been gradually moving our investment strategy from bearish to neutral on EM. Specifically, we: Took profits on the long EM currencies volatility trade on March 5. Took large profits on the long gold / short oil and copper trade on March 11. Booked gains on the short position in EM stocks on March 19. Recommended receiving long-term (10-year) swap rates (or buying local currency bonds while hedging the exchange rate risk) in many EMs on April 23. Upgraded EM sovereign credit from underweight and booked profits on our short EM corporate and sovereign credit / long US investment grade bonds strategy on June 4. The only asset class where we have not yet closed our shorts is EM currencies. In fact, we now recommend shifting our short in EM currencies (BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, PHP and IDR) from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: What is the rationale behind switching your short positions in EM currencies against the US dollar to short positions versus the Swiss franc, the euro and Japanese yen? Wouldn’t the selloff in global stocks drive the greenback higher? Answer: We have been bullish on the US dollar since 2011, consistent with our negative view on EM and commodities prices and recommendation of favoring the S&P 500 versus EM. What is making us question this strategy are the following, in order of importance: First, the Federal Reserve is monetizing US public and some private debt. The amount of US dollars is surging. Meanwhile, the pace of broad money supply growth is much more timid in the euro area, Switzerland and Japan. Broad money growth is 23% in the US, 9% in the euro area, 2.5% in Switzerland, 5% in Japan and 11% in China. This will reduce investors’ willingness to hold dollars as a store of value, incentivizing them to switch to other DM currencies. Second, the pandemic is out of control in the US and this will damage its near-term growth outlook. More fiscal stimulus and more debt monetization will be required to revive the economy. Third, the Fed will not hike interest rates even if inflation rises well above their 2% target in the next several years. This implies that the Fed will prefer to be behind the inflation curve in the years to come, which is bearish for the greenback. Finally, the yen and the euro as well as EM currencies are cheaper than the US dollar (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap Chart I-12EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap     The broad trade-weighted US dollar has yet to break down as per the top panel of Chart I-13, but we are becoming nervous about it. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: That is interesting. Has there ever been an episode where the US dollar depreciated while the S&P 500 sold off? Answer: Yes, it occurred in late 2007 and H1 2008. The 2007-08 bear market in global stocks can be split into two periods. During the initial phase of that bear market, the US dollar depreciated substantially despite the drawdowns in global equity and credit markets (Chart I-14, top and middle panels). Chart I-13Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market   EM stocks performed in line with DM ones during the first phase (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The economic backdrop was characterized by the US recession and US banks tightening credit. In fact, EM growth was still robust during that phase even though the US economy was shrinking. Remarkably, commodities prices were surging – oil reached $140 per a barrel and copper $4 per ton in June 2008. The second phase of that bear market commenced in autumn of 2008 when Lehman went bust. The orderly bear market in global stocks gave way to an acute phase – a crash in all global risk assets. Business activity collapsed worldwide and the US dollar surged. In the current cycle, the order will likely be the reverse of the 2007-08 bear market. March 2020 witnessed a crash in global risk assets and the global economy plunged similar to the second phase of the 2007-08 bear market while the US dollar surged. The second stage of this recession could resemble the first phase of the 2007-08 bear market. There will be neither worldwide lockdowns nor a crash in business activity. However, the level of activity might struggle to recover as rapidly as markets have priced in or there might be relapses in economic conditions in certain parts of the world. This is especially true for the US and other countries where the pandemic has not been effectively contained. On the whole, the second downleg in the S&P 500 and global stocks will be less dramatic but could last for a while and still be meaningful (more than 10-15%). Critically, unlike the March 2020 selloff, the greenback will likely struggle during this episode for the reasons we outlined above. Ms. Mea: What about overweighting EM equities and credit versus their DM peers? Will EM equities, credit and currencies underperform their DM peers in the potential selloff that you expect? Wouldn’t USD weakness help EM risk assets to outperform even in a broad risk selloff? Answer: Yes, we can see a scenario where EM stocks and credit markets perform in line or better than their DM peers in a potential selloff. The key is the dollar’s dynamics. If the dollar rebounds, EM stocks and credit markets will underperform their DM counterparts. If the dollar weakens during this selloff, EM stocks and credit will likely perform in line with or better than their DM peers. In sum, a technical breakdown in the broad trade-weighted dollar and a breakout in the emerging Asian currency index – both shown in Chart I-13 – would lead us to upgrade our EM allocation in both global equity and credit portfolios. For now, we are only switching our shorts in EM currencies from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Ms. Mea: What are some of your other current observations on financial markets? Answer: The breadth and thrust of this global equity rally has already peaked and is weakening. It is just a matter of time before a narrowing breadth translates into lower aggregate stock indexes for both EM and DM equities as illustrated by our advance-decline lines in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over Chart I-16Cyclicals And High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Consistently, there has already been a decoupling between various sectors and industries. The rally has been solely focused on tech and new economy stocks. Equity prices in China and Taiwan have been surging while the rest of the EM equity index has been languishing. In the DM equity space, global industrials, US high-beta stocks and micro caps have already rolled over (Chart I-16). Further, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency index is flashing red for EM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-17A Red Flag For EM Equities? Chart I-18Long Gold / Short Stocks Finally, EM share prices have outperformed DM stocks since late May mostly due to the sharp rally in Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Hence, the breadth of EM equity outperformance has been subdued. Ms. Mea: To wrap up our conversation, I want to ask you what is your strongest conviction trade for the coming months? Answer: Our strongest conviction trade is long gold / short global or EM stocks (Chart I-18). This trade will do well regardless of the direction of global share prices, the US dollar, and bond yields. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Watch Out For A Second Wave (Of US-China Frictions)," dated June 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations