Banks

Special Report

Dear Client, I am on vacation this week. Instead of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan explores the risks posed to commercial real estate and the banking system from work from home policies and the potential for urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Despite pronouncements that the “office is dead,” there are several arguments against the idea that working from home policies or urban flight will become broad-based and spell disaster for commercial real estate loans and the economy. However, the reality is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. Within the US, small banks clearly have more commercial real estate loan exposure than large banks. Applying the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) to small US banks highlights that roughly 2/3rds of small banks might need to raise capital in the scenario modeled by the Fed, underscoring that forbearance and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses. Incorporating outsized, Work From Home (WFH)-driven CRE loan losses into our test of small banks highlights that WFH policies may act as a moderate “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur. But it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. To the extent that the “white flight” phenomenon of the 1950s to 1970s is a reasonable historical analogue for large-scale urban flight today, the experience of Michigan in the 1960s suggests that it would not likely cause widespread problems in the housing market and/or systemic stress in the banking system. But even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or health & safety concerns, there are some concerning parallels to the severe decay and decline of the city of Detroit that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities if not prevented by policymakers. This could spur large-scale urban flight for reasons unrelated to WFH policies. The possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. We expect large bank outperformance at some point over the coming year, reinforcing our positive stance towards value over growth. Feature Chart 1Rising CRE Prices And Deteriorating Fundamentals, Even Before The Pandemic Concern had already been growing among investors over the past few years about the potentially systemic implications of a possible crash in sky-high US commercial real estate (CRE) prices. Chart 1 highlights that overall CRE prices have doubled over the past decade, which has occurred alongside falling real rents (and thus deteriorating fundamentals) in most CRE subcategories. But the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new risks for US CRE that many investors view as potentially acute. CMBS delinquency rates surged in May and June (but fell in July), led by accommodation and retail properties. And while multifamily and office delinquencies have so far remained low, many investors have questioned whether this can continue if recently enacted work from home policies become permanent and “urban flight” towards less populated and more affordable areas durably takes hold in major US cities. In this report we focus on the issue of WFH policies, the potential for urban flight, and the risk that these factors may pose to the CRE loans of small domestically-chartered US banks (sometimes informally referred to as “community banks”). There are arguments for and against the idea that work from home policies and/or migration out of city centers will have an extremely negative impact on office properties, but the truth is that it is currently a risk of largely unknown magnitude. It is not likely to be positive for owners of office properties, but it is yet unclear how negative it will be. As a result, we address the question as a “what if?” scenario, by stress testing small bank balance sheets. We conclude that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risks facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. Did COVID-19 Really Kill The Office? Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well In mid-to-late March, COVID-19 was spreading rapidly in industrialized economies. Following recommended or mandatory stay at home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to WFH arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay at home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by WFH arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved (Chart 2). These findings led many in the business community to conclude that WFH policies are not, in fact, emergency measures that will ultimately be reversed and instead reflect the “new normal” for work. The arrangement ostensibly appears to be a win-win scenario for workers and firms: Employees save time and money not commuting to the office and gain more control over their work schedules, and businesses save money on the rental or purchase of office space. The conclusion for many in the marketplace has thus been that “the office is dead,” with the focus shifting to the potential investment implications. When thinking about the potential consequences that permanent and widespread WFH options may have, there are two distinct issues that must be considered. The first is the degree to which these policies will push up office property vacancy rates, and the second is whether the availability of WFH policies will cause significant urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. On the margin, we agree that both events will occur at least to some degree, and thus are likely to be highly unwelcome developments for owners of prime central business district real estate. This is in line with the conclusions of a recent Special Report by my colleague Garry Evans.1 But there are at least a few arguments against the idea that these trends will occur en masse, or that they will spell economic disaster on their own: While surveys show that many employees expect to continue to work remotely after the pandemic ends, these results likely reflect the desire to retain some flexibility afforded by WFH policies. In terms of office property utilization, there is a large difference between an employee never working from an office again and permanently working from home one day per week, and many surveys that have been conducted on the topic are not structured to distinguish between the two. Surveys that specifically ask how long employees expect it will take for them to return to the office and that include “never” as a possible answer imply a considerably lower impact on office space utilization than other surveys would suggest (Chart 3). If the percentage of never-returning workers shown in Chart 3 (5%-7%) is accurate and maps closely to the expected rise in the office vacancy rate, Chart 4 highlights that the corresponding increase in vacancy would not be unprecedented: It rose from roughly 8% in 2000 to 17% in 2003, without causing a disastrous collapse in office property prices (they fell, but not enormously). Today the vacancy rate would be rising from a much higher level than in 2000, but the point is that very significant changes have occurred in the vacancy rate before without substantially destabilizing the office property market. Chart 3Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well For offices that reopen before the end of the pandemic, the need for physical distancing will act to at least somewhat restrain a rise in the vacancy rate over the coming several months, as it implies the need for more physical space per employee rather than less. Chart 4Large, Non-Impactful Rises In The Office Vacancy Rate Have Occurred Before Some surveys suggest that Americans are already starting to change their minds about their desire to move out of the city. In April and early-May, upwards of 35%-40% of people responding to a Harris poll said that the pandemic made them want to live either in a rural area more than 21 miles outside of a major city or a suburb within 10 miles of a major city. As of late-July / early-August, that number had fallen to 26% (Chart 5), with only 9% reporting that it is “very likely.” This suggests that the end or reduction of lockdown measures may have returned a sense of normality for many Americans, and that the ultimate degree of urban flight may end up being considerably smaller than some investors expect. Chart 5Few People Say It Is Very Likely They Will Move Due To COVID-19 Finally, the example set by Facebook in May suggests that employees who wish to work from home permanently and relocate to more affordable areas will experience salary reductions, as part of a plan to “localize employees' compensation.”2 If adopted on a widespread basis among firms offering their employees the option to permanently work from home, localized compensation will very likely erode some of the cost advantages of moving to a cheaper area, and thus is likely to result in even fewer employees choosing permanent WFH arrangements. However, even after considering these arguments, the bottom line for investors is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19, because it hinges both on the evolution/resolution of the pandemic as well as potentially ephemeral human sentiment and behavior – both of which are extraordinarily difficult to predict with high accuracy. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. As such, we agree that the chance of a major and lasting shock to the holders of US commercial real estate loans warrants a thorough investigation, focused on its potential to affect the stability of the US financial system. We first present an overview of CRE exposure for all US banks, and then examine in detail the risk facing small domestically-chartered US banks. Reviewing US Bank CRE Exposure Table 1 presents an overview of CRE loan exposure for domestically-chartered US banks from the Fed’s H.8 data release (Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States), as well as a breakdown in exposure for large and small banks. Investors should note that different definitions of “large banks” exist in the US, and in the H.8 release they are defined as the top 25 domestically-chartered banks ranked by domestic assets. Table 1Most US Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Held By Small Banks Table 1 highlights two points. First, while CRE loans account for approximately 13% of total US domestically-chartered bank assets, exposure is clearly more concentrated for smaller banks than for the largest banks. CRE loans account for a full 1/4th of total assets for small banks, compared to just 6% for the top 25 domestic banks. Given this, the focus of our report will be on small rather than large bank exposure to CRE loans. Second, the table makes it clear that loans backed by nonfarm nonresidential structures account for just 2/3rds of total CRE exposure; the remaining exposure is to apartment buildings, construction and land development loans, and farmland. While not shown in Table 1, bank call reports also highlight that 1-4 family residential construction loans are included in the overall construction and land development category, accounting for up to 20% of those loans for small domestically-chartered banks. Chart 6Office Properties Make Up About 40% Of The Value Of Commercial Structures Unfortunately, it is difficult to break down small bank nonfarm nonresidential structure exposure by property type from a top-down perspective. Chart 6 highlights that office properties (including all financial buildings) make up approximately 37% of the current-cost net stock of US nonresidential commercial and health care structures, whereas office loans make up approximately 30%-40% of those included in US commercial mortgage-backed securities. For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that 40% of small domestically-chartered US banks’ nonfarm nonresidential property loans are secured by office properties. Stress Testing Small US Banks The first step in stress testing small US bank CRE exposure is to simply apply the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) that was focused on large banks to the approximately 5,100 small banks in the US. We use Q1 bank call reports (which we use as a pre-COVID benchmark) sourced from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to test the breadth of the impact on small banks, and include essentially all US banks in our list except the top 25 banks by assets (those designated as “large” in the Fed’s H.8 release). The Federal Reserve recently released the 2020 DFAST results, which examined the impact on capital ratios of 33 large US banks in a “severely adverse” economic scenario. The scenario modeled by the Fed resulted in $553 billion in projected losses on loans and other positions for the banks included in the test over a 2-year period, of which $433 billion were from accrual loan portfolios (Table 2). These projected loan losses corresponded to a 6.3% loan portfolio loss rate; for comparison, Chart 7 highlights that this would represent even higher losses than what occurred during the worst two-year period following the global financial crisis (Q1 2009 – Q4 2010) by roughly one percentage point. Table 2The Fed’s Recent Stress Test Modeled A 6.3% Loan Loss Rate Over 2 Years Chart 7The Fed's Main Loss Scenario Is Meaningfully Worse Than What Occurred After 2008 In combination with additional provisioning, these assumed losses caused a 1.8% projected decline in the aggregate tier 1 capital ratio for the 33 firms participating in the stress test – from 13.6% to 11.8% – and a 1.7% projected decline in the common equity tier 1 capital ratio – from 12% to 10.3% (Table 3). While these declines are not trivial, they are far from a disastrous outcome for the US financial system. The capital ratios shown in Table 3 are relative to risk-weighted assets, and it is important to note that the projected change in capital ratios shown do not match the projected loan losses (plus provisioning) as a percent of risk-weighted assets. This is because projected losses are netted out against the banks’ projected pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”) in the Fed’s exercise. In short, while the banks’ capital ratios declined roughly 2% in the DFAST scenario, simulated loan losses amounted to roughly 4% of risk-weighted assets and about 1/3rd of tier 1 common equity capital. Table 3Large Bank Capital Ratios Fell In The Stress Test, But Not Dramatically SoTo avoid the need to project PPNR for thousands of small US banks, we use these loan loss metrics (4% of risk-weighted assets and 33% of tier 1 common equity capital) from the 2020 DFAST to represent whether any individual small bank would likely have to raise capital. We also use the overall portfolio loan loss rate of 6.3% to stress small bank balance sheets, rather than a set of loan loss rates by loan type. Chart 8In The Fed’s Main Stress Test Scenario, Many Small Banks Would Likely Have To Raise Capital Chart 8 illustrates the number of small US banks that would “fail” the stated tier 1 common equity and risk-weighted asset thresholds given the DFAST assumptions. Roughly 64% of small banks would fail the equity test and 94% would fail the risk-weighted assets test. Weighting these results by bank assets rather than the number of banks does not generate a materially different result; instead, 63% and 97% of small bank assets would be held by banks failing the equity and risk-weighted assets tests, respectively. This exercise clearly highlights how much better capitalized large US banks are relative to smaller banks, and underscores that the existing forbearance programs and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses – meaning that while widespread capital raising and the accompanying tightening in lending standards would undoubtedly have a major impact on the economy and capital markets, the solvency of the US banking system is not in question in the scenario modeled by the Fed. Stress Testing Outsized CRE Losses As noted above, we employed the same average loan portfolio loss rate across all loan categories when testing the impact of the DFAST scenario on small banks, including commercial real estate loans. In order to gauge the specific risks facing commercial properties if recent WFH trends persist, we perform two additional exercises. First, we raise CRE loan losses beyond what was assumed in the DFAST scenario (see Box 1) while employing the same 6.3% loan loss rate on all other loan types to measure the incremental WFH effect on small bank balance sheets in a very negative economic scenario. Second, we examine a high CRE loan loss scenario alone, in order to isolate the potential impact of sustained WFH policies. Box 1Simulating Outsized CRE Loan Loss Rates The assumptions detailed in Box 1 result in an overall CRE loan loss estimate of 11.1%, versus the 6.3% assumed in the DFAST. Chart 9 replicates the DFAST scenario shown in Chart 8 but with our outsized CRE loss rate, whereas Chart 10 highlights the isolated impact (i.e., without any losses assumed for other loan categories). Chart 9Adding Outsized CRE Loans To The Stress Test Scenario Only Moderately Increases “Failure” Chart 10Big CRE Losses Alone, With No Other Loan Losses, Would Be A Relatively Minor Problem Two important observations emerge from Charts 9 and 10. First, despite the fact that small US banks carry disproportionately higher exposure to commercial real estate loans than large banks, it seems clear that the isolated effect of WFH policies on CRE loans, even in the extreme, do not amount to a major risk for the banking system. 80% of small US banks would pass our equity capital test, and 70% would pass the risk-weighted assets test, with absolutely devastating and unprecedented office and retail property losses but no losses outside of their commercial real estate portfolio. Second, while our outsized CRE losses would raise the number of banks that fail our equity capital test relative to the base DFAST scenario (from 64% to 74%), it is clear that this pales in comparison to the effect of the other loan losses assumed in the Fed’s stress test. The bottom line for investors is that while WFH policies may act as a “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur, it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. Outsized Residential Real Estate Losses: The Elephant In The Room As noted above, the results shown in Charts 8 - 10 only include outsized losses on nonresidential CRE loans (excluding multifamily) in order to test the risk to bank balance sheets of widespread and continued use of highly permissive WFH policies and significantly reduced demand for office properties. On top of that, banks also face the risk of additional potential disruptions to residential real estate loans if the WFH phenomenon morphs into full-blown urban flight. In this scenario, migration out of densely-populated urban areas towards considerably cheaper suburbs and exurbs could possibly lead to significant house price declines in richly-valued metro-areas, leading in turn to defaults on underwater mortgages. Table 2 highlighted that the Fed’s base 2020 DFAST scenario assumed a 1.5% loan loss rate on first-lien mortgages, and a 3.1% loss rate on junior liens and HELOCs over a two-year period. Unfortunately for investors, it is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint the magnitude of urban migration that would be necessary to cause loss rates in line with the DFAST scenario or higher, forcing us to rely on an inferential approach based on historical example. Chart 11“White Flight” In The US: An Analogue For Urban Flight Today? The only meaningful historical analogue that we can identify for the idea of WFH-driven urban flight is the “white flight” phenomenon that occurred in the US from the 1950s to 1970s. During this period, many white middle-class Americans moved from increasingly racially mixed city centers to racially homogenous suburban or exurban areas. The city of Detroit is often cited as an example of the "white flight" phenomenon. Chart 11 shows Detroit’s white population over time, and highlights the sharp decline in the number of white residents that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. The white share of Detroit’s population fell earlier, beginning after WWII, but this mostly reflected larger increases of the non-white population. Actual “white flight” occurred during the 50s and 60s, when several episodes of racial violence occurred in the United States. In Detroit, this was most clearly epitomized by the 12th Street Riot in 1967, which involved Federal troop deployment and resulted in over 40 deaths and the damage or destruction of over 2,500 businesses. Did “white flight” cause widespread problems for urban housing markets and/or systemic stress in the banking system? Table 4 and Chart 12 suggest that the answer is no. Table 4 highlights that the median real house price in Michigan rose in the 1960s, grew faster than nationwide house prices, and was modestly higher than the national average in 1970. While it is very likely that this reflects outsized suburban house price gains and that urban center prices fell, Chart 12 highlights that there was no noticeable uptick in US banking failures as a share of total depository institutions in the 1960s. Chart 13 also highlights that the late-1960s did not exhibit any particularly unusual behavior for bank stock prices, after considering interest rates and the state of the business cycle. Table 4Real Michigan Home Prices “Outperformed” The US In The 60s Chart 12No Uptick In Bank Failures In The 1960s Chart 13No Unusual Bank Underperformance In The 1960s     The US economy is very different today than it was in the 1960s, and it is possible that “white flight” serves as an insufficient analogue for potential urban flight today. It is also true that real house prices today are considerably higher than in the 1960s and thus have room to fall further. Nevertheless, based on the Detroit experience, our best inference (for now) is that urban flight does not pose a risk of outsized mortgage loan losses for banks. This is reinforced by the fact that mortgage interest rates have fallen to a record low and have the potential to fall even further based on their spread to 30-year Treasury yields (Chart 14), which may act to boost house prices outright or cushion any potential declines. Chart 14Low And Potentially Lower Mortgage Rates Will Help Cushion Any House Prices Declines Is The Real Risk To Cities Urban Flight, Or Urban Blight? In our view, the city of Detroit is a useful case study for two reasons. First, as noted above, it provides us with some sense of whether urban flight has the potential to pose a systemic threat to the financial system. But, second, it also serves as an example of another potential risk of the COVID-19 pandemic: urban “blight,” or decay. Chart 15Progressive Post-War Deindustrialization Hammered Cities Like Detroit The economic and sociological decay of the city of Detroit has taken place over several decades and has been caused by multiple factors whose relative importance is still debated today. But broadly-speaking, Detroit’s decline can be boiled down to three interacting and self-reinforcing sets of factors: Sociological factors: the general post-WWII trend towards suburbanization, rising levels of violent crime, the “white flight” phenomenon, and the outright decline in Detroit’s population that began in the 1950s; Economic factors: the progressive deindustrialization of the US economy that began in the early 1950s, as well as the debilitating effects of high inflation and energy prices in the 1970s and the double-dip recession of the early-1980s on manufacturing employment (Chart 15); Policy factors: the negative impact on city finances, tax competitiveness, and service quality from the previous two factors, as well as poor governance and outright corruption. Even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or pandemic-related health & safety concerns, there are some worrying parallels to Detroit’s experience that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities that could cause similarly self-reinforcing effects if not prevented by policymakers. On the economic front, very acute income and wealth inequality arrayed against stout house price gains over the past decade have made home ownership unaffordable for some, increasing the allure of urban flight even if localized compensation programs apply. In addition, the pandemic has most severely affected small retail businesses, raising the specter of a “hollowed out” or abandoned urban retail landscape which could push consumers to avoid shopping and travelling downtown. On the policy front, there is a clear risk that inadequate state & local government funding could contribute to a potential downward spiral of higher taxes, reduced city services, and economic decay – similar to what occurred in Detroit. Chart 16 highlights that the financial situation of state & local governments following the global financial crisis caused persistent fiscal drag for several years into the expansion that followed. This significant fiscal drag contributed importantly to the subpar nature of the expansion, and the odds that this will occur again without federal funding are high. Chart 16 shows that the contribution to real GDP growth from state & local government spending has again turned negative, and the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is currently forecasting state budget shortfalls of approximately $555 billion over state fiscal years 2020-2022 – in line with the $510 billion cumulative shortfall that occurred from 2009-2011.4 Finally, in this scenario, the sociological factor somewhat mimicking Detroit’s experience could be a significant rise in urban crime (especially if violent). This could cause urban flight for reasons totally unrelated to WFH policies, but if it occurred it would likely reinforce both the failure of urban center businesses and the deterioration in state & local government finances (risking a downward spiral). Chart 17 highlights that murders have already significantly increased this year in major American cities (by mid-year) relative to 2019, although other types of violent crimes have fallen.5 A trend of rising urban crime could also be sparked or accelerated if recent calls to cut police department funding in favor of other social services succeed, and if those newly funded initiatives fail to effectively prevent criminal activity. Chart 16Persistent State & Local Fiscal Drag Must Be Prevented This Time Chart 17Will US Cities Become Unsafe? While this scenario is far from our base case view, it underscores how urban flight and the accompanying second round effects on commercial real estate loans and the banking system could occur following the pandemic even if not triggered by WFH policies. It also underscores the great importance of Federal fiscal relief efforts: not only to households and businesses, but as well to state & local governments. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to three main investment conclusions: First, while there are arguments for and against the idea of significant CRE losses stemming from the widespread adoption of permanent WFH policies and the potential for large-scale urban flight, the uncertainty surrounding the question will likely linger for the coming few months, at a minimum. This suggests that the equity risk premium applied to bank stock prices may remain elevated in the near term. Chart 18Large US Banks Unduly Cheap Second, while large-cap banks may struggle to outperform in the near term due to this elevated risk premium, it is clear that large banks are far less susceptible than small banks to not only potential CRE loan losses, but also to the severely adverse economic scenario modeled in the Fed’s recent stress test. Our calculations suggest that large bank capital ratios would only marginally decline from the ending ratios shown in the DFAST scenario even with the outsized CRE loan loss scenarios that we used to stress test small bank balance sheets, and we highlighted how the Fed’s main stress test scenario involved 2-year loan losses in excess of what occurred in 2009-2010. Consequently, the collapse in large-cap bank valuation ratios seems unwarranted (Chart 18), and we would expect large banks to outperform the broad market at some point over the coming 6-12 months (and possibly even over the coming 0-3 months). This is also consistent with our expectation that value stocks are likely to outperform growth stocks at some point over the coming year.6 Third, while investors are often right to ask what risk they are “missing,” our analysis above highlights that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risk facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. This need for relief extends very significantly to state & local governments, and a failure to adequately resolve the substantial state budget shortfalls that will occur due to the pandemic and its aftermath would all but guarantee a repeat of the persistent fiscal drag that contributed to the subpar nature of the recent economic expansion. Our base case view remains that US policymakers will do what is necessary to avoid a very negative economic outcome and that the hiccup in congressional negotiations is temporary, but the possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1  Please see Global Asset Allocation / Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not?” dated August 7, 2020. 2 “Facebook employees could receive pay cuts as they continue to work from home,” USA Today, dated May 21, 2020. 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Mallpocalypse, Part 1: An Overnight Collapse Decades In The Making,” dated August 17, 2020 for the first of two reports presenting a detailed analysis of the challenges facing US retail properties. 4 Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman, “States Continue to Face Large Shortfalls Due to COVID-19 Effects,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated July 7, 2020. 5 Jeff Asher and Ben Horwitz, “It’s Been ‘Such a Weird Year.’ That’s Also Reflected in Crime Statistics.,” The New York Times, Updated August 24, 2020. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Return Of Nasdog,” dated August 21, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

China: The Recovery And Equity Dichotomy China’s economic recovery has been gathering steam, and policymakers have become reasonably confident about the growth outlook. In fact, transaction activity in the property market has recovered to year-ago levels, auto sales and construction starts have bottomed following a 18 to 20-month contraction (Chart I-1). In line with this economic revival, authorities issued a statement following last week’s Politburo meeting contending that monetary policy should aim “to maintain adequate growth of money supply and credit.” This statement is a change in the monetary policy stance in May when the stated objective was to “significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year.” This change in language highlights that authorities have become more comfortable with the recovery and are now becoming a bit concerned about amplifying credit and property market excesses. There will be no additional stimulus forthcoming, but policy tightening is not in the cards. In short, there will be no additional stimulus forthcoming, but policy tightening is not in the cards. Policymakers will therefore be in a wait-and-see mode for now, monitoring how economic conditions improve as the enacted stimulus works its way into the economy. Odds are high that the business cycle recovery will continue in China for now. Chart I-2 shows that the amount of credit and fiscal stimulus has been considerable, and that broad money and bank assets impulses remain in uptrend. All these should support the recovery into early next year. Chart I-1China: A Cyclical Recovery Is Underway Chart I-2China: The Stimulus Will Continue Working Its Way Into Economy As to the risks to Chinese growth emanating from depressed demand in the rest of the world, they are not substantial. First, global demand has already bottomed. Second, China’s total exports account for 17% of GDP, while investment expenditures and consumer spending account for 42% and 38% of GDP, respectively (Chart I-3). Hence, rising capital expenditures and household spending will offset the drag from exports. Finally, China exports many household and medical goods that are currently in very high demand worldwide due to the lockdowns and the pandemic. As a result, Chinese exports have recently done a bit better than global shipments in volume terms (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Is Not Very Reliant On Exports Chart I-4Chinese Exports Are Doing A Better Than Global Shipments As to domestic growth drivers, output has been rising faster than consumer demand. Furthermore, capital spending and production by state-owned enterprises has been much stronger than that of private enterprises. However, with the stimulus in full force, both consumer demand and private investment will pick up in the second half of this year. An Equity Market Dichotomy Chart I-5Dichotomy Between Old And New Economy Stocks On the surface, the strong rally in Chinese equity indexes has validated the economic recovery thesis. However, a closer examination of the equity performance of various equity sectors reveals that the rebound in cyclical sectors has been rather tame and that the large gains in the equity indexes have been primarily due to tech and new economy businesses, benefiting from working and shopping from home, and to health care stocks (Chart I-5). Chart I-6 illustrates that industrials, materials, autos and real estate stocks are only modestly above their March lows. More importantly, large bank stocks trading in Hong Kong are reaching new lows in absolute terms (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Chart I-6China: Cyclicals Stocks And Banks Is such lackluster performance by Chinese cyclical stocks a warning sign to its business cycle recovery? Not necessarily. In our opinion, poor performance of cyclical stocks and banks in China reflects the long-term ramifications of repeated episodes of credit frenzy. A credit-driven growth recovery is always a double-edged sword for both borrowers and creditors. Companies that borrow and invest in new projects accumulate debt. Critically, it is unclear whether these investments will produce new recurring cash flows that would allow the debtors to service their debt. Hence, many companies that take on more debt and invest in financially non-viable projects undermine shareholder value. China has again doubled down on the same policies it has been deploying since the 2008 Lehman crisis. Namely, it has encouraged another boom in money and credit creation, as well as in infrastructure investment. Another outcome of this is that excess money creation leaks into the property market, further fueling the real estate bubble. As for banks, if debtors are unable to service their debt, bank shareholders will be at risk too. This does not mean that banks will be liquidated, but that their shareholders will be diluted. It is critical to put this round of stimulus into perspective: it comes amid already elevated debt levels, following a decade-long credit frenzy and a two decade-long capital spending boom (Chart I-7). Therefore, we doubt that the latest round of investments will be able to substantially increase shareholder value. On the whole, we believe the rally in Chinese stocks outside secular growth plays – such as Alibaba, Tencent – is cyclical not structural. The basis is that while more credit produces a cyclical recovery, it often undermines shareholder value. Chart I-6 on page 4 illustrates that Chinese cyclical stocks and bank share prices have been flat-to-down in the past 10 years despite recurring stimulus.   Finally, the near-term risks for Chinese stocks do not stem from the domestic economy, but from geopolitics and a correction in US FAANG stocks. President Trump may escalate the confrontation with China in order to “rally the nation behind the flag” if his polling does not improve ahead of the November elections. Chart I-8 illustrates that the Americans’ view of China has deteriorated significantly in recent years. This might be exploited by President Trump to boost his re-election chances. A heightened confrontation could produce a correction in Chinese stocks. Chart I-7China Credit Excesses Are Getting Larger Chart I-8Americans’ Perception Of China Has Deteriorated In Recent Years Also, if the FAANG mania is either paused or reversed, then Chinese tech and mega-cap stocks will correct, pulling down the broad Chinese equity indexes. Bottom Line: The current round of stimulus in China has made the credit, money and property excesses even larger. As we have written over the years, easy money and credit generally fuel a misallocation of capital. Ultimately, this slows productivity growth on the macro level and destroys shareholder value on the company level.   Small banks, not large ones, have been leading the massive money and credit boom for the past 10 years. Nevertheless, given that the cyclical recovery in China will endure for now, we continue overweighting Chinese investable stocks within an EM equity portfolio. Finally, we are closing our short CNY/long USD position given the change in our USD outlook on July 9. This position has produced a 4.2% loss since its initiation on December 9, 2015. A Stress Test For Bank Stocks Chart I-9China: Small and Medium Banks Versus Large 5 Ones Small banks, not large ones, have been leading the massive money and credit boom for the past 10 years. Chart I-9 demonstrates that the risk-weighted assets of smaller banks have risen much faster, and are presently larger, than those of large banks. We have performed a new stress test for both the Big Five and small & medium listed banks. Concerning large banks, our base-case scenario calls for risk-weighted non-performing assets to rise to 13% of total. Accordingly, their equity will be diluted by 46% if they were to provision for these losses (Table I-1). Consequently, the true (adjusted) price-to-book (PBV) ratio will be 1.1. Assuming that the fair value of these large banks corresponds to a PBV ratio of one, then Big Five banks remain moderately (10%) overpriced. For small banks, our baseline scenario assumes a risk-weighted non-performing asset ratio of 13%. If these banks were to provision for these write offs, their equity will be diluted by 61%, pushing the adjusted PBV ratio to 2 (Table I-2). If we use a PBV fair value ratio of 1.3, then small and medium listed banks are substantially overpriced. Table I-1Stress Test Of 5 Large Banks Table I-2Stress Test Of The Other 25 Listed Medium & Small Banks Chart I-10Favor Large 5 Banks Over Small And Medium Ones Bottom Line: Chinese banks stocks could rebound, but their structural outlook has deteriorated further following another round of credit binge. Among banks stocks, we reiterate our strategy of favoring large banks over smaller ones (Chart I-10).  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com  Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Struggling To Recover Indonesian stocks and the rupiah have rebounded in line with global risk assets. However, the rebound might be waning. The rupiah has begun weakening anew against the US dollar despite a major weakness in the latter. Relative to EM, Indonesian equities are underperforming again (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Indonesian Stocks Are Underperforming EM Again Crumbling Economic Activity And Insufficient Stimulus Indonesia is experiencing its worst recession since the Asian Crisis in 1997. Consumer income has dwindled and consumer confidence collapsed (Chart II-2, top panel). In turn, passenger car and truck sales have contracted by 90% and 84%, respectively, from a year ago (Chart II-2, second and third panel). Meanwhile, domestic cement consumption plunged by 17% (Chart II-2, bottom panel). In the meantime, the Coronavirus pandemic is not subsiding and will continue weighing on the Indonesian economy. The authorities have been attempting to prop up domestic demand. Yet the total fiscal stimulus announced so far – which amounts to $48 billion or 4.3% of GDP – is unlikely to be enough, given the harsh nature of this recession. For instance, the commercial banks loan impulse has already dipped to -2.7% of GDP (Chart II-3, top panel). Provided that demand for credit stays weak and banks continue to be reluctant to lend, the credit impulse will drop even further. As a result, the negative credit impulse will offset the fiscal thrust. Chart II-2Indonesia: Domestic Demand Collapsed Chart II-3Indonesia: Lending Rates Are High   On the monetary policy front, Bank Indonesia (BI) has been aggressively cutting its policy rate and injecting banking system liquidity into the market. The BI has been also purchasing government bonds on the secondary and primary markets, de facto conducting quantitative easing. Still, the ongoing monetary easing has not translated into lower lending rates for the real economy. In particular, although the BI lowered its policy rate by 200 basis points since July 2019, bank lending rates have only fallen by 100 basis points (Chart II-3, middle panel). This is a major sign that the monetary transmission mechanism is broken. Furthermore, the commercial banks’ lending rate, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, remains elevated (Chart II-3, bottom panel). This is severely hurting credit demand (Chart II-3, top panel). The deflationary pressures on the Indonesian economy are intensifying. As a result, the deflationary pressures on the Indonesian economy are intensifying. The top panel of Chart II-4 shows that the GDP deflator is flirting with deflation. Meanwhile, both core and headline inflation have undershot the central bank’s target (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Very low inflation and crumbling real growth have caused nominal GDP growth to drop below borrowing rates (Chart II-5). This is hitting borrowers’ ability to service their debt and is leading to swelling non-performing loans (NPLs). Chart II-4Indonesia Is Facing Very Low Inflation Chart II-5Indonesia: Nominal GDP Growth Is Well Below Lending Rates   Bank Stocks Remain At Risk The outlook for bank stocks that make up 48% of the Indonesia MSCI equity index is bleak. Chart II-6 shows that non-performing loans and special-mention loans (which are composed of doubtful loans) were rising before the pandemic shock. This has forced commercial banks to boost their bad loans provisioning, which has hurt their profitability. Additionally, Indonesian commercial banks’ net interest margins (NIM) have been falling sharply (Chart II-7). This has occurred because, on the revenues side, interest earnings have mushroomed as debtors have halted their interest payments while, on the expenditures side, commercial banks were forced to keep on paying interests to depositors. To protect their profitability, commercial banks have kept their lending rates stubbornly high. However, doing so will end up backfiring – as elevated lending rates punish borrowers and end up causing NPLs to rise, leading to more profit weakness. Chart II-6Indonesia: Bad Loans Are On The Rise Chart II-7Indonesia: Banks' Net Interest Margins Are Falling   Crucially, Bank Central Asia and Bank Rakyat – which now account for a whopping 37% of the Indonesia MSCI market cap – are vulnerable. Both commercial banks are heavily exposed to state-owned enterprises (SOE) and small and medium (SME) companies. Particularly, 40% of Bank Central Asia’s loan book is linked to SOEs and government-led projects across electricity, ports, airports and cement among other sectors. Meanwhile, 68% of Bank Rakyat’s loan book is leveraged to the SME sector and 20% to large companies, including SOEs. Worryingly, both SOEs and SMEs have been undergoing stress. Their profitability and debt servicing ability were questionable even before the COVID-19 pandemic. State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): The debt servicing ability for these companies has deteriorated. The debt-to-EBITDA ratio has risen considerably while the EBITDA coverage of interest expenses is set to fall from already low levels (Chart II-8). Small & Medium Enterprises (SME): The debt serviceability of the top 40% of the MSCI-listed small cap stocks is also deteriorating. The top panel of Chart II-9 shows that these companies’ debt-to-EBITDA has risen substantially, and that the EBITDA-to-interest expense ratio has plunged (Chart II-9, bottom panel). Chart II-8Indonesian SOEs: Weak Debt Servicing Capacity Chart II-9Indonesian SMEs: Weak Debt Servicing Capacity   Chart II-10Indonesia Equities: Banks, Non-Financials And Small Caps All in all, both Bank Central Asia and Bank Rakyat are set to experience a considerable new NPL cycle emanating from the poor profitability of SOEs and SMEs. Importantly, Bank Central Asia and Bank Rakyat’s respective NPLs at 1.3% and 2.6% were relatively low at the start of this year and have much room to rise. Neither are their valuations appealing. At a price-to-book value of 4.4 Bank Central Asia is expensive. As for Bank Rakyat while its multiples are not as high as Bank Central Asia’s (which is trading at a price-to-book value of 1.8), it is not particularly cheap either, considering its enormous exposure to Indonesia’s struggling SME sector.  Bottom Line: The outlook for bank stocks is murky (Chart II-10). Apart from banks, the rest of the Indonesian stock market has been performing very poorly and there is no obvious evidence that this will change (Chart II-10, bottom two panels). Investment Conclusions Continue underweighting the Indonesian stock market. Bank stocks remain at risk. Moreover, there is evidence that retail investors have been active in the stock market as of late. When the stock market does relapse, retail investors will likely rush to sell their holdings, thereby magnifying the equity selloff. Dedicated EM local currency bonds and credit portfolios should continue underweighting Indonesia. Investors in Indonesia’s corporate US dollar bonds should tread carefully as the largest issuers are those SOEs that have experienced deteriorating creditworthiness. Chart II-11Return On Capital Drives EM Currencies If the US dollar continues to depreciate, the rupiah could stabilize and rebound but it will underperform other EM and DM currencies. Return on capital (ROC) is the ultimate driver of EM currencies. Given the magnitude of the recession Indonesia is in and the slow recovery it will experience, its ROC will remain weak. This will weigh on the rupiah (Chart II-11). We continue shorting the rupiah against an equally weighted basket of the euro, Swiss franc and Japanese yen. Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Turkey: The Ramifications Of A Money Plethora Turkey is facing another currency turmoil. At the core of significant currency depreciation pressures is an overflow of money. Chart III-1 demonstrates that narrow money (M1) and broad money (M3) are booming at 90% and 50%, respectively, from a year ago. These measures exclude foreign currency deposits. Bank loan annual growth has surged to 45% and commercial bank purchases of government bonds are skyrocketing (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Turkey's Money Overflow Chart III-2Rampant Credit Creation By Commercial Banks     In turn, the Central Bank of Turkey’s (CBRT) funding of commercial banks has surged (Chart III-3). By providing ample liquidity the CBRT has enabled commercial banks to engage in a credit frenzy and levy of government debt. The latter has capped local currency bond yields at a time when the private sector and foreign investors have been reluctant to finance the government bond given its current yields. At the core of significant currency depreciation pressures is an overflow of money. Consistent with this expanding money bubble, inflation in Turkey remains in a structural uptrend (Chart III-4). Core and service sector consumer price inflation is close to 12% and will rise even further due to the overflow of money in the economy. Besides, residential property prices are already soaring, in local currency terms, as residents are fleeing from liras. Chart III-3Central Bank's Funding Of Banks Chart III-4Structurally Rising Inflation   Still, the central bank refuses to acknowledge these inflationary pressures and to tighten its policy stance. Monetary authorities remain well behind the inflation curve. The policy rate, in real terms (deflated by core CPI), is -2%. In the past, when real policy rates have dropped to this level, the exchange rate has often tumbled, as in 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2018 (Chart III-5). Chart III-5Numerous Headwinds For The Lira In regard to balance of payments, the current account deficit is widening again due to the plunge in exports and tourism revenues and the recovering imports (Chart III-5, bottom panel). Historically, a widening current account deficit has weighed on the currency. Lastly, the central bank is not in the position to defend the exchange rate much longer. Not only has it depleted its own reserves but it has also used up $70 billion of commercial banks deposits and entered a $55 billion foreign exchange swap. Hence, its is massively short on US dollars. Bottom Line: As part of our broader currency strategy, on July 9, we replaced our short Turkish lira versus the US dollar position with a short in TRY versus a basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. This switch has proved to be very profitable and we continue recommending it. Consequently, investors should continue underweighting Turkish stocks, local currency bonds and credit markets relative to their EM counterparts. Fixed-income investors should consider betting on higher inflation expectations, i.e. going long domestic inflation adjusted yields and shorting nominal yields. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The ultimate extent of credit losses in this cycle is unknown, … : Conventional models are ill-equipped to project the damage that the pandemic will inflict on the economy when monetary and fiscal policymakers are doing all they can to mitigate it. … but household borrowers have held up quite well so far and business borrowers have benefitted from a flood of liquidity: Generous transfer payments have kept household delinquencies in check, the capital markets have allowed bigger companies to pre-fund themselves, and a combination of forbearance and PPP loans has given smaller companies a lifeline. Cash hoards have protected households and businesses, but it is not yet clear when they’ll feel secure enough to spend them: Consumer spending had been on an upward trajectory before rising infection rates forced states to pause or reverse re-opening plans. We remain bullish on the SIFI banks, despite the uncertainty surrounding their outlook: The earnings power of the SIFIs’ franchises has allowed them to build up considerable loan-loss reserves without depleting their capital (ex-Wells Fargo). Stable book values make them too cheap to pass up in an otherwise pricey equity market. Clear As Mud The five largest banks reported their second quarter earnings last week. From the perspective of investing in the banks, the news wasn’t too bad. Excepting beleaguered Wells Fargo (WFC), the SIFI banks and U.S. Bancorp (USB) were able to maintain their per-share book values despite loan-loss reserve increases that exceeded the first quarter’s sizable builds. The results supported our investment thesis: as long as monetary and fiscal policy makers are able to limit the credit fallout from the pandemic, the earnings power of the SIFIs’ franchises can fully offset COVID-19 credit costs, preserving their book values and making their stocks compellingly cheap versus the broad market. Our current investment view aside, we monitor the banks’ calls for insight into the future direction of the economy. The largest banks are always well positioned to observe budding trends in consumption, borrowing and credit performance. They currently also offer a window into the success of policy measures intended to prevent the pandemic from catalyzing a negatively self-reinforcing default spiral. The economic picture the banks painted this quarter was murky, befitting the uncertainty surrounding the virus. They saw activity pick up as social distancing restrictions began to be eased in much of the country in May and June, but the virus’ resurgence (Chart 1) had them stressing that the immediate future is especially uncertain. The tone on this round of calls tended to be cautious, though the CEOs and CFOs acknowledged the potential for positive surprises and allowed that they may well be done building up loan-loss reserves. Chart 1US Daily New Infections The banks’ big-picture observations tended to reinforce each other. One view that they unanimously expressed in their first quarter calls was borne out in the second quarter: the March-April drawdown of corporate credit lines was indeed precautionary, as the draws were largely repaid at every bank once the corporate bond market was able to accommodate new issuance. Debit and credit card spending troughed at all the banks around mid-April and then rose steadily across May and June. Bank of America reported that its customers’ spending had increased on a year-over-year basis over the first two weeks of July. All the banks have been encouraged by the performance of consumer borrowers who have requested deferments or other forbearance measures. It is way too early for conclusions, but lenders have been pleasantly surprised by the sizable share of forbearance borrowers who have managed to keep making payments and the modest share who have requested additional deferments. Perhaps the consumer deferments are analogous to businesses’ drawdowns of credit lines in March and April – an emergency precaution unwound once other help, like aid from the CARES Act, arrived. All the banks set aside more money for future loan losses in the second quarter than they did in the first, and their aggregate reserve build rose by 50% quarter-on-quarter (Table 1). Vigorous reserving hurt this quarter’s earnings, but it will help gird the banks for a more protracted downturn than they foresaw on March 31st. Table 1Stacking Up The Loan Loss Reserve Sandbags The news was very good from an operational standpoint, though it may herald future softness for airlines, hotels and the owners of office and retail space. No bank reported any hiccups in transitioning to servicing their clients and customers remotely. Capital markets activity surged, even as trading floors were empty and million-mile-club investment bankers hunkered down at home. Pandemic shutdowns may point the way to a reduced-overhead future, as banks shrink their branch footprints, lease less office space, trim headcount and pare travel and entertainment budgets. 2Q20 Big Bank Beige Book Household Borrowing (Chart 2) And Spending (Chart 3) Chart 2Consumers Are Paying Down Their Debt Chart 3Whiplash Debit and credit sales volumes … consistently trended upward since the trough in the second week of April to down just 4% year-on-year in the last two weeks of June. T[ravel]&E[ntertainment] and restaurant spend continue to be down meaningfully. The most significant improvement … was in retail, with a strong recovery in credit card volume in the second half of the quarter and consistently strong growth in card-not-present1 volume throughout the quarter. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) [In April, our consumers’] spending was down 26% compared to April of 2019. However, for … June, that spending was relatively flat to 2019. [T]hrough the first couple weeks of July, we’re seeing … spending … above what it was last year. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) All big banks saw similar performance trends from participants in their consumer loan forbearance programs. It's too early to make conclusions, but the preliminary data are encouraging. April saw the lowest level of [auto] loan and lease originations since the financial crisis, but activity rebounded sharply in May and June, and … June [was] the best month for auto originations in our history. (Piepszak, JPM) [R]etail [mortgage] purchase applications … recover[ed] to well above pre-COVID levels in June due to a strong and broad market recovery. (Piepszak, JPM) [A]uto lending … [is] going to be a bright spot [in] the third quarter, but overall consumer lending is likely to be down simply because consumer spending has been down. (Dolan, USB CFO) Consumer credit card spend improved steadily starting in mid-April, but was still down approximately 10% from a year ago as of the end of June. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) Lower interest rates drove strong industry [mortgage] volume, with [the] second quarter estimated to [have] the largest origination … since the third quarter of 2003. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Consumer Forbearance Relative to peak levels … at the beginning of April, we’ve seen a significant decline in new [assistance] requests. … [A majority of borrowers requesting assistance] hav[e] made at least one payment while in the forbearance period. … [L]ess than 20% of [credit card] accounts [have] request[ed] additional assistance [after reaching the end of the initial 90-day deferral period]. (Piepszak, JPM) [F]irst-time enrollment volumes have come down significantly. … [R]e-enrollment … rates are running below expectation, … right around … the mid-teens. … [W]e’re seeing good signs of those rolling off [of forbearance] continuing to remain current. (Mason, C CFO) In the last few weeks, [loan deferral requests] have been … 98% below [the] peak [in the first week of April]. … More than 60% of the … card deferrals have made at least one payment[;] [o]ne-third have made every payment every month. (Donofrio, BAC CFO) 70% of customers [with credit card deferrals] have started to make normal payments after [the deferral periods end], … [and] about 20% [have] re-enroll[ed]. … So, so far, so good on the [card deferral] performance. (Runkel, USB Chief Credit Officer) Business (And Bank) Caution [Last quarter’s debt and equity issuance] is pre-funding. This is not capital. All this [cash] is not being raised to go spend. It’s being raised to sit [on] the balance sheet, so that you’re prepared for whatever comes next. And you’ve heard a lot of companies make statements [like] … we’ve got two years of cash, we’ve got three years of cash. [P]eople want to be prepared [for anything]. (Dimon, JPM CEO) [T]he commercial spend has been pretty cautious. It was down [around] … 30-35% in … April … , and it’s still down around somewhere between 25 and 30%. (Cecere, USB CEO) Commercial card spend remained significantly lower throughout the second quarter and was still down over 30% in the last full week of June compared to the same week a year ago, with declines across industry segments. (Scharf, WFC CEO) We’ve added $284 billion in deposits since year-end, [and] all of that has gone into cash, earning 10 basis points. [A]s we assess the future of this pandemic, as we … assess how much of [those deposits] is going to stick around, and we get a little bit more confident … , a portion of that … could be deployed into securities. (Moynihan, BAC) It’s Uncertain Out There [T]he extraordinary actions of the Fed and the Treasury leave … industry models kind of wanting for more insight, [because] we’ve never seen this type of action whether it’s the checks people receive, whether it’s … $500-plus billion [of the PPP], whether it’s the income tax payment holiday. (Corbat, C CEO) We cannot forecast the future. We don’t know. I think you’re going to have a much murkier economic environment going forward than you had in May in June, … which is why … the base case, an adverse case, an extreme adverse case … are all possible. And we’re just guessing the probabilities of those things. That’s what we’re doing. (Dimon, JPM) All the big banks reported that their business clients were proceeding cautiously; the banks themselves are, too, leaving their deposit windfalls in cash until they have a better sense of what's to come. [W]e go in feeling very well positioned against this. But we don’t want people leaving the call simply thinking that the world is a great place and it is a V-shaped recovery. … I don’t think anybody should leave any bank earnings call this quarter simply feeling like the worst is absolutely behind us and it’s a rosy path ahead. (Corbat, C) Buy The SIFIs As every SIFI management team stressed on last week’s calls, the environment is extremely uncertain. We are in unchartered waters and regression models can do no more than guess at how monetary accommodation, fiscal aid and lender forbearance will interact with COVID-19 transmission patterns, improved treatments and vaccine development efforts to influence credit performance. Investing in the SIFIs is by no means a slam dunk. The equity market is clearly skeptical about their prospects and our BCA colleagues are in no hurry to join us on the SIFI bandwagon. The group’s unpopularity, however, is precisely why it offers outsized prospective returns. As the longtime investment counselor for one of New York’s wealthiest families put it, “you can have cheap stocks or you can have good news, but you can’t have both.” The news is fraught right now, but we think a critical story line will take a turn for the better once Washington comes through with another major phase of fiscal aid. Given the hole left by consumption (Chart 4) and businesses’ suspended animation, government spending is the only way to keep the economy – and the administration’s faltering re-election prospects – afloat. Chart 4Plunging Consumption Has Left A Gaping Hole In The Economy We are well aware that investors are leery of the banks when low interest rates and a flat yield curve are depressing net interest income, but it’s far more of an issue for community banks that do nothing more than take deposits and make loans than it is for the SIFIs, which generate gobs of fee income and match the duration of their assets and liabilities to the first decimal place. Even the narrow relationship between bank net interest margins and the yield curve is greatly exaggerated (Chart 5), and relative equity returns have had no relationship with the yield curve since the crisis (Chart 6). Banks do not need a major rise in the 10-year yield to outperform; they just need to demonstrate that the earnings power of their franchises is enough to overcome the drag from projected credit losses. Chart 5Little Fundamental Relationship ... Chart 6... And No Market Relationship From our perspective, second quarter earnings provided just that demonstration, at least away from woebegone WFC, which has a raft of intrinsic issues to overcome. Despite two quarters of huge loan-loss reserve builds, the SIFI banks’ book values have emerged unscathed (Table 2). Pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) has been up to the task of absorbing massive write-downs so far this year (Table 3). If the base-case scenarios hold (unemployment doesn’t move materially higher and GDP has begun slowly recovering), the SIFI banks as a group have already accomplished the bulk of their reserve2 building and their per-share book values will grow at a healthy clip for as long as buybacks remain suspended. Table 2SIFI Book Values Table 3Taking The Reserve Builds In Stride Additional credit costs are a legitimate concern, but the banks can earn enough to keep from having to eat into their equity capital. The banks trade off of their book values, and book value gains should feed higher stock prices given that their multiples are already at bombed-out levels. It is unusual to have the chance to buy sound banks at or around their book value, and we expect that investors who buy them now and hold them for at least a year will be amply rewarded in relative performance terms. The SIFIs’ soundness will not be in doubt if Congress delivers a meaningful fourth phase of aid by early August. We believe Citi’s CEO had it right on its first-quarter call in mid-April, and we think his conclusion applies to all the SIFIs, even WFC: [T]his isn’t a financial crisis, it’s a public health crisis with severe economic ramifications. … [W]e entered [it] in a very strong position from [a] capital, liquidity and balance sheet perspective. We have the resources we need to serve our clients without jeopardizing our safety and soundness. … I feel confident in our ability to manage through whatever scenario comes to pass.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A transaction in which the purchaser does not present his/her card to the merchant, typically conducted over the phone or the internet. 2 We are confident that policy makers will be able to continue propping up consumer borrowers, but the business borrower outlook is considerably more uncertain. However, the banks’ earnings calls contained a detail that may suggest that their aggregate loans to businesses got stronger last quarter. Bank loans are typically senior to bonds, and to the extent that last quarter’s massive issuance was aimed at proactively addressing future funding needs, rather than plugging a leak, it made obligations senior to the new bonds better credits. Bank loans to large investment-grade borrowers may be worth a little more than they were at the end of the first quarter.

Neutral We have recently downgraded the S&P banks index to neutral as yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. More specifically on credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently, and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 18mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. Bottom Line: We are neutral the S&P banks index.  For more details on the other two key bank profit drivers, please refer to the following Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT. ​​​​​​​

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.  

Highlights We are moving our tactical call on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight, bringing it inline with our cyclical stance on Chinese equities. Our cyclical overweight stance is supported by several factors: the rate of recovery in China’s economy and corporate profits should outpace the rest of the world in the next 9-12 months and valuations in Chinese stocks are relatively cheap. In the near term, compared with the tug-of-war in the US between resuming business activities and containing a second COVID-19 wave, China has a lower risk of a major second wave and re-lockdown of its economy. The recent request by China’s central government for banks to forgo a large portion of this year’s profits should have very limited effect on China’s overall stock performance.  Feature Chinese stocks have fewer downside risks compared to their global counterparts, which were buffeted this past week by escalating COVID-19 case counts in the US and a slower global economy recovery according to IMF estimates. Chart 1Overweight Chinese Stocks We have been tactically neutral on Chinese stocks since early April, due to heightened uncertainties about the path of the global pandemic and geopolitical tensions between the US and China.1 These uncertainties remain in place.  Nevertheless, against the backdrop of a bleak outlook in normalizing global economic activity, the pandemic containment in China has been relatively successful and the nation’s economic outlook is slightly more positive. This argues for overweighting Chinese stocks in a global equity portfolio, on both tactical (0-3 months) and cyclical (6-12 months) time horizons (Chart 1).  We are initiating two new trades: long Chinese stocks versus global benchmarks, in both onshore and offshore equity markets. At its June 17th State Council meeting, China’s central government asked that commercial banks give up 1.5 trillion yuan in profits and cap profit growth below 10% this year to support the real economy. While this rare government request may further depress the banking sector’s stock performance, we think its negative impact on China’s overall stock market will be minimal.  Furthermore, the request should help to lower corporate financing costs - including the private sector and small businesses – and, therefore, help bolster corporate marginal propensity to invest. The net result will be positive on both China’s economic recovery and overall stock performance in the medium term.  Better Than The Rest Compared to the rest of the world, Chinese stocks should be supported by a more positive economic outlook and relatively cheaper valuations in the next 9 to 12 months.  Chart 2China May Return To Its Trend Growth In 2021 The IMF has downgraded its 2020 global economic growth projection to -4.9% from April’s -3%. According to the IMF’s baseline scenario, China is the only major economy that will still register positive growth this year, albeit very modest. This contrasts with an 8% growth contraction in developed nations and a 4.6% retrenchment in emerging economies excluding China. The IMF estimate also suggests that China’s level of economic output in 2021 will rise above its 2019 level, whereas the US and European GDP levels will remain below their pre-COVID 19 levels (Chart 2). If the global economy recovers at a slower-than-expected rate in the second half of this year, then there will be spillover effects on China through reduced demand for its goods. The IMF projected that global trade will shrink by nearly 12% this year (Chart 3). However, compared with Europe and a majority of EM economies, China’s economy is dominated by domestic rather than external demands (Chart 4). Moreover, a weaker external environment means that Chinese authorities will have to press on the stimulus pedal to avoid an outright growth contraction this year. Chart 3Global Trade Will Remain Depressed This Year... Chart 4...But The Chinese Economy Has Become Less Reliant On External Demand   Industrial profit growth turned positive in May, the first year-over-year increase in 2020. On a year-to-date basis, industrial profits remain in deep contraction (Chart 5). As aggressive credit and fiscal stimulus works its way into the economy, however, we expect China’s industrial profits and GDP to turn modestly positive for the entire year of 2020. Positive annual expansion in China’s industrial profits, even if small, supports a recovery in corporate earnings and stock prices. Chart 5Industrial Profit Growth Should Pick Up Along With The Economy Valuations in Chinese stocks have also become less expensive. Similar to the US and elsewhere, Chinese stock prices have trended upwards ahead of a corporate earnings recovery. Nevertheless, compared with other major economies, Chinese stocks have not diverged from its economic fundamentals as drastically as other major economies (Chart 6). Moreover, Chinese stocks are not traded at extreme multiples as experienced in previous cycles (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Stock Market Rally Less Decoupled From Economic Fundamentals Chart 7Valuations in Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extended As In Previous Cycles Bottom Line: China’s economic outlook for this year and next is better than the rest of the world, while its stocks are currently less overbought. This supports our positive view on Chinese stocks on a cyclical time frame. Lower Near-Term Risks China has been relatively successful in controlling its domestic infection rate compared with the uncertain path of virus containment in the US and most EM economies (Chart 8). China’s steady return to normalcy in business activities warrants a change in our tactical investment call on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight. Chart 8Mind The Gap China has seen a flare up in domestically transmitted cases since June 11, after successfully containing the virus and reporting only single-digit new cases for nearly two months. However, the new cases have not had any meaningful impact on China’s returning to normalcy in domestic business or consumer activities. This is in sharp contrast with the US where a resurgence in infection rates last week threatened a potential rollback in economic re-openings and the need to increase social distance measures (Chart 9). Indeed, several states in the US have responded to the second wave of virus spread by slowing or stalling reopening efforts. The ongoing tug-of-war between normalizing economic activities and containing the pandemic challenges the sustainability of the US stock rally that started in late March. China’s new COVID cases are concentrated in Beijing and the number of daily new infections has been limited to double digits (Chart 10). Instead of imposing a blanket lockdown as was done in late January and February, the Beijing government has only locked down a few high-risk districts. In the past two weeks the municipal government has also drastically expanded its testing to more than one-third of its 21 million residents, and promptly traced and isolated close contacts of infected people. Chart 9Running Ahead Of Itself? Chart 10Beijing Quickly Brought New Case Numbers Down To Low Double-Digits China’s authoritative style of containing the pandemic leaves little room for error.  The chance is slim that the Chinese government will allow the number of infections, if any were to pop up, to manifest into a major second wave and derail its economic recovery. However, the US will undoubtedly experience some hiccups in the near term as it struggles to contain the virus and reopen its economy. Bottom Line: The near-term risk to China’s economic recovery due to a second wave of infections is lower relative to the rest of the world. A Few Words On Chinese Banks The central government’s request that commercial banks “sacrifice” 1.5 trillion yuan in profits this year will likely further depress the banking sector’s stock performance. However, it should have a limited negative impact on the performance of aggregate Chinese equities for the following reasons: The banking sector currently accounts for around 10% of market caps in both China's onshore and offshore equity markets, limiting the downside risks to the broad market from the sector’s price declines. The tech sector2 has been driving the overall stock performance in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets (Chart 11). Chinese banks’ market capitalization as a share of the total broad market caps has declined in recent years, while the share of the tech sector has risen substantially (Chart 12). Chart 11The Tech Sector Has Been Driving Chinese Stock Performance Since 2016 Chart 12Banking Sector's Share Of Broad Market Has Been Declining Unlikely its global peers, banking sector's relative performance in both China’s domestic and offshore equity markets are countercyclical; periods of outperformance in banking stocks have been negatively related to rising economic activity and broad market stock prices.3 In other words, China’s banking sector underperforms during an economic recovery. It has been underperforming the broad indexes in both the domestic and investable markets since mid-2018, regardless the sector’s profit growth (Chart 13A and 13B). Chart 13ARegardless Of Profit Growth... Chart 13B...The Banking Sector Underperformed During Economic Recoveries Banks will give up a large portion of this year's profits by offering lower lending rates, cutting fees, deferring loan repayments and granting more unsecured loans to small businesses. Based on our calculations, banks will achieve the 1.5 trillion yuan goal by either lowering their average lending rate by 20bps and/or by expanding loan growth by 15% in the 2nd half of 2020 from last year (Table 1). Both measures will benefit China’s real economy and corporate profits, as well as help to bolster corporate marginal propensity to invest. The net result will be positive on overall stock performance in the medium term.  Table 1Scenarios On How Banks Will Make Up For The 1.5 Trillion Profit “Sacrifice” Bottom Line:  China’s banking sector will continue to underperform, but the impact from a profit reduction this year should have a limited negative impact on Chinese equities. The benefit of a “wealth transfer” from banks to the real economy, however, should more than offset the banking sector’s drag on Chinese stocks. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing During A Global Pandemic," dated April 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see the footnote in Chart 12 for the tech-related sectors included in China's offshore market and the TMT Index in the A-share market. 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance," dated November 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Money Supply Drivers: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. Money Supply Impact: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Bank Bonds: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Feature The COVID-19 recession and associated policy response have led to unprecedented moves in a number of economic indicators. In this week’s report we focus on one such move that is particularly difficult to square with the rest of the economic landscape, at least judging by the large volume of client questions we’ve received on the topic. The move in question: Broad money supply growth (M1 & M2) is faster today than at any time since the mid-1940s (Chart 1). This week, we look at what has driven money growth to such heights and consider what it might mean for bond investors. We also update our call to overweight subordinate bank bonds based on last week’s release of the Fed’s bank stress tests. Chart 1Massive Money Growth! Money Supply Drivers The US economy’s broad money supply is more or less the sum total of all the money sitting in bank deposits at any point in time. More specifically, the M1 measure includes currency in circulation, demand deposits and traveler’s checks. The M2 measure includes all of M1 plus savings accounts, time deposits and retail money market funds. Fed asset purchases and bank lending are the two drivers of money supply growth. There are two ways for these broad money supply measures to grow. First, the Fed can purchase securities from the private market. Second, banks can lend money to the private sector. We consider both of these drivers in turn. The Federal Reserve’s Contribution To Money Growth The Fed influences the money supply by changing the amount of reserves in the banking system. To see how this works, Table 1 shows recent balance sheets for both the Fed and the aggregate US banking system. Table 1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The largest line items on the Fed’s balance sheet are the securities it owns (on the asset side) and the reserves it supplies to the banking system (on the liability side). The Treasury Department’s General Account has also become a sizeable liability for the Fed during the past couple of months (see Box). Box 1: The Large Treasury General Account Is Not Stimulus Waiting To Be Deployed The Treasury General Account (TGA), aka the Treasury Department’s cash account at the Fed, has skyrocketed during the past couple of months and now totals $1.6 trillion (Chart 3). This has prompted more than a few client questions, mostly asking whether this large amount of money represents fiscal stimulus that is waiting to be deployed. Chart 3Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer It does not. Any new fiscal stimulus must be authorized by Congress and with most of the funds from the CARES act having already been paid out, any further fiscal stimulus is contingent upon Congress passing a follow-up bill. So why is the TGA balance so large? The Treasury Department’s job is to finance the federal government’s deficit by issuing bonds. To do this, it must make estimates about what tax revenues and government spending will be in the future. To avoid a situation where it has not issued enough bonds to finance the deficit, it will typically err on the side of caution and issue some extra bonds, holding the proceeds in cash in its account at the Fed. Due to the heightened uncertainty of the current macro environment, it recently decided to target a larger-than-usual cash balance of $800 billion. It even overshot that target during the past couple of months, likely because tax revenues came in higher than expected. Going forward, heightened uncertainty about federal deficit projections will ensure that the Treasury continues to hold an elevated cash balance. However, it will probably try to bring the TGA balance down a bit in the second half of the year, closer to its stated $800 billion target. It will accomplish this by simply issuing fewer T-bills in the second half of the year. This will have the result of increasing the broad money supply through the same mechanism as Fed asset purchases. That is, any drawdown in the TGA increases the amount of reserves supplied on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys a Treasury security it removes that security from the private market and replaces it with cash in the form of a bank reserve. Those bank reserves are a liability for the Fed, but appear on the asset side of the banking sector’s aggregate balance sheet. Please note that the amount of reserves supplied on the Fed’s balance sheet in Table 1 doesn’t exactly match the amount of reserves shown on the banking sector’s balance sheet. This is only because the numbers were recorded on different days. Turning to the banking sector’s balance sheet, we see that when the amount of reserves increases there are only a few different things that can occur to keep the balance sheet in balance. Banks can accommodate the increase in reserves by reducing the amount of loans or securities they hold. Alternatively, banks can raise capital, borrow in private debt markets or show an increase in deposits. When banks accommodate the increase in reserves by raising deposits, the money supply rises. Charts 2A and 2B show the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of February. First, we see that banks did not reduce their other asset holdings in response to the sharp increase in reserves. Neither did they raise capital or debt. Rather, deposit growth accommodated the entire increase in bank reserves. Chart 2AChange In Commercial Bank Assets: February 26 To June 17, 2020 Chart 2BChange In Commercial Bank Liabilities & Capital: February 26 To June 17, 2020 In fact, deposits have grown by about $2 trillion since February compared to reserve growth of $1.4 trillion. Roughly, we can say that Fed asset purchases are responsible for 70% of the growth in the money supply since then. The remaining 30% is attributable to the second driver of the money supply: bank lending. Bank Lending’s Contribution To Money Growth Looking again at Table 1, we see that an increase in bank loans must also lead to an increase in deposits, unless the bank raises debt and/or capital instead. Further, Chart 2A shows that increased bank lending since February accounts for about 30% of the growth in deposits. However, we expect bank loan growth to moderate in the coming months, easing some of the upward pressure on the money supply. This year's increase in bank loan growth has been driven entirely by C&I loans. A look at bank loan growth by category shows that this year’s increase has been driven entirely by Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans (Chart 4). Growth in other major loan categories – commercial real estate, residential real estate and consumer – has flagged. Further, the increase in C&I lending has been mostly due to firms drawing on existing credit lines. Chart 4A Spike In C&I Lending The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for the first quarter of 2020 showed a small increase in C&I loan demand. But the survey also asked about potential reasons for the demand uptick (Chart 5). When faced with that question, 95% of respondents reported that “precautionary demand for cash” was a “very important” reason for increased C&I loan demand in Q1. 71% of respondents also pointed to a lack of internally generated funds as a “very important” reason. Importantly, no respondents reported increased C&I loan demand due to investment needs or M&A activity. Chart 5Possible Reasons For Greater C&I Loan Demand In Q1 2020 The distinction is important. Greater investment needs and M&A activity would suggest an improving economic back-drop, and would imply a more sustainable increase in bank lending. In contrast, there is a limit to how much firms can tap existing credit lines for immediate cash needs, and this activity should taper off during the next few months. Bottom Line: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. The Implications Of Rapid Money Growth According to some theory and popular thought, there are three possible channels through which rapid money growth could impact the economy and financial markets: Fast money growth could lead to stronger economic growth in the future. Fast money growth could lead to rising inflationary pressures. A larger money supply could suggest that there are more funds available to deploy in financial markets. As such, it could lead to price appreciation in risky financial assets. We are inclined to downplay the importance of M1 and M2 as indicators in all three of these areas, for reasons discussed below. The Money Supply’s Impact On Economic Growth In the past, measures of the broad money supply (M1 and M2) did a good job of forecasting economic growth and were tracked closely (and at times targeted) by the Federal Reserve. But as the banking and monetary systems evolved, M1 and M2 became less important. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan explained in 1996:1 At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. […] Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Chairman Greenspan’s insight is backed up by the empirical data (Chart 6). Real M2 growth was an excellent leading indicator of economic growth until the early 1990s. The relationship has broken down since then, and in fact, the only reliable trend in Real M2 since the 1990s is that it tends to spike during recessions. Chart 6Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s The Conference Board also noticed this trend and removed Real M2 from its Leading Economic Indicator in 2012. According to the Conference Board, Real M2 ceased to function as a leading economic indicator because (i) the Fed began targeting interest rates instead of monetary aggregates and (ii) the creation of interest-bearing checking accounts and money market funds increased safe haven demand for M2. The latter helps explain why money growth has surged during the last three recessions. All in all, broad money growth is now a poor indicator for GDP. The Money Supply’s Impact On Inflation Another popular theory is that money growth is a leading indicator of inflation. This stems from the following identity, aka the Equation of Exchange: MV = PY Where: M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level and Y = real output The identity holds, but is of little practical value, mainly because there is no good way to measure (or model) velocity (V) without relying on money growth and nominal GDP (P*Y). This means that an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about inflation, because we have no idea how velocity will respond. In fact, many commentators have observed that the stronger empirical correlation is actually between money velocity (PY/M) and core inflation (Chart 7). When nominal GDP growth exceeds money growth, core inflation tends to rise 18 months later. However, this relationship also holds if we remove money supply from the equation entirely (Chart 7, bottom panel). What we’re actually observing is that core inflation tends to lag economic growth by about 18 months. Chart 7Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Since we’ve already seen that money supply does a poor job forecasting economic growth, it’s clear that indicators such as M1 and M2 don’t improve our ability to forecast inflation, and in fact probably only confuse the picture. The Money Supply’s Impact On Financial Markets BCA’s US Bond Strategy definitely subscribes to the notion that the stance of monetary policy is one of the most important drivers of financial market performance. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and signals to the market that rates will stay low for a long time, then we would expect investors to chase greater returns in riskier assets, driving up the prices of corporate bonds and equities. That being said, the appropriate way to measure the stance of monetary policy is with interest rates. Money supply measures like M1 and M2 are not helpful guides for risk asset performance. We have already seen that an increase in the money supply can only arise via (i) greater bank lending or (ii) the Fed’s purchase of securities and injection of reserves into the banking system. Both of these things are likely to occur when interest rates are low and monetary policy is accommodative. Low interest rates boost loan demand, and large-scale Fed asset purchases are more likely to occur when interest rates are already at the zero-lower-bound. We would argue that it is, in fact, low interest rates that influence both money growth and financial asset prices. The drivers of money supply growth – bank lending and Fed asset purchases – don’t offer any new information beyond what the interest rate already tells us. On loan growth, both loan demand and risk asset price appreciation are functions of low interest rates. In fact, financial markets will respond more quickly to changes in interest rates than will bank lending: Stock prices are included in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, while C&I bank lending is included in the Lagging Economic Indicator.2 This means that, practically, any money supply growth that is driven by bank lending is not useful as an indicator for financial asset prices. What about money growth that is driven by Fed asset purchases? Here, we need to distinguish between the signaling impact of Fed asset purchases and any other potential impact that purchases might have on asset prices. In the first half of 2019, financial markets responded to the Fed's dovish interest rate policy, not to its shrinking balance sheet. Though the data are difficult to parse, our reading is that the only meaningful impact of Fed purchases on financial asset prices is through what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the future path of interest rates. To test this theory, we need to search for periods when the Fed’s signaling about its future interest rate policy diverges from its balance sheet policy. That is, we need to find periods when the balance sheet is shrinking and Fed rate guidance is becoming more dovish, or periods when the balance sheet is growing and rate policy is becoming more hawkish. Unfortunately, we can only identify one such period and that is the first half of 2019 when the Fed was simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and signaling to markets that interest rate policy was becoming more dovish (Chart 8A). During that period, financial markets responded to the more dovish interest rate policy and not to the shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet (Chart 8B). Bond yields fell, the dollar weakened and both corporate bonds and equities delivered strong returns. Chart 8ARates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 8BRates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Subordinate Bank Bonds: Still In The Sweet Spot Chart 9Still In The Sweet Spot Two months ago we made the case for owning subordinate bank bonds.3 The premise for this call is that subordinate bank bonds are a high-quality cyclical sector, exactly the sweet spot of the investment grade corporate bond market that we want to own in the current environment. We expect that extraordinary Fed support for the market will cause investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. In that environment we want to focus on cyclical (or “high beta”) bond sectors, ones that outperform the index during periods of spread tightening. However, we also recognize that the Fed’s emergency lending facilities will not prevent a surge in ratings downgrades. Therefore, the sweet spot we want to own is cyclical bonds that are unlikely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated securities, like subordinate bank bonds, fit the bill nicely. Chart 9 shows that the subordinate bank bond index has a duration-times-spread ratio above 1.0.4 This confirms that the sector will trade cyclically relative to the corporate benchmark. We also see that subordinate bank bonds have outperformed both the overall corporate index and other Baa-rated bonds since the start of the year (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, subordinate bank bonds offer a spread pick-up versus the corporate index in both option-adjusted spread terms (Chart 9, panel 3) and 12-month breakeven spread terms (Chart 9, bottom panel).   What Did We Learn From The Stress Tests? Last week the Fed released the results of its 2020 bank stress tests. Results for individual banks were released for a “severely adverse scenario”, the details of which had been publicly available since February. However, because of concern that the “severely adverse scenario” wasn’t dire enough to capture the potential fallout from the pandemic, the Fed also stress tested three COVID-specific scenarios and released results only for the banking system in aggregate. The three scenarios are: A ‘V’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 and Q4 of this year after contracting significantly in the first half. A ‘U’-shaped recovery, where the growth pick-up in the second half of 2020 is much milder. A ‘W’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 but then dips again near the end of the year. Table 2 shows a few key assumptions of the three scenarios along with how the actual economy is tracking. It seems that, absent the re-imposition of lock-down measures, the economy is tracking to be in a slightly better place than in any of the three scenarios. Note that the unemployment rate has already peaked below 15%, lower than assumed by any of the three scenarios. Table 2Three Stress Test Scenarios* Chart 10Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Chart 10 shows the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio for the aggregate banking sector, and the dashed horizontal lines show how far it would fall in the three different COVID scenarios. The results show that the ‘V’-shaped scenario is manageable for the banking system, but a significant number of banks would run into trouble in the ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios.   The good news for bank credit quality is that, based on how the economy is tracking and the prospects for further fiscal stimulus, the worst ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios will probably be avoided. Further, the Fed has already suspended share buybacks and capped dividend payouts. It will also re-run the stress tests later this year. Another round of stress tests this year is credit positive, as it will encourage banks to strengthen their capital buffers during the next few months. Bottom Line: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19961205.htm 2 https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, There will be no US Equity Insights from July 1-3 inclusive, as the US Equity team will be on vacation for the week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on Monday July 13, 2020 with our Weekly Report. Happy Independence Day.  Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Odds are high that stocks will move laterally in Q3, digesting the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. On all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress. Tack on the potential dividend cuts/suspensions and we were compelled to downgrade exposure to neutral. A dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions enticed us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Recent Changes Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral. These two moves also pushed the S&P financials sector weighting to neutral.1 Feature The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel, Chart 1). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, second panel, Chart 1). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Similarly, two Fridays ago we highlighted that the VIX and the S&P 500 were becoming positively correlated.2 The 20-day moving correlation between these two assets is shooting higher, approaching positive territory. Since late-2017 every time this correlation has hit the inflection point near the zero line, stocks has subsequently suffered a sizable setback (Chart 2). Chart 1Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Chart 2Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Tack on the public’s renewed interest in COVID-19 according to Google trends search results, and the odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer (top panel, Chart 1). Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Turning over to profits on the eve of earnings season, our four-factor macro EPS growth model for the SPX has tentatively troughed at an extremely depressed level (Chart 3). Our SPX EPS estimate for next calendar year remains near $162/share which we consider trend EPS and was last hit both in 2018 and 2019.3 Chart 3Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Moreover, drilling beneath the surface, this week Table 1 updates the sector and subgroup EPS growth expectations. First we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 1). The third columns in Table 1 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. Table 1Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The final columns highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Tech, health care and communication services occupy the top ranks with positive EPS growth expectations, while financials, real estate and energy are forecast to contract in the coming 12 months and have fallen at the bottom of the table. Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights Given that the tech sector has the highest profit weight in the SPX roughly 23% projected for next year (Table 2) it has really helped the broad market’s profit growth recovery (Chart 4). As a reminder, we continue to employ a barbell portfolio approach and prefer defensive (software and services) to aggressive tech (hardware and equipment). On the flip side, financials have the third largest profit weight roughly 16% in the S&P 500, trailing tech and health care, and pose a big threat to overall SPX profits next year, especially if there are any hiccups with the reopening of the economy (Table 2). Worrisomely, investors are not voting with their feet and are doubting that financials profits will deliver as the market cap weight relative to the profit weight stands at negative 540bps.  Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation via trimming the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral and this week we delve into more details on these two early cyclical subgroups. Chart 4Earnings Finding Their Footing Downgrade Banks To Neutral… We were compelled to downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral last Tuesday in advance of the Fed’s stress test results. There are high odds that a number of banks will cut/suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance in the latest round of stress test, especially if profits take a big hit as we expect. As a reminder, dividends are paid out below-the-line. Beyond the Fed’s stress tests and rising political risks,4 yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. First, it is disconcerting that bank relative performance has really not taken the yield curve’s steepening cue and has negatively diverged as we showed last week.5 The year-to-date plummeting 10-year yield is weighing heavily on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 5). The transmission mechanism to bank profits of this lower price of credit is via the net interest margin (NIM) avenue (third panel, Chart 5). NIMs will remain under downward pressure as long at the 10-year Treasury yield stays suppressed owing to the Fed’s immense b/s expansion. The rising likelihood of yield curve control could keep interest rates on the long end of the curve depressed for a number of years similar to what happened between 1942 and 1951. Second, on the credit growth front news is equally worrisome. The widening in the junk spread signals loan growth blues in the quarters ahead (second panel, Chart 6). Despite the initial knee jerk reaction, primarily by corporations, of tapping existing C&I credit lines and causing a surge in bank credit growth, bankers are not willing to extend credit according to the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey (third panel, Chart 6). The same survey revealed that banks are reporting lower demand for credit across the board, warning that future loan growth will be anemic at best, especially given the collapse in our economic impulse indicator (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Bank Yellow Flags Waving Chart 6Loan Growth Will Suffer Finally, with regard to credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel of Chart 7 highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 20mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel, Chart 7). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. In addition, there are “extend and pretend” clauses in the existing relief package especially on the residential mortgage front that aim to help homeowners make ends meet. But, the longer workers stay out of the labor force the higher the chances that their skills atrophy making it difficult for them to return to work. As a result, foreclosure risk is on the rise. While residential real estate loans are no longer the largest category in bank loan books they still comprise a respectable 21% of total loans or $2.3tn, a souring housing market could spell trouble for banks (Chart 8). Chart 7Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Chart 8Housing Arrears Are A Risk Already, residential mortgage delinquencies are rising and in May surged to the highest level since November 2011 according to Bloomberg. 4.3mn residential real estate borrowers are in arrears (this delinquency count includes borrowers with forbearance agreements who missed payments) and “more than 8% of all US mortgages were past due or in foreclosure” according to Black Night Inc., a property information service. Tack on the shattering consumer confidence and the consumer loan category (credit card, auto and student debt) is also under risk of severe credit quality deterioration (fourth panel, Chart 7). The commercial real estate (CRE) side of loan books is also likely to bleed. Anecdotes where landlords are demanding past due rent payment from tenants are mushrooming, at a time when the same landlords refuse to service their loan obligations. According to TREPP, CMBS delinquencies are skyrocketing across different REIT lines of business. Importantly, CRE loans add up to $2.4tn on commercial bank balance sheets or roughly 22% of total loans. Encouragingly, in Q1 banks started to aggressively provision for steep credit losses with commercial bank loan loss reserves now climbing just shy of $180bn according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile (second panel, Chart 7). This figure is almost twice as high as noncurrent loans and represents a healthy reserve coverage ratio. However, our fear is that if history at least rhymes NPLs will sling shot higher (bottom panel, Chart 7) rendering loan loss reserves insufficient. Putting this provisioning number in context, according to the Fed’s most adverse stress test scenarios banks’ losses could spring to $700bn: “In aggregate, loan losses for the 34 banks ranged from $560bn to $700bn”.6 As a result, banks will have to further provision for futures losses and thus take an additional hit to profitability. Our bank earnings growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and warns of a contraction in profit in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 9). Nevertheless, before getting too bearish on banks, there two key offsetting factors. Relative valuations are bombed out, signaling that most of the bad news is likely reflected in prices (bottom panel, Chart 5). Finally, technicals are also extremely oversold. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that relative momentum is as bad as it gets. Netting it all out, on all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress and compel us to downgrade exposure to neutral. Chart 9Dividend Cuts Are Looming …And Move To The Sidelines On Investment Banks & Brokers The S&P investment banks & brokers (IBB) group has a similar investment profile to the S&P banks index. But, given its more cyclical nature it typically oscillates violently around banks’ relative performance. Thus last Tuesday, we were also compelled to move to the sidelines on this higher beta financials subgroup.7 The COVID-19 accelerated recession has not only mothballed potential M&A deals that were in the works, but also a number of previously announced deals have been canceled. In addition, the outlook for M&A is grim, at least until the dust really settles from the coronavirus pandemic (second panel, Chart 10), weighing heavily on the sector’s profit prospects. While “Robinhood” (retail investor) trading stories abound, margin debt remains moribund and continues to contract, despite the V-shaped recovery in all major US stock markets since the March 23 lows (third panel, Chart 10). This coincident indicator speaks volumes in the near term direction of the broad market and any sustained contraction in trading related debt uptake will likely dent IBB profitability. According to the American Association of Individual Investors bullish retail investors have been absent from this quarter’s massive stock market rally and equity mutual fund and exchange traded fund flows corroborate this message (fourth panel, Chart 10). With regard to cyclicality, IBB are extremely quick to prune labor in times of duress and aggressively add to headcount during expansions. Recent trimming of IBB input costs signal that this industry is retrenching as it is trying to adjust cost structures to lower revenue run rates (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Related to the cyclical nature of the IBB industry, an accelerating stock-to-bond ratio has been synonymous with relative share outperformance and vice versa. In early June we turned cautious on the broad market’s near-term return prospects primarily on the back of rising (geo)political risks. The implication is that a lateral move in the broad market would push down the S/B ratio and weigh on relative share prices (Chart 11). However, there are some offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on this niche early-cyclical group. First relative valuations are extremely alluring. On a price-to-book basis IBB traded recently at 0.8x in absolute terms and at a steep 68% discount to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Chart 12Some Positive Offsets Second, volatility has gone haywire since late-February and it remains elevated with a VIX reading still north of 30. This is a fertile environment for IBB trading desks and should translate into higher profits (second panel, Chart 12). Third, equity trading volumes have exploded. True, volumes spike on downdrafts, but they have remained at an historically high level recently underscoring that IBB trading desk should be minting money (third panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, a dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions compelled us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral for a loss of 32.4% since inception. Trim the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral for a loss of 24% since inception. These moves also push the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT, and BLBG S5INBK – GS, MS, SCHW, ETFC, RJF, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Tales Of The Tape” dated June 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value ” dated April 27, 2020, and BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Debunking Earnings” dated May 19, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5    Ibid. 6    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200625c.htm 7    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps  June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights The highly uncertain backdrop calls for taking less near-term risk: It may be boring, but it’s only prudent for asset allocators to limit risk exposures when the distribution of economic and public health outcomes is so unusually wide. The US reported record daily COVID-19 infections last Wednesday and Thursday: Several southern and western states that led the way in easing social distancing measures are now experiencing record-high infection rates. Some states are pausing their reopening plans, and the recovery may be more drawn out than expected. Bank stocks sold off after the stress tests, but we’re still a fan of the SIFIs: The year-over-year increases in projected losses weren’t that large, and we still think the SIFIs will suffer smaller credit losses than the market expects. Feature Neutral is dull, neither hot nor cold, neither here nor there, and recommending a benchmark equity weighting in a balanced portfolio makes us restless. We see an equity equal weight as no more than a temporary pause while we wait for the balance between risk and reward to shift enough to merit an underweight or an overweight. When conditions are unusually uncertain, however, we recognize that staying within sight of the shore is prudent. Investors should only take risks when they judge that they will be adequately compensated for doing so. The IMF titled last week’s update to its World Economic Outlook, in which it lowered its 2020 global GDP growth forecast to -4.9% from April’s -3%, “A Crisis Like No Other, An Uncertain Recovery.” As the 1918-19 influenza outbreak is the only global public health threat approaching COVID-19 in terms of its seriousness and its reach, investors have to proceed without a ready basis of comparison. Six months after its emergence, there is still a great deal that we don’t know about the virus. It remains uncertain if developed economies have the hospital capacity and resource stockpiles to combat it, though many emerging economies clearly do not. Modeling the economic impact is further complicated by human vagaries. Public officials can make careful plans for the phased relaxation of activity restrictions, but there is no guarantee that the populace will abide by them. Clusters of unmasked patrons enjoying takeout service on the sidewalk outside the lower Manhattan bars that are open suggest that even likely Democratic voters are as tired of social distancing as the attendees packing the seats at the president’s recent rallies. It turns out that there is something that both sides can agree on, after all. The unpredictability of how well citizens will take direction can go the other way, as well. Just as steadily declining infection rates emboldened people to emerge from their cocoons sooner than officials wished, they may be reluctant to quit them even after officials sound the all-clear signal. As our European Investment Strategy colleagues have noted, economic activity in Sweden, which imposed barely any virus restrictions, was just as weak as it was in neighboring countries that sharply limited movement. The takeaway is that government officials may not have all that much say over how citizens change their behavior amidst a pandemic. There is a possibility, then, that even if officials become comfortable with fully reopening the economy, participants may balk at returning to some corners of it. Officials might throw a party, only to find that very few people will come. The bottom line is that economic conditions are still extremely uncertain, and we will remain in our tactically neutral limbo until we get some clarity about the virus’ path or until equity prices move significantly. Ready Or Not, Here We Come US equities stumbled last week as new COVID-19 infections staged a comeback, with the 7-day moving average rising for 13 straight days and counting (Chart 1). Increases in infections are an inevitable consequence of the expiration of temporary stay-at-home orders that stymied transmission by keeping people apart. The locus has begun to shift from a still largely limited New York City to the southern and western states that were among the first to reopen their economies. As infection rates surged beyond Gotham, the US set consecutive daily infection records last Wednesday and Thursday. Chart 1US Daily New Infections We reiterate that rising cases are no surprise. It is a certainty that more people will contract a communicable disease once large swaths of the population are released from quarantine. But the sharp increases in cases may inspire investors to ask some uncomfortable questions. The lockdowns were meant to buy time for officials to design a testing, tracing and isolation framework that other countries have successfully wielded to short-circuit the spread of the virus. Did the United States use that time to build a workable framework? If not, are conditions materially different than they were in March, when stay-at-home orders began to be issued? The testing process continues to be beset by snags. The US is now capable of administering half a million tests a day, according to health officials’ testimony before Congress last week, and they expect capacity to triple by the fall. That capacity is fragmented across several small labs and testing facilities, however, and it can take as much as a week to obtain results, hampering attempts to isolate those who test positive. The absence of a central authority to direct resources where they’re most needed as new nodes emerge undermines the aggregate national capabilities.1 Turnabout Is Fair Play New York City quickly became the global epicenter once the pandemic entered the United States on account of its density, its residents’ reliance on public transportation and its position as an international crossroads. Counties across the entire metropolitan area, stretching into New Jersey and Connecticut, suffered high per-capita infection rates. Nowhere else in the US needed lockdown measures more than New York City, and it only entered the second stage of a four-stage phased re-opening last week. Other states, observing how the virus besieged New York in March and April, imposed restrictions on New York residents traveling to their states, fearing that they could potentially spread the virus far and wide. The rise in infection rates isn't surprising, but its steepness might cause investors to revisit their virus assumptions. The shoe is now on the other foot. New York has steadily reduced its new infection rate for two months and its 7-day moving average of new infections is just one-fifteenth of its early April peak (Chart 2, top panel). It is now nervously eyeing states suffering new outbreaks, and it announced 14-day quarantine measures for visitors from nine states – Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington – last week. The visitor quarantines are a voluntary measure, and thus likely to have little practical effect, but they highlight the way that several states that have reopened are seeing sharply rising per-capita infection rates relative to the entire country. Alabama’s stay-at-home order ended on April 30th. Its relative per-capita infection rate began to rise immediately (Chart 3, bottom panel). Its 7-day moving average of new infections has since experienced three surges, with the last and most potent causing it to more than double across nine days from June 8th to June 16th (Chart 3, top panel). That span included four consecutive days of record infections. Chart 2New York Daily New Infections Chart 3Alabama Daily New Infections Arizona’s outbreak has been remarkably swift. Its stay-at-home order expired on May 15th, and both its 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 4, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 4, bottom panel) inflected sharply higher fourteen days later. The former series has risen sixfold since residents regained their ability to circulate freely outside of their homes. Arkansas did not have a statewide stay-at-home order, but several measures to slow the virus’ spread were imposed. Restaurants re-opened with capacity limits on May 11th, and by month’s end Arkansas’ 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 5, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 5, bottom panel) had begun to inflect sharply higher. Chart 4Arizona Daily New Infections Chart 5Arkansas Daily New Infections The story is similar across the rest of the states subject to New York’s quarantine. Stay-at-home orders end, stores, bars and restaurants reopen, and infection rates surge with a lag of about two weeks. Florida and Texas, the two most populous states on New York’s list, fit the general pattern, though the rate at which their infections has grown has been striking. Last Wednesday, Florida topped its previous single-day new infection record by 36%2 (Chart 6, top panel), while Texas surpassed its daily high by 30% (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6Florida Daily New Infections Chart 7Texas Daily New Infections What’s That Have To Do With The Price Of Stocks In New York? Some of the increase in infection rates is surely a function of more widely available testing. An assessment of what increased state infection rates mean for the course of the virus in any individual state or the entire country is beyond the scope of this report, not to mention our qualifications. Our intention is simply to assess whether US equities are vulnerable to the rising state case counts. We think they could be. Combined daily new infections in Florida and Texas now exceed New York's worst levels in the first half of April. We have previously written that the political will for social distancing measures has dissipated. For many state and local leaders, a return to lockdowns is not an option, and both Missouri’s and Texas’ governors have said as much, in no uncertain terms. There must be an infection level, however, that would force their hands, no matter the depth of their personal opposition. On Thursday, Texas’ governor halted any further easing of restrictions and signed an order suspending elective procedures at hospitals in the counties encompassing Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, all the while reiterating that rolling back reopening measures was a last resort.3 A resurgence in infection rates isn’t an investment concern per se, but it could become one if it encourages state and/or municipal authorities to reinstitute strict social distancing measures or freeze steps toward reopening local economies. There is also a potential threat to consumer confidence, which could be much harder to combat. Reopening an economy too soon could produce a more persistent drag than locking it down for too long. Premature easing that leads to a widely observed surge in infections may make individuals wary of leaving their homes lest they encounter the virus. Hasty measures meant to unshackle economic activity could backfire by sapping confidence that takes a long time to restore. The bottom line is that the combination of virus risks and an elevated forward earnings multiple keeps us from changing our neutral tactical stance to overweight. We are not inclined to underweight stocks, however, unless the S&P 500 approaches its all-time high around 3,400, given the potential for a positive virus surprise and individual and institutional investors’ ample cash holdings. Over a one-year horizon, we remain overweight equities as we do not see the pandemic exerting a permanently negative impact on corporate earnings. SIFI Bank Update The Fed released the results of its annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST) after the close last Thursday. The verdict was decidedly mixed. Investors and the financial media were keenly focused on the fate of bank dividends, and while the Fed did not forbid dividend payments, it capped third-quarter distributions at the lesser of a bank’s second-quarter dividend payment or the average of its trailing four-quarter earnings. It also said it would not allow any share repurchases in the third quarter, extending the largest banks' voluntary buyback pause. Among the SIFIs, Wells Fargo (WFC) is most likely to be constrained by the dividend cap, but its stock, lagging the rest of its peers’, already discounted that possibility. Our thesis that the SIFI banks will not incur credit losses as large as the market expects is still intact, provided Congress doesn’t abandon pandemic-stricken businesses, state and local governments or the unemployed in its follow-up to the CARES Act. The Fed's stress tests highlighted the many risks the banking system still faces, but we stand behind our call to overweight the SIFIs. If Congress plays its part, reserve builds roughly equivalent to half of the credit losses projected under the severely adverse scenario should prove to be more than sufficient. Table 1 updates the table we created after first quarter earnings releases to assess the adequacy of each bank’s loan-loss reserves. It shows that the total projected stress-test losses for the SIFIs are just 8.6% larger than they were in 2019, with only JP Morgan (JPM) facing a material increase in its loan-loss rate. A modest increase in maximum projected losses suggests only a modest increase in future provisions, and we still believe that another two quarters of provisions equivalent to the first quarter’s will be enough for each bank ex-WFC, which continues to look under-provisioned alongside its peers. Table 1Loan-Loss Reserves Vs. Updated Stress Test Projections Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kliff, Sarah, “Arizona ‘Overwhelmed’ With Demand for Tests as U.S. System Shows Strain,” New York Times, June 25, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/virus-testing-shortfall-arizona.html 2 As we went to press Friday afternoon, Florida announced over 8,900 new cases, 60% above Wednesday's high. 3 As we went to press Friday afternoon, the governor had just issued an order closing all Texas bars.