Equities

Special Report

Executive Summary Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​ Tectonic geopolitical trends are taking shape in Emerging Markets (EMs) today that will leave an indelible imprint on the next decade. First, EMs have gone on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge at a time when the economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. This raises the spectre of sudden fiscal populism, aggressive foreign policy or social unrest in EMs. China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia appear most vulnerable to these risks. Second, the defense bill of major EMs could be comparable to that of the top developed countries of the world in a decade from now. Investors must brace for EMs to play a central role in the defense market and in wars, in the coming years. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. To extract most from the theme of EM militarization, we suggest a Long on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks.   Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (STRATEGIC) 2022-03-18   Bottom Line: Even as EMs are set to emerge as protagonists on the world stage, investors must prepare for these countries to exhibit sudden fiscal expansions, bouts of social unrest or a newfound propensity to initiate wars. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events is to leverage geopolitics to foresee these shocks. Feature Only a few weeks before Russia’s war with Ukraine broke out, a client told us that he was having trouble seeing the importance of geopolitics in investing. “It seems like geopolitics was a lot more relevant a few years back, with the European debt crisis, Brexit, and Trump. Now it does not seem to drive markets at all”, said the client. To this we gave our frequent explanation which is, “Our strategic themes of Great Power Struggle, Hypo-Globalization, and Nationalism/Populism are now embedded in the international system and responsible for an observable rise in geopolitical risk that is reshaping markets”. In particular we highlighted our pessimistic view on both Russia and Iran, which have incidentally crystallized most clearly since we had this client conversation. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyBrazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Globally key geopolitical changes are afoot with Russia at war. In the coming weeks and months, we will write extensively about the dramatic changes we see taking shape in the realm of geopolitics and investing. We underscored the dramatic geopolitical realignment taking place as Russia severs ties with the West and throws itself into China’s arms in a report titled “From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi”. In this Special Report we highlight two key geopolitical themes that will affect emerging markets (EMs) over the coming decade. The aim is to help investors spot these trends early, so that they can profit from these tectonic changes that are sure to spawn a new generation of winners and losers in financial markets. (For BCA Research’s in-depth views on EMs, do refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) webpage). Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Chart 1The Pace Of Debt Accumulation Has Accelerated In Major EMs Investors are generally aware of the debt build-up that has taken place in the developed world since Covid-19. The gross public debt held by the six most developed countries of the world (spanning US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) now stands at an eye-watering $60 trillion or about 140% of GDP. This debt pile is enormous in both absolute and relative terms. But at the same time, the debt simultaneously being taken on by EMs has largely gone unnoticed. The cumulative public debt held by eight major EMs today (spanning China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) stands at $20tn i.e., about 70% of GDP. Whilst the absolute value of EM debt appears manageable, what is worrying is the pace of debt accumulation. The average public debt to GDP ratio of these EMs fell over the early 2000s but their public debt ratios have now doubled over the last decade (Chart 1). EMs have been accumulating public debt at such a rapid clip that the pace of debt expansion in EMs is substantially higher than that of the top six developed countries (Chart 1). These six DMs have a larger combined GDP than the eight EMs with which they are compared. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyIndia's Politics: Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em (For in-depth views on China’s debt, do refer to China Investment Strategy (CIS) report here). Now developed countries taking on more debt makes logical sense for two reasons. Firstly, most developed countries are ageing, and their populations have stopped growing. So one way to prop up falling demand is to get governments to spend more using debt. Secondly, this practice seems manageable because developed country central banks have deep pockets (in the form of reserves) and their central banks are issuers of some of the safest currencies of the world. But EMs using the same formula and getting addicted to debt at an earlier stage of development is risky and could prove to be lethal in some cases. Also distinct from reasons of macroeconomics, the debt binge in EMs this time is problematic for geopolitical reasons. This Time Is Different EMs getting reliant on debt is problematic this time because their median citizen’s economic prospects have deteriorated. Growth is slowing, inflation is high, and job creation is stalling; thereby creating a problematic socio-political backdrop to the EM debt build-up. Growth Is Slowing: In the 2000s EMs could hope to grow out of their social or economic problems. The cumulative nominal GDP of eight major EMs more than quadrupled over the early 2000s but a decade later, these EMs haven not been able to grow their nominal GDP even at half the rate (Chart 2). Inflation Remains High: Despite poorer growth prospects, inflation is accelerating. Inflation was high in most major EMs in 2021 (Chart 3) i.e., even before the surge seen in 2022. Chart 2Major EM’s Growth Engine Is No Longer Humming Like A Well-Tuned Machine​​​​​ Chart 3Despite Slower Growth, Inflation In Major EMs Remains High​​​​​ Rising Unemployment: Employment levels have improved globally from the precipice they had fallen into in 2020. But unemployment today is a far bigger problem for major EMs as compared to developed markets (Chart 4). If the economic miseries of the median EM citizen are not addressed, then they can produce disruptive sociopolitical effects that will fan market volatility. This problem of rising economic misery alongside a rapid debt build-up, can also be seen for the next tier of EMs i.e. Mexico, Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Thailand, Nigeria, Argentina, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. While the average public debt to GDP ratios of these EMs fell over the early 2000s, the pace of debt accumulation has almost doubled over the last decade (Chart 5). Furthermore, the growth engine in these smaller EMs is no longer humming like a well-tuned machine and inflation remains at large (Chart 5). Chart 4Unemployment - A Bigger Problem In Major EMs Today​​​​​ Chart 5Smaller EMs Must Also Deal With Rising Debt, Alongside Slowing Growth​​​​​ Chart 6The Debt Surge In EMs This Time, Poses Unique Challenges History suggests that periods of economic tumult are frequently followed by social unrest. The eruption of the so-called Arab Spring after the Great Recession illustrated the power of this dynamic. Then following the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020 we had highlighted that Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa are at the greatest risk of significant social unrest. We also showed that even EMs that looked stable on paper faced unrest in the post-Covid world, including China and Russia. In this report we take a decadal perspective which reveals that growth is slowing, and debt is growing in EMs. Given that EMs suffer from rising economic miseries alongside growing debt and lower political freedoms (Chart 6), it appears that some of these markets could be socio-political tinderboxes in the making. Policy Implications Of The EM Debt Surge “As it turns out, we don't 'all' have to pay our debts. Only some of us do.” – David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House Publishing, 2011) The trifecta of fast-growing debt, slowing growth and/or low political freedoms in EMs can add to the volatility engendered by EMs as an asset class. Given the growing economic misery in EMs today, politicians will be wary of outbreaks of social unrest. To quell this unrest, they may resort broadly to fiscal expansion and/or aggressive foreign policy. Both of these policy choices can dampen market returns in EMs. Chart 7India's Performance Had Flatlined Post Mild Populist Tilt Policy Choice #1: More Fiscal Spending Despite High Debt Policymakers in some EMs may respond by de-prioritizing contentious structural reforms and prioritizing fiscal expansion. The Indian government’s decision to repeal progressive changes to farm laws in late 2021, launch a $7 billion home-building program in early 2022 and withholding hikes in retail prices of fuel, illustrates how policymakers are resorting to populism despite high public debt levels. As a result, it is no surprise that MSCI India had been underperforming MSCI EM even before the war in Ukraine broke out (Chart 7). Brazil is another EM which falls into this category, while China’s attempts to run tighter budgets have failed in the face of slowing growth. Policy Choice #2: Foreign Policy Aggression EMs may also adopt an aggressive foreign policy stance. Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, Turkey’s interventions in several countries, and China’s increasing assertiveness in its neighboring seas and the Taiwan Strait provide examples. Wars by EMs are known to dampen returns as the experience of the Russian stock market shows. Russian stocks fell by 14% during its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and are down 40% from 24 February 2022 until March 9, 2022, i.e. when MSCI halted trading. If politicians fail to pursue either of these policies, then they run the risk of social unrest erupting due to tight fiscal policy or domestic political disputes. In fact, early signs of social discontent are already evident from large protests seen in major EMs over the last year (see Table 1). Table 1Social Unrest In Major EMs Is Already Ascendant Bottom Line: The last decade has seen major EMs go on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge. This is problematic because this debt surge has come at a time when economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. Politicians will be keen to quell the resultant discontent. This raises the specter of excessive fiscal expansion, aggressive foreign policy, and/or social unrest. All three outcomes are negative from an EM volatility perspective. Trend #2: The Rise And Rise Of EM Defense Spends Great Power Rivalry is an outgrowth of the multipolar structure of international relations. This theme will drive higher defense spending globally. In this report we highlight that even after accounting for a historic rearmament in developed countries following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a decade from now EMs will play a key role in driving global military spends. The defense bill of the six richest developed countries of the world (the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) will increasingly be rivaled by that of the top eight EMs (China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). While key developed markets like Japan and Germany in specific (and Europe more broadly) are now embarking on increasing defense spends, the unstable global backdrop will force EMs to increase their military budgets as well. The combination of these forces could mean that the top eight EM’s defense spends could be comparable to that of the top six developed markets in a decade from now i.e., by 2032 (Chart 8). This is true even though the six DMs have a larger GDP. The assumptions made while arriving at the 2032 defense spend projections include: Substantially Higher Pace Of Defense Spends For Developed Countries: To reflect the fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will trigger a historical wave of armament in developed markets we assume that: (a) NATO members France, Germany and Italy (who spent about 1.5% of GDP on an average on defense spends in 2019) will ramp up defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2032, (b) US and UK i.e. NATO members who already spend substantially more than 2% of GDP on defense spends will still ‘increase’ defense spends by another 0.4% of GDP each by 2032 and finally (c) Japan which spends less than 1% of GDP on defense spends today, in a structural break from the past will increase its spending which will rise to 1.5% of GDP by 2032. China And Hence Taiwan As Well As India Will Boost Spends: To capture China’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance and the fact that India as well as Taiwan will be forced to respond to the Chinese threat; we assume that China increases its stated defense spends from 1.7% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. Taiwan follows in lockstep and increases its defense spends from 1.8% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. India which is experiencing a pincer movement from China to its east and Pakistan to its west will have no choice but to respond to the high and rising geopolitical risks in South Asia. The coming decade is in fact likely to see India’s focus on its naval firepower increase meaningfully as it feels the need to fend off threats in the Indo-Pacific. India currently maintains high defense spends at 2.5% of GDP and will boost this by at least 100bps to 3.5% of GDP by 2032. Defense Spending Trends For Five EMs: For the rest of the EMs (namely Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Brazil), the pace of growth in defense spending seen over 2009-19 is extrapolated to 2032. For Turkey, we assume that defense spends as a share of GDP increases to 3% of GDP by 2032. Extrapolation Of Past GDP Growth For All Countries: For all 14 countries, we extrapolate the nominal GDP growth calculated by the IMF for 2022-26 as per its last full data update, to 2032. This tectonic change in defense spending patterns has important historical roots. Back in 1900, UK and Japan i.e., the two seafaring powers were top defense spenders (Chart 9). Developed countries of the world continued to lead defense spending league tables through the twentieth century as they fought expensive world wars. Chart 8Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​​​ Chart 9Back In 1900, Developed Countries Like UK And Japan Were Top Military Spenders​​​​​​ Chart 10By 2000, EMs Had Begun Spending Generously On Armament But things began changing after WWII. Jaded by the world wars, developed countries began lowering their defense spending. By the early 2000s EMs had now begun spending generously on armament (Chart 10). The turn of the century saw growth in developed markets fade while EMs like China and India’s geopolitical power began rising (Chart 11). Then a commodities boom ensued, resulting in petro-states like Saudi Arabia establishing their position as a high military spender. The confluence of these factors meant that by 2020 EMs had becomes major defense spenders in both relative and absolute terms too (Chart 12). Going forward, we expect the coming renaissance in DM defense spending in the face of Russian aggression, alongside rising geopolitical aspirations of China, to exacerbate this trend of rising EM militarization. Chart 11The 21st Century Saw Developed Countries’ Geopolitical Power Ebb Chart 12EMs Today Are Top Military Spenders, Even In Absolute Terms Why Does EM Weaponizing Matter? History suggests that wars are often preceded by an increase in defense spends: Well before WWI, a perceptible increase in defense spending could be seen in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy (Chart 13). These three countries would go on to be known as the Triple Alliance in WWI. Correspondingly France, Britain and Russia (i.e., countries that would constitute the Triple Entente) also ramped up military spending before WWI (Chart 14). Chart 13Well Before WWI; Austria-Hungary, Germany, And Italy Had Begun Ramping Up Defense Spends​​​​​​ Chart 14The ‘Triple Entente’ Too Had Increased Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWI​​​​​​ History tragically repeated itself a few decades later. Besides Japan (which invaded China in 1937); Germany and Italy too ramped up defense spending well before WWII broke out (Chart 15). These three countries would come to be known as the Axis Powers and initiated WWII. Notably, Britain and Russia (who would go on to counter the Axis Powers) had also been weaponizing since the mid-1930s (Chart 16). Chart 15Axis Powers Had Been Increasing Defense Spends Well Before WWII​​​​​ Chart 16Allied Powers Too Had Been Increasing Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWII​​​​​ Chart 17Militarily Active States Have Been Ramping Up Defense Spends Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Gulf Arab states like Iraq have been involved in wars in the recent past and noticeably increased their defense budgets in the lead-up to military activity (Chart 17). Given that a rise in military spending is often a leading indicator of war and given that EMs are set to spend more on defense, it appears that significant wars are becoming more rather than less likely, which Russia’s invasion of Ukraine obviously implies. A large number of “Black Swan Risks” are clustered in the spheres of influence of Russia, China, and Iran, which are the key powers attempting to revise the US-led global order today (Map 1). Map 1Black Swan Risks Are Clustered Around China, Russia & Iran Distinct from major EMs, eight small countries pose meaningful risks of being involved in wars over the next. These countries are small (in terms of their nominal GDPs) but spend large sums on defense both in absolute terms (>$4 billion) and in relative terms (>4% of GDP). Incidentally all these countries are located around the Eurasian rimland and include Israel, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Ukraine and Morocco (Map 2). In fact, the combined sum of spending undertaken by these countries is so meaningful that it exceeds the defense budgets of countries like Russia and UK (Chart 18). Map 2Eight Small Countries That Spend Generously On Defense Chart 188 Countries Located Near The Eurasian Rimland, Spend Large Sums On Defense​​​​ Bottom Line: As EM geopolitical power and aspirations rise, the defense bill of top developed countries will be challenged by the defense spending undertaken by major EMs. On one hand this change will mean that certain EMs may be at the epicenter of wars and concomitant market volatility. On the other hand, this change could spawn a new generation of winners amongst defense suppliers. Investment Conclusions In this section we highlight strategic trades that can be launched to play the two trends highlighted above. Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Investors must prepare for EMs to witness sudden fiscal expansions, unusually aggressive foreign policy stances, and/or bouts of social unrest over the next few years. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events in EMs is to leverage geopolitics to foresee socio-political shocks. Using a simple method called the “Tinderbox Framework” (Table 2), we highlight that: Table 2Tinderbox Framework: Identifying Countries Most Exposed To Socio-Political Risks Within the eight major EMs; China, Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia face elevated socio-political risks. Amongst the smaller ten EMs, these risks appear most elevated for Egypt, South Africa and Argentina. It is worth noting that Brazil, South Africa and Turkey appeared most vulnerable as per our Covid-19 Social Unrest Index that we launched in 2020. We used the tinderbox framework in the current context to fade out effects of Covid-19 and to add weight to the debt problem that is brewing in EMs. Client portfolios that are overweight on most countries that fare poorly on our “Tinderbox Framework” should consider actively hedging for volatility at the stock-specific level. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. China’s public debt ratio is high and social pressures may be building with limited valves in place to release these pressures (Table 2). The renminbi has performed well amid the Russian war, which has weighed down the euro, but China faces a confluence of domestic and international risks that will ultimately drag on the currency, while the euro will benefit from the European Union’s awakening as a geopolitical entity in the face of the Russian military threat. Trend #2: EM’s Will Drive Wars In The 21st Century Wars are detrimental to market returns.1 Furthermore, as the history of world wars proves, even the aftermath of a war often yields poor investment outcomes as wars can be followed by recessions. It is in this context that investors must prepare for the rise of EMs as protagonists in the defense market, by leveraging geopolitics to identify EMs that are most likely to be engaged in wars. While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt, investors must brace for proxy wars as an added source of volatility that could affect EMs as an asset class. To profit from these structural changes underway we highlight two strategic trades namely: 1.  Long Global Aerospace & Defense / Broad Market Thanks to the higher spending on defense being undertaken by major EMs, global defense spends will grow at a faster rate over the next decade as compared to the last. We hence reiterate our Buy on Global Aerospace & Defense relative to the broader market. 2.  Long European Aerospace & Defense / European Tech Up until Russia invaded Ukraine and was hit with economic sanctions, Russia was the second largest exporter of arms globally accounting for 20% global arms exports. With Russia’s ability to sell goods in the global market now impaired, the two other major suppliers of defense goods that appear best placed to tap into EM’s demand for defense goods are the US (37% share in the global defense exports market) and Europe (+25% share in the global defense exports market). Chart 19American Defense Stocks Have Outperformed, European Defense Stocks Have Underperformed​​​​​​ Chart 20Defense Market: Russia’s Loss Could Be Europe’s Gain​​​​​ But given that (a) American aerospace & defense stocks have rallied (Chart 19) and given that (b) France, Germany, and Italy are major suppliers of defense equipment to countries that Russia used to supply defense goods to (Chart 20), we suggest a Buy on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks to extract more from this theme. In fact, this trade also stands to benefit from the pursuance of rearmament by major European democracies which so far have maintained lower defense spends as compared to America and UK. This view from a geopolitical perspective is echoed by our European Investment Strategy (EIS) team too who also recommend a Long on European defense stocks and a short on European tech stocks. Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see: Andrew Leigh et al, “What do financial markets think of war in Iraq?”, NBER Working Paper No. 9587, March 2003, nber.org.  David Le Bris, “Wars, Inflation and Stock Market Returns in France, 1870-1945”, Financial History Review 19.3 pp. 337-361, December 2012, ssrn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary Profit Margins Are Headed Lower; So Are Equity Multiples The post pandemic profit recovery in India was driven by a one-off revival of demand from very depressed levels, which led to a spike in profit margins as companies’ sales outpaced their costs (hiring costs and financing cost). The glacial pace of job creation since the pandemic and the muted wage growth is to blame for weak household income, which in turn is hurting consumption. Indian growth is wobbling as household consumption is losing steam, and capital investments are decelerating. The Ukraine crisis and the resulting oil / commodity price surge will hurt Indian firms’ margins and profits even more in the months to come. Indian stocks are still expensive, and future profit expectations are elevated – especially relative to their EM and emerging Asian counterparts. This has set the stage for profit disappointment. Bottom Line: Indian growth is decelerating amid high stock valuations. Higher for longer commodity prices will hurt as well. Equity investors should downgrade Indian stocks tactically from neutral to underweight in EM and emerging Asian portfolios. Domestic bond investors should book profits on their Indian exposure, and downgrade to neutral in EM and emerging Asian baskets. Feature Chart 1Indian Stocks Are Headed For A Turbulent Time​​​​​​ Long COVID is a condition that manifests itself after a person recovers from the acute phase of the disease. The Indian economy is showing similar signs: after an initial post-COVID recovery, household consumption and investment have begun to disappoint. This is happening at a time when Indian equity valuations and investors’ profit expectations are much higher than those of the rest of the EM. As such, Indian share prices are set for a turbulent time ahead. Equity investors should tactically downgrade this bourse to underweight in EM and emerging Asian portfolios (Chart 1). Domestic bond investors should book profits on their Indian exposure, and downgrade it to neutral in EM and emerging Asian baskets. Consumer Spending During and in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, the Indian government did not supplement lost household income caused by the lockdowns and the layoffs by any good measure. Tangible fiscal stimulus (i.e., excluding government guarantees etc.) amounted to less than 2% of GDP. Post-pandemic, jobs have been growing at a glacial pace. In fact, India’s total employment is estimated to be still 8% lower as of the end of 2021 compared to the first quarter of 2020, as per Oxford Economics data. Consistently, wage growth has been very poor as well – in both urban and rural areas (Chart 2). Wages in real terms (deflated by CPI) have been contracting. Household income has therefore remained severely impaired. The consequences of meagre household incomes can now be seen in persistently weak consumer durable sales. Chart 3 shows that passenger cars and 2-wheeler sales are languishing at much lower levels than they were in the pre-pandemic period. Chart 2Subdued Employment And Poor Wage Growth Sapped Household Income … Chart 3… Leading To Impaired Household Consumption Chart 4Signs Of Softening Business Activity The overall growth in India was seen to be softening even before the Ukraine crisis. The economy grew at a 5.4% YoY rate in the last quarter of 2021, down from 8.5% in the previous quarter. The trend appears to be continuing into this year. Corroborating evidence comes in the form of the number of E-way bills1 issued – which is a barometer of business activity. The number peaked in October last year and has been struggling since (Chart 4). Persistently weak consumer demand is a crucial reason why manufacturing production is also struggling to get back to the pre-pandemic trend – which would be a good 10% higher than the current level (Chart 4, bottom panel). Industrial production will face difficulty gaining traction should weakness in consumer demand linger. On the whole, the post-pandemic economic recovery in India was a rapid one initially; but is now gradually losing steam as joblessness remains high and wages remain low. Looming Energy Tax Ominously, odds have risen that core (non-oil) consumer demand could be even weaker in the months ahead. The sharp rise in crude prices will soon mean that Indian consumers and businesses will have to shell out more for their energy-related purchases. Chart 5 shows that retail gasoline and diesel prices in India did not keep pace with the global crude prices in recent months. Hence, if some or all of the rise is passed on to the consumers, domestic fuel prices could go up by about 10 - 20%. If so, that would be a major tax on the economy. Higher expenses on fuel and transportation – which make up about 15% of consumer spending – will force households to curtail their non-oil spending elsewhere. That means non-energy firms would see lower sales. Those firms would also see their own operating and raw material costs going up given the higher oil and other commodity prices. Together, these will have a pronounced negative impact on these firms’ profit margins. Lower margins are a harbinger of lower stock multiples (Chart 6). Chart 5Retail Gasoline And Diesel Prices Could Rise Materially Chart 6Profit Margins Are Headed Lower; So Are Equity Multiples Notably, Indian corporate profit margins had surged to decade high levels last year thanks mainly to cost cutting. Wage bills had gone down as businesses slashed employees; and were slow to re-hire them. Interest expenses had also gone down – both relative to sales and profits – as the central bank cut interest rates aggressively. When sales revived after the lockdowns, the higher/rising margins led to surging profits. But now, both sales and margins are in jeopardy as weak consumer demand is hurting the former, while rising raw materials cost will hurt the latter. Profits are set to disappoint as a result. Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyEquity Capitulation, A Commodity Shock And Geopolitics What’s more, faltering profits could also lead to a premature slowdown in India’s capital investments. Firms’ capex plans are highly contingent on profit growth; and therefore, the former may see a dip in the coming months with dwindling profits (Chart 7). This potential development could be a major negative for India’s sustainable growth story, and its ill-effects may linger. What makes this episode of oil/commodity shock particularly negative for India is that it is taking place when consumer demand is already sluggish. Previous oil shocks in 2007-08 and 2011-12 took place when the underlying growth was quite robust. Stronger underlying growth allows for the absorption of negative exogenous shocks like higher oil & energy prices. Overall, rising oil prices have historically been bearish for Indian stocks’ relative performance. That correlation had broken down since the onset of the pandemic two years ago (Chart 8). However, now with the crude price hovering around $100 a barrel, India’s relative equity outperformance versus the EM benchmark will give up some of its gains of the past two years. Chart 7Dwindling Profits Could Lead To A Slowdown In Caital Expenditure Chart 8India’s Relative Equity Outperformance Cannot Continue With $100 Oil How About Inflation? Chart 9Global Commodity Prices Dictate Indian PPI, But Not So Much CPI India’s producer price inflation (PPI) is highly geared to global commodity prices. As such, one can expect PPI to re-accelerate in the months ahead. That said, commodity prices are not a major driver of India’s consumer price inflation (CPI). The latter will therefore likely remain more well behaved than PPI would (Chart 9). Historically, the two primary drivers of India’s CPI have been the economy’s productivity growth rate and broad money (M3) growth rate. Since productivity trends do not change much in the near term, it’s money supply that determines the short-term trajectory of CPI (Chart 10). Chart 10Money Supply Determines India’s CPI Over Cyclical Horizon Chart 11Drivers Of India’s Money Supply Will See Only A Mediocre Growth Money growth has been quite mediocre recently; and will likely stay that way. This is because neither of the two main drivers of money supply, bank credit and fiscal expenditure, are set to rise very strongly. In the proposed fiscal budget for April 2022 – March 2023, the government is planning to raise current expenditure2 by just 1% in nominal terms; and the total expenditure by 5%. Meanwhile, non-interest government spending growth has already come back to normal levels following the one-off surge during the pandemic (Chart 11, top panel). Bank credit has also slowed on the margin this year. That it has barely grown in real terms in the past couple of years is also dampening inflationary pressures (Chart 11, bottom panel). All this means that any rise in consumer price inflation will be limited. Notably, a marginal rise in consumer price inflation is unlikely to lead to policy tightening by the central bank. This is because the source of inflation would be supply driven, rather than demand driven. The central bank would recognize that higher commodity prices will exacerbate the already weak consumer demand; and therefore, any further policy tightening could decimate growth. On the whole, very sluggish wage growth and contained core CPI support the fact that there are no genuine demand-driven inflationary pressures in the country (Chart 12). A rise in global food prices should also not impact India much as the country is not a big importer of food grains and most of its food is domestically grown. All in all, the RBI is likely to ignore the slight pickup in CPI, and will refrain from raising rates. How Much Downside In Stocks? Indian stocks have been in a trading range relative to their EM counterparts since we downgraded them to neutral in October last year. In absolute terms also they have not fallen much so far – even though foreign investors have exited this market en masse over the past several months. The missing piece of the puzzle for this apparent dichotomy is the massive purchases by domestic mutual funds in recent months. This local demand is what prevented this bourse from tanking (Chart 13). Chart 12India’s Consumer Inflation Will Not Rise By Too Much Chart 13The Massive Purchases Of Mutual Funds Will Wane With Profit Disappointment Chart 14Indian Stock Multiples Are Still Very High Relative To Their Counterparts Going forward, however, those domestic purchases are likely to wane as growth and profits slow, and local investors become wary of their equity exposures. That would lead to a sell-off in stock prices. Notably, Indian stocks are still quite pricey when compared to both their EM and emerging Asian counterparts based on the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (Chart 14). As explained above, Indian stock multiples are set to fall materially as firms’ profit margins are squeezed in the months to come. Investors have paid high equity multiples as they have extrapolated the strong profit recovery post-pandemic into the future. However, the profit recovery post-pandemic was driven by a one-off revival of demand from very depressed levels and a one-off spike in profit margins as companies’ sales outpaced their costs (hiring costs and financing cost). As and when investors realize that a sustainable profit growth rate is much lower than the initial post-pandemic trajectory, multiples will shrink somewhat. At the same time, firms’ topline will also wobble as non-oil consumer spending sees forced retrenchment. Weakish topline, multiplied by lower margins, entails weak earnings growth. That would be another drag (besides shrinking multiples) on Indian share prices. Notably, a sell-off in Indian stocks usually comes with a depreciating rupee – thereby compounding woes for foreign investors in Indian stocks. All in all, this bourse could witness a major down leg in absolute USD terms in the months to come. Relative to other EM and emerging Asian markets also they will trade on the weaker side. Book Profits On Domestic Bonds We have been overweight India in EM local currency bond portfolios given Indian bonds’ rather high yields, and the country’s prudent fiscal policy, benign inflation outlook, and a cheap currency. The call has worked out well (Chart 15, top panel). However, following the sharp rise in EM bond yields, Indian bond yields are no longer attractive in relative terms (Chart 15, bottom panel). A less sanguine rupee outlook over the short term is another cause for concern. Besides, rising US bond yields would make Indian bonds look less attractive. Considering all, we recommend EM local currency bond investors take profits on their overweight India exposure and reduce the allocation to neutral in EM and emerging Asian baskets. Investment Recommendations Equities: Indian firms’ profit outlook has deteriorated significantly given odds of disappointing margins and still high equity valuations. Investors should tactically downgrade this market from neutral to underweight in EM and emerging Asian equity portfolios. Absolute return investors should avoid this market outright. Currency and Bonds: The Indian rupee is at a risk of mild depreciation along with a sell-off in the Indian stock markets. However, given that the currency is cheap, its relapse will not be large (Chart 16). Chart 15Indian Domestic Bonds Are Not As Attractive Any More; Book Profits Chart 16Indian Rupee Is Cheap, And Hence Has Only A Limited Downside Indian government bonds have outperformed their EM counterparts over the past four years; but are no longer as attractive as the yield advantage has disappeared and the rupee has a weaker near-term outlook. Investors should book profits on their overweight allocations, and downgrade them to neutral relative to EM and emerging Asian baskets. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     E-way bills are issued as part of Goods & Services Tax (GST) collection mechanism. 2     The rest is capital expenditure – which the government is planning to raise by 24%, albeit from a much smaller base (2.6% of GDP) compared to current expenditure (13.6% of GDP).

Executive Summary For the Fed, maintaining its credibility with a long sequence of rate hikes that does not crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market is akin to the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds. And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal trading watchlist: US interest rate futures, 3-year T-bond, Canada versus Japan, AUD/KRW, and EUR/CHF. Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Bottom Line: The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Feature Amid the uncertainties of the Ukraine crisis, there is one certainty. The latest surge in energy and grain prices is a classic supply shock. Prices have spiked because vital supplies of Russian and Ukrainian energy and grains have been cut. This matters for central banks, because to the extent that they can bring down inflation, they can do so by depressing demand. They can do nothing to boost supply. In fact, depressing demand during a supply shock is a sure way to start a recession. But what about the inflation that came before the Ukraine crisis, wasn’t that due to excess demand? No, that inflation came not from a demand shock, but from a displacement of demand shock – as consumers displaced their firepower from services to goods on a massive scale. This matters because central banks are also ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-1 looks like a seismograph after a huge earthquake, and in a sense that is exactly what it is. The chart shows the growth in spending on durable goods, which has just suffered an earthquake unlike any in history. Zooming in, we can see the clear causality between the surges in spending on durables and the surges in core inflation. The important corollary being that when the binge on durables ends – as it surely must – or worse, when durable spending goes into recession, inflation will plummet (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Chart I-2The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes But, argue the detractors, what about the uncomfortably high price inflation in services? What about the uncomfortably high inflation expectations? Most worrying, what about the recent surge in wage inflation? Let’s address these questions. Underlying US Inflation Is Running At Around 3 Percent In the US, the dominant component of services inflation is housing rent, which comprises 40 percent of the core consumer price index. Housing rent combines actual rent for those that rent their home, with the near-identically behaving owners’ equivalent rent (OER) for those that own their home. Given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation. Housing rent inflation closely tracks the tightness of the jobs market, because you need a job to pay the rent. With the unemployment rate today at the same low as it was in 2006, rent inflation is at the same high as it was in 2006: 4.3 percent. In other words, given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given its dominance in core inflation, rent inflation running at 4.3 percent would usually be associated with core inflation running at around 3 percent – modestly above the Fed’s target, rather than the current 6.5 percent (Chart I-4). Confirming that it is the outsized displacement of spending into goods, and its associated inflation, that is giving the Fed and other central banks a massive headache. Yet, to repeat, monetary policy is ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-4Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Still, what about the surging expectations for inflation? Many people believe that these are an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like early-2008 or now, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words: Inflation expectations are nothing more than a reflection of the last six months’ inflation rate (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Turning to wage inflation, with US average hourly earnings inflation running close to 6 percent, it would appear to be game, set, and match to ‘Team Inflation.’  Except that this is a flawed argument. To the extent that wages contribute to inflation, it must come from the inflation in unit labour costs, meaning the ratio of hourly compensation to labour productivity. After all, if you get paid 6 percent more but produce 6 percent more, then it is not inflationary (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary In this regard, US unit labour costs increased by 3.5 percent through 2021, and slowed to just a 0.9 percent (annualised) increase in the fourth quarter.2 Still, 3.5 percent, and slowing, is modestly above the Fed’s inflation target, and could justify a slight nudging up of the Fed funds rate. But it could not justify the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing. The Fed Is Praying For A ‘Hail Mary’ Fortunately, the bond market understands all of this. How else could you say 7 percent inflation and 2 percent long bond yield in the same breath?! This is crucial, because it is the long bond yield that drives rate-sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing and construction. And it is the long bond yield that sets the level of all asset prices, including real estate and stocks. Although the Fed cannot admit it, the central bank also understands all of this and hopes that the bond market continues to ‘get it.’ Meaning that it hopes that the long end of the interest rate curve does not lift too far and crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market. So why is the Fed hiking the policy interest rate? The answer is that there will be a time in the future when it does need to lift the entire interest rate curve, and for that it will need its credibility intact. Not hiking now could potentially shred the credibility that is the lifeblood of any central bank. Still, to maintain its credibility without crashing the economy the Fed will have to make the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. For our non-American readers, the Hail Mary is a high-risk desperate move with little hope of completion. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. To sum up, the likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental analysis in the preceding sections, the strong trend in both the 18 month out US interest rate future and the equivalent 3 year T-bond has reached the point of fragility that has identified previous turning-points in 2018 and 2021 (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). This week we are also adding to our watchlist the commodity plays Canada versus Japan and AUD/KRW, whose outperformances are vulnerable to reversal. From next week you will be able to see the full watchlist of investments that are vulnerable to reversal on our website. Stay tuned. Finally, the underperformance of EUR/CHF has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has identified the previous major turning-points in 2018 and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Chart I-9The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-10The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-11Go Long EUR/CHF Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Global Oil Price Pushes Up Inflation Expectations The US cut off of Russian energy exports has limited immediate impact because EU trade with Russia continues. Russia is unlikely to embargo the EU as it needs revenues to wage war. However, the EU will diversify away from Russia over time, which means that Russia will intensify its efforts to replace the government in Ukraine. The Biden administration began with an adversarial posture toward the energy sector, both US producers and Gulf Arab petro-states. Now it is adjusting its stance as prices surge. The OPEC states do not favor Biden but have an interest in calibrating production to avoid global recession and prolong their profit windfall. Even if the US restores the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which we doubt, investors should fade the oil price implications and stay focused on OPEC. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Inception Date Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 96.19 Feb 23, 2022 2.9% Bottom Line: Stagflation is the likeliest economic outcome of today’s global supply constraints. Feature Biden’s Oil Policy: Implications Will the Ukraine crisis lead to a US recession? The probability of a recession is 7.7% today, according to the bond market, but the oil price shock suggests that the probability will only increase from here. Stagflation, at least, is now highly likely. Short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term rates, causing the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to slide toward inversion, though it is not there yet. That would be a telltale sign of a looming recession (Chart 1). The 3-mo/10-year Treasury yield slope is nowhere near inverting and has a better record of predicting recessions than the 2-year/10-year. The Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes are expected to cause the 10-year yield to rise and the yield curve to steepen. But exogenous shocks may push short rates even higher. When the oil price doubles, a recession often ensues. Out of the past seven recessions, five of them witnessed an oil spike beforehand. True, not every spike causes a recession. But the causality is clear. Today’s spike is large enough to be recessionary (Chart 2). The critical question is where will the price settle? If it settles above $90-$100 per barrel then it will erode global demand. Chart 1An End-Of-Cycle Crisis? Chart 2Oil Price Often Doubles Before Recessions Most likely the price will settle at around $85 per barrel by the end of 2022, and average $85 in 2023, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy. High prices will discourage consumption and incentivize new production, leading to a price drop and new equilibrium. The OPEC cartel will increase production because they want to prolong the business cycle. Non-OPEC producers like US shale oil companies will also increase production. It is not likely that the US will significantly lift sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, though that would free up 1.3 million barrels per day and 700,000 barrels per day respectively. More on this below. Even so, this year’s energy spike will feed into a larger bout of inflation that is eroding real incomes. Headline consumer price inflation is running at 7.9% as of February, the highest in four decades. Core inflation is running at 6.4%. The Ukraine war did not prevent the European Central Bank from delivering a hawkish surprise in its fight against inflation on March 10, so it is even less likely to prevent the Fed from delivering a hawkish surprise on March 16. The Fed has a history of hiking rates even during geopolitical crises (as during the Arab oil embargo of 1973), which implies that the war in Ukraine will not prevent the Fed from hiking rates four times or more this year. There is a close relationship between the global oil price and the financial market’s long-term inflation expectations (Chart 3). When the costs of production and transportation go up, investors start to expect higher prices. Expectations are already rising because of the global pandemic, stimulus, supply constraints, wage pressure, and tardy policy normalization. Gasoline prices at the pump will shape consumer expectations (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Oil Price Pushes Up Inflation Expectations Chart 4Geopolitics Compound Inflation Yet high commodity prices are not coinciding with strong global growth and a weak dollar, as one might suspect. Global growth is falling and the dollar is strengthening. The energy shock from Russia will rattle importing countries like Europe, China, and India and thus enhance the dollar’s rise (Chart 5). Investor sentiment will suffer as the war in Ukraine reinforces the secular rise in geopolitical risk. Global policy uncertainty is also rising sharply, which will reinforce the dollar, weighing on global economic activity. Chart 5Dollar Strengthens on Weak Global Growth Bottom Line: A stagflationary dynamic is taking shape. Moreover the risk of recession is underrated by the bond market’s measure of recession probability. Investors should maintain tactically bearish trades and cut losses on cyclically bullish trades that suffer from higher rates and persistent inflation. US Boycotts Russia And Begs OPEC The Biden administration’s decision to ban Russian oil exports – and to encourage private sector boycotts of the Russian energy trade – raises the potential for the Russian conflict to escalate beyond Ukraine’s borders. While a total boycott of Russian oil exports is unlikely, it would be one of the larger oil shocks in modern history (Chart 6). Unlike the Iranian attack on the Saudi oil refinery in 2019, the Russian shock would come amid an existing energy shortage. Chart 6Worst Case Oil Risk in Historical Context There are two critical questions about US policy at this stage: Will the US foist its energy boycott on Europe, triggering a Russian retaliation? This could plunge Europe into recession and further upset the global economy. Will the US convince the OPEC cartel to increase oil production? A production boost would reduce prices and help to rebalance the economy, salvaging the business cycle. The next two sections discuss these options. US Boycotts Russia The first question is how Russia will respond to the US boycott and whether the Biden administration will try to force Europe to adopt the boycott. The US is comfortable boycotting Russian energy because oil and gas imports only account for 0.6% of GDP and those from Russia only 0.04%. Europe cannot make the same decision. While O&G imports are only 2.21% of GDP, and Russian O&G imports at 0.4%, these numbers will spike to near 2008 levels as a result of the price shock (Charts 7A & 7B). Major European countries, notably Germany, have already rejected the US boycott, and any EU direct sanctions require unanimity. The EU is instead outlining a plan to diversify away from Russia more gradually. This is a medium-term threat to Russia and hence a major concern for global stability but it is not an instant cutoff, which would cause an immediate recession in Europe. Chart 7AThe US Is Energy Independent... Chart 7B...The EU Is Not The EU’s plan would theoretically reduce its dependency on Russian energy by 66% by the end of the year. But that is easier said than done. Also, Europe cannot simply swap the US for Russia. American exports to the rest of the world could be redirected to Europe, but the switch requires an overhaul of supply chains. A total switch of US exports to Europe is impracticable in the short run and would leave other US allies dependent on Russian exports (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 8AUS Will Not Replace Russian Energy Anytime Soon Chart 8BUS Will Not Replace Russian Energy Anytime Soon US shale producers are only starting to increase production. With WTI crude oil at $100, and Henry Hub natural gas spot price at $4.6 per million BTU, American production will speed up. But US companies are more focused on profitability and returns to shareholders than they were at the beginning of the shale boom, which has restrained oil production (Charts 9A & (9B). Chart 9AUS Production And Exports Increase After Pandemic Lull Chart 9BUS Production And Exports Increase After Pandemic Lull   The Biden administration has not yet fully adopted the tactics necessary: promoting the domestic fossil fuel industry and coordinating it for purposes of national strategy. American oil executives complain that while the Biden administration courts foreign energy producers and contemplates arbitrarily lifting sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, it has not approached domestic producers about facilitating production.1 Meanwhile there is a risk that Russia will retaliate against western sanctions by cutting off natural gas to the EU, for instance via the Nord Stream I pipeline. This is a risk, rather than a base case, because Moscow would prefer to sell energy as long as Europe is buying – and even increase the amount it produces at today’s high prices. Russian energy exports to the EU account for 5% of Russian GDP and thus provide an important lifeline at a time when the country is suffering heavily under banking, technology, and trade sanctions (Chart 10). Russian natural resource exports on average provide 43% of government revenue, which is essential for Moscow to carry on its war effort (Chart 11). Chart 10Russia Will Not Punish EU For US Boycott Chart 11Russia Needs EU Energy Imports And yet Russians are now slapping an embargo on agricultural exports, constricting global food supply and pushing up food prices. The implication is that a reduction in energy exports to the EU is not out of the question, especially an incremental reduction aimed at increasing Russian diplomatic pressure on Europe. If the Russians cut off Europe, it will fall into a severe recession and the energy shock will risk a global recession. While US direct trade exposure to Europe is limited, at about 3.8% of GDP (Chart 12A), nevertheless the US would suffer from price pressures. The US is already seeing import prices rise toward 2008 levels (Chart 12B). Chart 12AUS Exposure To The EU Is Limited... Chart 12B...But Its Import Prices Will Rise Bottom Line: The US is boycotting Russian oil but not forcing the EU to join the boycott. Europe is pursuing gradual diversification but Russia is unlikely to cut off Europe’s supply. However, this dynamic is showing signs of faltering, which means investors are justified in taking further risk off the table. US Begs OPEC The Biden administration started off on the wrong foot with the Gulf Arab states by criticizing them for autocratic government and human rights abuses, threatening to withhold arms sales, and trying to restore the 2015 nuclear deal and détente with Iran. Now, with a global energy shock unfolding, Biden is going back to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and imploring them to increase oil production and ease the supply pressure. The Arab states are reportedly giving him the cold shoulder, ignoring his phone calls while answering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calls.2 These states never have an interest in producing oil at any US president’s beck and call. The US and Iran have also reached a critical stage in nuclear negotiations. So it is only fitting that the Arab states play hard to get. While the UAE ambassador to the US suggested that his country supporting increasing production on March 9, the country’s energy minister said the opposite. However, the core OPEC states are even less likely to do Russia’s bidding. Moscow propped up the Syrian regime, arms and subsidizes Iran, and aspires to gain ever greater control over Middle East exports to Europe. The Gulf states also know that the Russians will produce as much energy as they can since they need the revenues to sustain their war (Chart 13). Chart 13Core OPEC Countries Have An Interest In Increasing Oil Supply The Gulf states rely on the US military for national security, they fear that US-Iran détente will lead to US abandonment and Iranian regional ascendancy, and they seek to sustain their centrality to the global oil market. They want to prolong their export revenues in the context of a growing global economy for the sake of their own delicate internal stability and reforms. They do not aim to incentivize non-OPEC oil production and renewable energy transition with excessive prices, or to trigger a global recession (Chart 14). Hence the Saudi and UAE strategy will be to lower the oil price closer to their fiscal breakeven rate of $82.3 and $62.8 (oil price consistent with a balanced budget) and prolong the business cycle (Chart 15). Chart 14Core OPEC Does Not Want To Threaten Their Fiscal Future Chart 15Current Oil Price Comfortably Supports Fiscal Spending In OPEC The critical factor in the negotiation with the Biden administration will be Iran, their chief rival. Biden is trying to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would require removing sanctions in exchange for Iran’s halting its nuclear progress. A deal would bring 1.3 million barrels per day online, at least for the next two years or so. It could also prompt the Saudis or others to increase production to prevent Iran from stealing market share, as occurred in 2014 (Chart 16). Any deal would reduce the risk of military conflict in the short term and as such would remove some risk premium from oil prices. If Biden agrees to walk away from the Iran deal, then perhaps the Saudis and UAE will oblige him with a larger and quicker production boost. They know the Democratic Party is doomed in this year’s midterm elections anyway. Sanctions are not preventing the Iranians from exporting oil today and there is very little chance that they will truly abandon their quest for nuclear weapons (Chart 17). Chart 16Production Ramped Up Ahead Of The Iran Deal In 2015 Chart 17Production May Ramp Up Again As Iran Managed To Evade Sanction Either way the core OPEC members need to adjust the oil supply to maintain market share and prolong the business cycle. Taking it all together, investors should expect oil prices to remain volatile and for oil supply risks to remain elevated, meaning that oil prices will likely resume their rise after the expected OPEC intervention. Biden is also tinkering with the idea of easing sanctions on Venezuela. This would take a long time and require regime change to come to fruition. Venezuela produces about 700,000 barrels per day at present, down from about 2 million bpd in 2017.Given the lack of capital, investment, and engineering expertise, the Venezuelans probably cannot increase production beyond 1 million bpd over the next year or so. Of that, maybe 600,000 barrels could be sent to export markets, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan. The US cannot remove all sanctions from Venezuela as it does not recognize the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s regime. The Department of Justice indicted Maduro in 2020. Accommodating Maduro will create even more bad blood between the Democrats and the Cuban-American voters in electorally critical Florida. US companies will be reluctant to get involved in oil production in Venezuela on such a flimsy basis, as they will fear future sanctions if Republicans win in 2024. So investment in Venezuela, and hence oil production, will remain limited even if Biden waives some sanctions. Bottom Line: Biden’s attempts to ease sanctions on Iran and Venezuela are unlikely to have a lasting impact on oil prices. But it is possible that he will convince the OPEC states to increase production, as their own interests support such a move. Investment Takeaways Comparing Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to the original invasion in 2014, the major trends are parallel: stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclical sectors are underperforming defensives, and small caps are outperforming large caps (Chart 18A). Chart 18AMarket Response 2022 Versus 2014 Chart 18BMarket Response 2022 Versus 2014 If Russia imposes an energy embargo or OPEC refuses to increase production, then there will be an even larger global energy shock and a European recession that will weigh on global growth. The dollar will stay well bid in the near term. Value stocks are far outpacing growth stocks in the 2022 crisis, in keeping with high inflation and rising bond yields (Chart 18B). While we favor value over growth on a structural basis, we took the opposite stance as a tactical trade at the beginning of this year in expectation of falling bond yields, which has backfired. We are closing this trade for a loss of 7.7%.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See Shannon Pettypiece, “White House, oil industry spar anew over drilling as gas prices surge”, NBC News, March 12, nbcnews.com. 2     See Holman Jenkins, “The Putin Endgame,” The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2022, wsj.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regular weekly report, I will be hosting two webcasts where I will discuss our view on China’s economy and financial markets. In particular, I will share our view on the announced economic growth target and stimulus measures for this year, as well as our takes on the recent developments in China’s onshore and offshore equity markets. The webcasts will be held on Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM HKT (Mandarin) and Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM EDT (English). I look forward to discussing with you during the webcast. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Wednesday, March 30. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Executive Summary Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Chinese policymakers set an ambitious goal for this year’s economic expansion. While the growth target is above market consensus and a positive surprise, the path will be full of obstacles. Policy restrictions will be the biggest hurdle. While the authorities will continue to ease some industry policies, it is unlikely that all regulations will be rolled back at once. Therefore, it is questionable whether the announced growth-supporting measures will be enough to offset the housing slump and a slow recovery in consumption. We remain cautious on Chinese stocks. In the near term, equities will face headwinds from risk-off sentiment among global investors and a prolonged downturn in domestic demand. Policymakers will eventually allow more aggressive easing in the next 6 to 12 months. We will look for signs of more reflationary efforts and a better price entry point to upgrade Chinese stocks. We are closing our tactical trade of Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI ACW, due to spillover effects from Chinese offshore tech stock selloff on the Hong Kong equity market. ASSET INITIATION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT LONG MSCI HONG KONG INDEX / SHORT MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD 1/19/2022 -0.08 Closed Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are aiming for above-expectation economic growth this year. However, we recommend that investors lie low given the substantial challenges that China faces in expanding its economy. Feature Beijing set the 2022 economic growth target during last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC) at “around 5.5%”, which exceeds the market consensus. The topline growth target is encouraging. However, the announced stimulus measures are less than meets the eye. Fiscal support will increase, but not massively. Monetary policy may ease further. However, the easing efforts since July last year have failed to boost sentiment among private-sector corporates and households. Importantly, policy restrictions in the past several years, such as reducing local governments’ shadow bank borrowing and property developers’ leverage, and stringent counter-COVID measures, are having a lasting effect on the economy. As such, China’s domestic demand will likely remain sluggish until more aggressive policy easing is introduced. Meanwhile, Chinese stock prices in absolute terms have been falling due to global equity market selloffs and concerns about China’s domestic economy, although Chinese onshore stocks have fared better than their offshore peers. We expect that China will eventually allow more substantive easing to shore up growth and meet the target. Meanwhile, investors should remain cautious. We recommend that global shareholders with exposure to Chinese onshore stocks maintain a neutral position in their portfolios for now. We continue to look for signs of more reflationary efforts and the right opportunity to upgrade Chinese onshore stocks, especially if prices decline further in the near term.  We maintain our underweight stance on Chinese offshore stocks, in both absolute terms and relative to global equities. De-listing from the US stock exchange is a real risk for some of the big-name Chinese tech companies. We will provide more insights on this topic in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are closing our tactical trade: Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI All Country World with a minor 0.08% loss. While the recent steep falls in the MSCI Hong Kong Index prices may provide some buying opportunities in the next 6 to 12 months, near-term downside risks are substantial due to geopolitical tensions as well as a new round of lockdowns in the mainland. An Ambitious Growth Target … The 5.5% growth goal set for 2022 is the lowest in more than three decades, but it is above the consensus forecast of close to 5% and the IMF’s projection of 4.8% (Chart 1). The target also marks a significant departure from the past couple of years and reinforces our view that the authorities are determined to ensure a stable domestic economy amid rising geopolitical turmoil (Table 1). Chart 1China Set An Above-Expectation Growth Target For 2022 Table 12022 Economic And Policy Targets The stimulus measures unveiled at last week’s NPC imply that Beijing will mainly use fiscal levers to support the economy. Some key takeaways from the published Government Work Report include: Chart 2A Significant Jump In Available SPBs In 2022 A bigger fiscal push. The fiscal budget is set at 2.8% of GDP this year, or 3.37 trillion yuan, and is a modest decrease from the 3.2% deficit in 2021. The quota for local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) remains unchanged at RMB3.65 trillion yuan. However, local governments will be allowed to carry over SPB proceeds from last year, which will add about RMB1.1 trillion yuan to fund this year’s spending. This translates to about RMB4.7 trillion yuan in SPB in 2022, an 80% jump from the actual usage of 2.57 trillion yuan in 2021 (Chart 2). Furthermore, tax and fee cuts will total RMB2.5 trillion yuan, more than double the 2021 amount. Small and medium enterprises will receive value-added tax credits and refunds. Tax cuts will favor the service sectors most affected by the pandemic, along with manufacturing, and science and technology research. The fiscal budget also includes a record-high transfer from the central to local governments. Adding central government fund transfers and off-budgetary fiscal expenditures, we estimate that the augmented fiscal deficit this year will be around 7.8% of GDP, implying a fiscal thrust of more than 2% of GDP. The estimated thrust will be a reversal from the negative impulse of 2.1% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 3).   Further easing in monetary policy. The government reiterated that money supply and total social financing (TSF) growth should be consistent with nominal GDP growth. We expect another cut next month in the reserve requirement ratio and/or the policy rate. We also maintain our view that the credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in adjusted TSF as a percentage of GDP – will climb to 29% of GDP (assuming an 8% nominal GDP for 2022), 2 percentage points higher than the 27% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP ​​Chart 4China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Chart 5"Green Investment" Will Get A Big Boost This Year A more relaxed carbon reduction policy. The government did not announce an annual numeric target related to de-carbonization or energy consumption intensity reduction. Nonetheless, a more relaxed policy setting will allow flexibility, especially in the first half of the year when infrastructure projects will be accelerated. In the second half, however, there is still a risk that de-carbonization efforts will step up to align the country’s carbon and energy intensity reduction with the 14th Five-Year Plan target. Still, the negative impact from de-carbonization seen last year will be much smaller this year, while green energy development will make an increased contribution to this year’s growth (Chart 5). Bottom Line: China set an ambitious economic growth target of 5.5% for the year, relying on fiscal stimulus to shore up topline economic growth. … But A Challenging Path Ahead Achieving growth of “around 5.5%” will not be easy. As noted in previous reports, the regulations put in place in a wide range of industries since 2017 significantly constrain growth in both credit creation and the economy. Furthermore, aggressive regulatory crackdowns on the property sector and internet-related industries last year, coupled with rising domestic COVID cases and a new round of lockdowns, will likely have enduring ramifications on private-sector sentiment and weaken the effectiveness of policy easing. The following risks are notable: Constraints on infrastructure investment. We expect infrastructure investment to pick up from last year’s meager 0.5% growth. Even so, a larger fiscal impulse for 2022 would not necessarily lead to an outsized increase in infrastructure spending by local governments. In 2019, the fiscal deficit widened to 5% of GDP from 3.5% in 2018 and the quota for local government SPBs increased by 60% from a year earlier. However, infrastructure investment only grew by 3.3% in 2019, 1.5 percentage points higher than that in 2018 (Chart 6). The key factor is that the rebound in shadow banking activities, which highly correlate with infrastructure spending by local governments, was subdued in 2019. The stock of shadow banking continues to shrink in February, indicating that local governments remain extremely cautious in expanding their off-balance sheet leverage (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Shadow Bank Lending Continues To Shrink In February Chart 7Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand for housing is still in the doldrums. February’s credit data paints a bleak picture of demand for housing, which is also reflected in recent hard data on home sales (Chart 7). It is questionable whether policymakers will allow a significant re-leverage, i.e. a 2016/17-style widespread easing in the property sector to stimulate demand for housing. So far, the government has stated that the housing policy should be city specific. Some cities have already lowered mortgage rates and down payment thresholds. Pledged supplementary lending, a tool that the government utilized to monetize massively excess inventories in the market in 2015/16, has also ticked up (Chart 8). Nevertheless, we do not expect the authorities to allow a sharp upturn in home prices or leverage by households and/or property developers (Chart 9). The government reiterated its stance at last week’s NPC that “housing is for living in and not for speculation.” Chart 8PSL Injections Ticked Up This Year Chart 9Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Chart 10Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Shrinking Labor Force Furthermore, demands for housing and property-sector investment in China are set to structurally shift lower due to the country’s slumping birthrate and shrinking working-age population (Chart 10). China’s total population will start to shrink within the next five years and the United Nations estimates that China’s marriageable population will be less than 350 million by 2030 – a drop of nearly 100 million people from 2010. Slowing urbanization rates are also a constraint for housing demand. China’s urban population growth is on a sharp downtrend; only 12 million people moved to cities last year, less than half the number who migrated in 2016. Weak consumption. The NPC reported that the government will provide support in rural areas for the consumption of new-energy vehicles (NEVs) and home appliances. There also was a mention of services for elder care and tax credits for having babies. However, there was no indication of a fiscal transfer to low-income households or a cash payout/consumption voucher to boost the marginal propensity to spend.   Chart 11Sharply Rising New Cases In China And Its Zero-COVID Policy Will Constraint Domestic Consumption Ultimately, it will be difficult for Chinese policymakers to bolster consumption without relaxing COVID containment measures (Chart 11). The government has made it clear that relaxing COVID policy will not be possible in the near term, given the ongoing outbreaks in China. Therefore, any improvement in household consumption, which accounts for about 40% of China’s GDP, will remain modest.  Bottom Line: China’s economic progress this year will hinge on whether a rebound in infrastructure investment can offset the negative effects from slumping demand for real estate and weak consumption. Investment Implications China will eventually ease policies more aggressively to ensure a stable domestic economic, financial and political environment against highly uncertain global and domestic backdrops. More easing and stimulus could be forthcoming by mid-2022, especially when the mainland's COVID situation is rapidly worsening and front-loaded fiscal supports will start to lose momentum. Meanwhile, Chinese stocks face substantial downside risks derived from the turmoil in global equity markets and a downturn in domestic profit growth. As witnessed in China’s onshore and offshore risk assets in the past two weeks, a slightly more positive signal from the NPC was not enough to offset the jitters from heightened geopolitical tensions and rising domestic COVID cases (Chart 12A and 12B). Chart 12AChinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Immune To Geopolitical Risks...​​​​ Chart 12B...But Have Fared Better Than Their Offshore Peers We maintain our neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks in a global portfolio, but do not yet recommend that investors buy in the onshore market in absolute terms. We also continue to recommend overweight Chinese government bonds versus stocks in the onshore market, and an underweight stance on Chinese offshore equities in both absolute and relative terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Special Report

Executive Summary Is Factor Investing Dead? After decades of outperformance, in the past few years equity factors have started to underperform the broad indexes. But this may just be because US-centric factor research and US-dominated global factor indexes have masked an underlying divergence in the behavior of factor premiums in major countries/regions. In this report, we identify differences in smart beta strategies in the US, euro area (EMU), UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, and emerging markets (EM). Quality and Minimum Volatility factors are the most consistent across all markets. However, the magnitude of the factor premiums varies significantly among certain countries/regions. These variations can be attributed to a factor’s differing exposure to the same sector in specific countries, as well as the diverse performance of the same sector in specific countries. Value/Growth is an inferior framework to sector positioning. Quality remains a better factor than Growth.   Bottom Line: Factor investing is still a viable investing approach, but investors should consider that factor premiums have diverged among major countries/regions. Factor strategies may be less profitable in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country/region. Feature Chart 1Diverging Factor Performance Late last year, quant hedge fund AQR announced it would cut back resources because poor performance had induced significant investor outflows.1 Based on MSCI’s diversified multi-factor (DMF) index, which is a bottom-up 4-factor-index (value, momentum, quality and size) optimized using Barra equity models,2 the global DMF index underperformed the MSCI ACWI by 21% between March 2018 (when the relative performance peaked) and the end of January 2022, even though it had outperformed by 373% over the previous 20 years (Chart 1, top panel). Many clients have asked: Is factor investing dead? As shown in Chart 1, however, MSCI Global DMF’s recent poor relative performance was driven largely by a 23.6% underperformance from the developed markets (DM), especially the US (33% underperformance) and Japan (23.6% underperformance), while the DMF index in the emerging markets (EM) lagged its benchmark by only about 1% in the same period. We have advocated a simple approach to factor allocation to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors by equally weighting five time-tested factors: Quality, Momentum, Minimum Volatility (Min Vol), Value and Equal Weight. Our equally-weighted-5-factor aggregate (EW5) index is less volatile than the more sophisticatedly optimized DMF; it therefore suffered less underperformance in the same period. However, even with this approach, the regional divergence is still notable, with the EW5 factor index in the developing markets underperforming its benchmark by 9%, while the EM EW5 factor index outperformed its benchmark by about 5.5% (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Interestingly, the EW5 index for Japan looks more like that for the US than it looks like the Japanese DMF (Chart 1, panels 4 and 5). This highlights the importance of factor allocation methodology. Table 1US Dominance In Global Markets US equities dominate the global equity index by market capitalization. Momentum and Quality, the two best performing factors globally, have even higher weightings in US companies than the broad benchmark, as shown in Table 1. An academic paper published in 2019 based on studies of the US and 38 international stock markets indicates that the US is the only country with a statistically significant, economically meaningful and robust post-publication decline of long-short equity factor returns.3 This is because the US is the most researched market and large mispriced anomalies are arbitraged away quickly after they are identified in academic publications, which results in lower strategy returns. Most quant funds are US-focused, which may explain the ill fortunes of some quant funds. Smart beta strategies are long-only factor strategies, instead of long-short strategies. At the aggregate level, the MSCI factor indexes in developed markets and emerging markets performed much better than in the US, in line with the academic findings (Chart 1, panels 2, 3, and 4). Yet, the Japanese DMF index’s relative performance peaked in October 2012 and has been in a consistent down trend since that time (Chart 1, panel 5). Our research shows that Japan is not an anomaly. Factor divergence among countries exists not only at the aggregate level, but also at the individual factor level. Factor Performances Diverge Among Countries/Regions Factor returns in the US, UK, EMU, Japan, Canada, Australia, and EM, both in absolute and relative terms, have had notable divergences in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 2.4 Several observations from Table 2: Quality and Min Vol are two factors with positive premiums in all countries. In terms of magnitude, however, Min Vol premiums in the US, Japan and Australia are the closest to zero, while the EM scores the highest. Quality premium in Australia is also close to zero while the UK stands out. Momentum is the best performing factor in all countries/regions except in Japan where it has a slightly negative premium. The ineffectiveness of Momentum in Japan may be due to its cultural biases. Momentum tends to fare better in countries that promote individuality (unlike Japan) and where self-attribution and overconfidence are more pervasive. EM is the only market where our five preferred factors (Momentum, Quality, Min Vol, Value and Equal Weight) have had positive premiums, even though the Value premium is not statistically different from zero, while the Growth premium is negative. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth in the US and global markets, this has not been the case in Japan, Canada, and the EM. Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the EM and Canada have much higher absolute returns than in the US. This aspect cannot be fully explained by the overall index performance difference between these countries and the US. Even though Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the UK and euro area have returned much less than their US counterparts, the magnitude of the underperformance of each factor is much smaller than what the overall index performance divergence would imply. Table 2Factor Performance Divergence* The widely quoted explanation for the impressive factor performance in the EM, especially in the Chinese A-share market, is that emerging markets have higher trading costs such that it’s harder to arbitrage away the mispriced anomalies. It’s true that trading cost is higher in the EM than in the US, which explains why there are fewer EM-dedicated quant funds than US-focused quant funds. Trading cost alone, however, cannot fully explain the exceptionally large premiums in EM Momentum, Quality and Min Vol compared with the US. In fact, the market with the best factor relative performance since the end of 2001 has been the UK (Chart 2) where trading costs are comparable to the US. The EM is the second in terms of relative returns even though it is more volatile than the euro area. Canada has also performed better than the US, while Australia has been the least favorable market to harvest any factor premium. Japan behaves more like the US, yet with higher volatility. The risk-adjusted active return, defined as the average of the return difference (between EW5 and benchmark) divided by the volatility of the return difference, on an annualized basis using monthly returns, is illustrated in Chart 3. The chart shows both the full-period (from December 2001 to January 2022) risk-adjusted active return (RAAR) and four-year moving RAAR to demonstrate how factors have evolved in each market. Several observations can be made from Chart 3: In the past 20 years, factor premiums (aka active factor returns) in the US have gone through three stages: High premium, low positive premium and then sharply declining premium to negative territory. The last stage started about four years ago. The US factor premium is at its lowest level in the past 20 years and is also the lowest among the seven countries/regions (Chart 3, panel 5). This supports the argument that too many quant funds trade with each other in the US equity market, resulting in lower and lower factor returns. Japan shares a similar pattern with the US, but on a much smaller scale (Chart 3, panel 4). Canada and Australia are similar because their indexes are dominated by financials and commodities. The four-year RAAR trends oscillate in a similar fashion in both countries, but the Canadian cycle seems to lead the Australian cycle by about 2-1/2 years. Canada has a meaningfully positive average factor premium and its four-year RAAR is near a historical low. In contrast, Australia’s average premium is close to zero and its four-year RAAR is still above previous lows (Chart 3, panels 6 and 7). The EMU is the only market with a positive four-year moving RAAR, currently at the well-established lower bound (Chart 3, panel 2). The UK has the highest average premium. It is the only market in which the four-year RAAR has had large cyclical swings and only two brief periods in negative territory (Chart 3, panel 1). EM is the only market where the four-year RAAR has improved since the Covid-19 pandemic started in March 2020 (Chart 3, panel 3). Chart 2Factor Relative Return Performance* Chart 3Risk-Adjusted Active Performance Bottom Line: US-centric factor research and the US-dominated global factor indexes have masked different behaviors of factors in various countries/regions. Thus, it is important to analyze each market instead of drawing investment conclusions from US-based research. What Drives The Divergence In Quality Premium? The Quality factor has been consistently rewarded, but the magnitude of the Quality premium varies significantly among countries/regions, and non-US countries have low correlations with the US, as shown in Table 2 (on page 4) and Charts 4 and 5. Chart 4Quality Performance Divergence* Chart 5Quality Premium* Country Correlation MSCI Quality is defined by three accounting measures: Return on equity (ROE), debt-to-equity and five-year volatility of EPS YoY growth. Earnings may be affected by accounting standards. Countries have different accounting standards, which may explain part of the country divergence in Quality. Our research focuses on an important aspect of Quality, which is persistence, i.e., a Quality stock today will be a Quality stock in the future. The implication is that the Quality factor index has a low turnover and its sector composition does not change much over time. As such, we can take a snapshot and see the relationship between Quality and sector exposure. The sector weights of the broad benchmark in each market are shown in Table 3. Notably, the US and EM have the highest exposure to the Tech sector while both the UK and Australia have little. Although Australia and Canada are both regarded as commodity-driven markets, they have dissimilar exposures to non-Financials: Australia is concentrated in Materials and Healthcare, while Canada has a more even exposure in Energy, Industrial, Materials and Tech. Table 3Broad Market Sector Compositions Given that Quality is measured on profitability, capital structure and earnings stability, does Quality show universal sector preference? The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, because Quality is universally underweight Financials, Energy and Utilities (Table 4). It is also overweight Tech and underweight Real Estate in all markets, except Australia. Tech has outperformed Financials, Utilities and Energy in general (except for Canada), therefore, these three sector tilts may explain the universal existence of Quality premium (Chart 6). Table 4Quality Index Sector Deviations Chart 6What Drives Quality Premium? However, the commonality ends here. Canadian Tech has underperformed Financials by a very large margin (Chart 6, panel 3), which would have caused a huge underperformance in Quality; Quality indexes in the UK and EMU have benchmark exposures to Tech. So what else have contributed to Quality’s outperformance in these three countries/regions? A look at their exposures to other sectors reveals the answers. In the UK, EMU and Canada, Quality indexes have also overweight tilts in Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples (Table 4). These three sectors have all outperformed their respective benchmarks in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 5. The table also shows that Consumer Staples is the only sector that has outperformed in all markets, yet both US and Australian Quality indexes underweight this sector. Table 5Sector Performance* In addition, in both the UK and Canada, Quality overweights Materials, which is a top outperforming sector in the UK, but an underperforming sector in Canada. Materials also outperforms in the EMU, yet EMU Quality underweights it. Despite the impressive overall outperformance since 2001, the Quality factor in DM has suffered in the past few years, especially since the Covid 19-induced selloff in March 2020. Quality relative performance in EM peaked long before DM but has stood out as the only significant outperformer since March 2020. This is because profitability in Quality has improved in EM but deteriorated in the US and other DM countries as shown in Charts 7 and 8. Chart 7Quality Premium Driver: ROE* Chart 8Quality Premium Driver: EPS* Chart 9Quality Premium Driver: Valuation* Valuation-wise, Quality indexes in the UK and Canada are at their cheapest levels since 2013, while Japan has become more expensive. Meanwhile, Quality valuation in the US, EMU and Australia is in line with their respective historical average5 (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Quality premium is driven by profitability and has strong sector preferences. The divergence of Quality premium among countries indicates that the same sector in different countries does not necessarily share the same behavior relative to its own benchmark. Sector behaviors in each market have not been as consistent as globalization would have implied, even though “global sectors” have become a well-accepted concept. What Drives The Min Vol Premium Divergence? Beside Quality, Min Vol has consistently outperformed in all the countries/regions in the past 20 years, even though the premiums in the US and Japan are close to zero, as shown in Table 2 on page 4. Over time, however, Min Vol’s relative performance is very cyclical. At the global aggregate level, this cyclicality is determined by its defensive nature given its positive correlation with the relative equity return ratio of Defensives/Cyclicals and negative correlation with bond yields. It is no surprise that the strong recovery in global equities and the rise in bond yields have caused Min Vol to underperform the broad market since March 2020. What is surprising, however, is the magnitude of the underperformance, which cannot be explained by historical relationships (Chart 10). Chart 10What Drives Global Min Vol Premium? Looking at the global aggregate only, however, can provide misguided information, because Global Min Vol is dominated by the US (56.81%) and Japan (9.88%), where Min Vol has performed the worst. In the most recent cycle since March 2020, the US is the only country where Min Vol has deviated sharply from the historical relationship with the relative performance of defensives/cyclicals and with bond yields, incurring the largest relative performance drawdown ever, erasing all the relative gains achieved in the previous two decades (Chart 11A). Japanese Min Vol also suffered large drawdown, but was in line with the defensives/cyclicals, albeit undershooting what implied by the bond yield (Chart 11B). The relative performance of Min Vol in the UK, Canada, EM, and Australia all behaved in line with what is implied by the historical relationships with bond yields and defensives/cyclicals, while Min Vol in EMU does not have a close correlation with defensives/cyclicals (Charts 11 C-G). Chart 11AUS Min Vol Premium Chart 11BJapan Min Vol Premium Chart 11CUK Min Vol Premium Chart 11DEMU Min Vol Premium Chart 11ECanada Min Vol Premium Chart 11FAustralia Min Vol Premium   Chart 11GEM Min Vol Premium Min Vol has become the worst performing factor since March 2020, led by the US, Japan, and EMU, while the UK has been almost flat, as shown in Table 6. This is in stark contrast to its historical track record (Table 2 on page 4) but can be explained by its defensive tilt in a strong equity market. Currently, Min Vol’s general defensive nature is reflected by its overweight in Consumer Staples and underweight in Consumer Discretionary, overweight in Communication Services and underweight in Energy in all markets. In interest-rate-sensitive sectors, Min Vol overweighs Utilities in all markets except Japan and underweights Financials in all markets, except EM (Table 7). Table 6Min Vol Was The Worst Performer Since The Covid-Induced Recovery* Table 7Min Vol Index Sector Deviations Communication Services in the UK and Australia bucked the trend, outperforming the broad market. UK Financial also opposed the trend but did not outperform. In addition, the UK is overweight in Real Estate, which did much better than the broad market (Table 8). Table 8Sector Performance Since March 2020 Chart 12Min Vol Premium Divergence: Valuation* Min Vol in EM has an overweight in Financials, which also outperformed. In addition, EM Consumer Discretionary resisted the general trend, coming in under its benchmark by 17% annualized; an underweight in this sector contributed to EM’s Min Vol’s performance. Why has US Min Vol performed so badly? According to a GAA Special Report published in January 2020, extreme overvaluation of Min Vol relative to the broad market could induce poor subsequent performance in near future. US Min Vol reached peak valuation relative to the market in 2019, and the subsequent underperformance was accompanied by sharp multiple contraction. Currently, Min Vol’s relative valuation is in line with historical average in the US, implying the turnaround since November 2021 may have further staying power (Chart 12). Bottom Line: Global Min Vol’s defensive tilts explain its underperformance since March 2020. However, divergences in the magnitude of underperformance among countries is explained by different sector exposures and the varying performance of some sectors in different countries, in addition to relative valuation. Chart 13Value Vs. Growth: Is This Time Different? Is It Time To Overweight Value Versus Growth? This is one of the most frequently asked questions over the past few years, especially after the turnaround in AQR last year hit the newswire. The impressive performance of AQR so far this year has prompted more heated debate on the sustainability of the “Revenge of Value” after Value's longest streak of underperformance).6 The recent rebound in the relative performance of Value versus Growth has been driven by extremely oversold conditions, very cheap valuation and faster EPS growth led by the rise in global bond yields. Even though sector exposures change over time for Value and Growth, sector exposures to Financials and Tech have been stable since 2010 at the global aggregate level (Chart 13). The large bets in Financial, Utilities and Tech are universal, as shown in Table 9. Other sector exposures in specific countries vary significantly. For example, the US Value/Growth split is basically between Tech, Communication Services and Consumer Discretionary versus the other eight sectors. These three sectors are dominated by a few mega-cap stocks. The other eight sectors are a mixed bag of cyclicals, defensives, and interest rate sensitives, which have different macro drivers. It does not make sense to overweight them together. It is important to note that Consumer Staples and Healthcare are overweight in Growth outside the US and EMU. Table 9Sector Tilts In Value And Growth In addition, Growth has similar sector preferences as Quality (Table 4 and Table 9), which explains the high correlation between the two factor premiums (Chart 14A), However, Quality has been a much better factor than Growth outside the US and Australia. In the US, Quality and Growth are almost the same with a stable correlation, but Quality has been inferior to Growth in Australia (Chart 14B). Chart 14AClose Correlation* Between Quality And Growth Chart 14BQuality Is Superior To Growth Outside US And Australia Finally, Value and Growth behave very differently in various market-cap segments, as shown in Table 10. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth by the media, Value has consistently outperformed Growth in Canada, EM and Japan. Furthermore, mid-cap Value has also outperformed mid-cap Growth universally. Bottom Line: Value is extremely cheap and the rebound from an extremely oversold condition has been supported by the relative earnings trend and a rise in interest rates. Yet the mixed bag of sector exposure makes the Value/Growth allocation inferior to sector allocation. Investors who want to focus on Growth are advised to look for Quality outside of the US and Australia. Conclusions Related Report  Global Asset AllocationValue? Growth? It Really Depends! The US-centric factor research and media coverage have masked an underlying divergence of factor premiums in specific countries/regions. Factor premiums in the UK, EMU, Canada, and EM have been stronger than in the US, while Japan and Australia have been weaker. This divergence can be explained by different sector exposures of the same factor, along with varying behaviors of the same sector in specific countries/regions. While factor investing is not dead, it may be less profitable to utilize in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country. Even though Quality, Min Vol and Momentum have been outperformers in the past 20 years, all factors have embedded cyclicality. We do not advocate factor timing and reiterate our long-standing approach of equally weighting the five factors to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors. Value/Growth is a popular style split; however, it is an inferior framework to sector positioning. In addition, Quality is a better factor than Growth, which is already included in our five-factor approach.   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see "Quant Hedge Fund Icon AQR Cuts Back as Investors Exit," Chief Investment Officer, dated November 15, 2021. 2     Please see "MSCI Diversified Multiple-Factorindexes Methodology," MSCI.com, dated May 2018. 3     Please see "Anomalies across the globe: Once public, no longer existent?" Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 135, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 213-230. 4    Historical data for all MSCI factor indexes in major markets is available for this period 5    Since Jan 2013 based on MSCI data availability. 6     Jessica Hamlin, "AQR Posts Record Performance in January," Institutional Investor, dated February 9, 2022.