Global

Highlights Bond Yields & Growth: Developed market bond yields have ignored improving cyclical economic data over the past few months, remaining stuck in narrow trading ranges at low levels. That broken correlation will persist until central banks become less concerned about supporting pandemic-ravaged economies and begin worrying more about rising inflation, financial stability or the size of their balance sheets. That shift will not happen anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Trades: Our models suggest US TIPS breakevens are now at fair value. We are taking profits on our tactical long US 10-year inflation breakevens trade for a return of 2.88%. Stay long 10-year breakevens in Italy and Canada until we see further shrinkage in the gap between inflation breakevens and model-implied fair value and watch for a selling opportunity in UK 10-year breakevens. Feature Do bond investors even care about economic growth anymore? This is a valid question to ask, given how government bond yields in the developed markets have stayed in very narrow trading ranges over the past few months, even as economic data has rebounded from the global COVID-19 recession in the first half of 2020. Investors should get used to the current backdrop of rock-bottom interest rates and bond yields, which is unlikely to change anytime soon.  Chart of the WeekBond Yields Are Responding To Inflation, Not Growth For example, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has stayed between 0.65% and 0.75% since June 11, even though the US ISM Manufacturing index rose from 43 in May to 56 in August. Yields are also ignoring the ups and downs of the equity market. The 10-year Treasury yield now sits at 0.66% - the same level as on September 2 even though the NASDAQ equity index has fallen 12% from the all-time peak seen on that day. Our own Global Duration Indicator, comprised of cyclical measures like the global ZEW index and our global leading economic indicator, has surged to the highest level since 2008 (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between broad turns in the Duration Indicator and the level of global bond yields (around 6-9 months), this suggests that yields have bottomed and should soon begin rising. Yet the reality is that the usual factors that typically drive yields higher during a cyclical upturn – namely, rising inflation expectations and a clearly understood signal from central banks that such a move would lead to tighter monetary policy – are not currently in place. Investors should get used to the current backdrop of rock-bottom interest rates and bond yields, which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Four Potential Triggers For A Rise In Bond Yields Chart 2A Breakdown Of The PMI/Yield correlation The breakdown of the positive correlation between growth and bond yields is not just visible in the US. For example, yields on German Bunds and UK Gilts also remain stuck at low levels despite sharp improvements in the German and UK manufacturing PMIs (Chart 2). Yet in China – where there is no zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) or large-scale quantitative easing (QE) programs - bond yields have steadily risen since the China manufacturing PMI bottomed back in April (bottom panel). What could change this backdrop? We see four potential catalysts, ranked below in our own subjective order of importance: Inflation Sustainably Returning Back To Central Bank Targets It may seem obvious, but it still needs to be said – dovish central bank policies are the biggest reason why developed market bond yields have de-linked from economic growth. That includes not only ZIRP or QE, but also forward guidance on future changes in interest rates. Central banks are telling markets they will not raise rates for a period measured in years, and will continue to expand their balance sheets to purchase assets and support bank lending, all in an effort to push undershooting inflation back to policy targets. This is a different message than bond investors have grown accustomed to hearing from central banks, most notably in the US. The Fed is trying to do something that it has never intentionally done before – erode some of its hard-earned inflation fighting credibility. The Fed is trying to do something that it has never intentionally done before – erode some of its hard-earned inflation fighting credibility. The recent shift by the Fed to an Average Inflation Targeting framework – where above-target inflation would be tolerated if inflation was below target for an extended period – is intended to change the perception that the Fed will hike rates preemptively based on a forecast of inflation, as they have done in the past. Chart 3Latest FOMC Projections Justify Years Of 0% Rates The latest set of Fed economic projections is consistent with this new framework (Chart 3): the unemployment rate is forecasted to fall back to the FOMC median estimate of full employment (4.1%) by 2023; headline PCE inflation is also projected to climb back to 2% by 2023; the fed funds rate is projected to stay unchanged near 0% until at least 2023. In many ways, the Fed is trying to atone for the mistakes made while normalizing policy after the extraordinary easing measures taken after the 2008 crisis. From signaling a slowing of QE bond purchases in 2013, to the 250bps of rate hikes and tapering of its balance sheet during 2016-18, the Fed moved aggressively relative to what was actually happening with US inflation. Core PCE inflation only inched above 2% for a few months in 2018 – towards the end of the normalization process - as did market-based inflation measures like TIPS breakevens (Chart 4). The Fed ended up raising the real fed funds rate during that tightening cycle to above its own estimate of neutral (r-star), even with inflation still not close to its target. Unsurprisingly, real US bond yields also rose during that same period, which tightened monetary conditions even further by boosting the value of the US dollar. No wonder US inflation could not stay at the 2% target for very long. This time around, the Fed is sending a much different signal to markets – that it wants to see inflation rise before raising rates, thus keeping real policy rates in negative territory for an extended period. If the Fed is looking for a real world case study of such an approach, it can look across the Atlantic to the Bank of England (BoE). On the surface, the BoE has been acting like a typical inflation-targeting central bank over the past several years, turning more hawkish in its commentary when the UK economy was improving and becoming more dovish when the economy was languishing. Yet since the 2008 crisis, the BoE has kept the Bank Rate in a range of 0.1% to 0.75%, well below realized UK inflation. While it has been difficult for the BoE to attempt to raise rates given the Brexit uncertainty since 2016 – which has also weakened the British pound, helping boost UK inflation - real UK policy rates have now been negative for 12 years (Chart 5). The result: steadily declining UK real bond yields with inflation expectations rising to levels well above the BoE 2% inflation target. Chart 4The Fed Is Trying To Erode Its Hard-Earned Credibility Chart 5Lessons From The BoE On How To Not Be Credible The experience of the ECB provides a cautionary tale for central banks not appearing dovish enough, even when policy settings are already extraordinarily accommodative. The message from central banks on future rate increases – namely, that there will not be any without sustainably higher inflation – must change before bond yields can have any hope of climbing higher. Chart 6Does The ECB Have Any Credibility Left? Inflation expectations have stayed below the ECB’s “just below 2%” target since 2013 (Chart 6), which forced the central bank into cutting nominal rates into negative territory while aggressively expanding its balance sheet through QE and long-term bank liquidity provision (i.e. LTROs). Yet the ECB has always put an expiration date on each of these programs, which sent a message to the markets that the central bank was not fully committed to keeping policy easy until inflation was back to target – however long that would take. In sum, the message from central banks on future rate increases – namely, that there will not be any without sustainably higher inflation – must change before bond yields can have any hope of climbing higher. A Shift From Central Banks To Concerns About Asset Price Bubbles Chart 7When Will CBs Start Worrying About Financial Market Valuations? Policymakers are paying lip service to the notion of the “financial stability” risks inherent in their new promises to keep rates low for a lot longer while intervening in financial markets more aggressively through asset purchase programs. Given the signs of froth in many important asset classes like US equities or global corporate debt, policymakers should at least be somewhat concerned that easy money policies are fueling asset bubbles (Chart 7). A big enough decline could erode confidence and spill over into the real economy, defeating the original purpose of easy money policies. However, given the still fragile state of much of the global economy that remains dependent on fiscal support amid ongoing COVID-19 restrictions, concerns over asset values will take a backseat to maintaining adequate monetary stimulus. Asset bubbles would have to become much larger before a central bank would even consider turning more hawkish to prick them through higher policy rates that would push up bond yields. The Announcement Of A Trustworthy COVID-19 Vaccine That Is Ready For Widespread Distribution Markets have already begun to worry about the “second wave” of the coronavirus that health officials had warned would happen in the cooler autumn months. The development of an effective, and safe, vaccine would thus be a game-changer for financial markets, particularly after the recent surge in new COVID-19 cases in Europe and the still elevated level of new cases in the US (Chart 8). Chart 8A Second Wave Of COVID-19 BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin (a big fan of interesting data sets!), noted in his most recent report that, according to The Good Judgement Project, around 60% of “superforecasters” now expect a vaccine ready for mass distribution to be available by Q1/2021 (Chart 9).1 A vaccine appearing that rapidly – much faster than the usual multi-year process leading to a vaccine declared safe for use – would help boost business and consumer confidence and raise the odds of a return to pre-virus levels of economic activity. Bond yields would likely get a lift, as well, as markets would price in a shorter period of super low policy rates and a faster return of inflation to central bank targets. Yet even if a vaccine is presented to the world by next spring, there is no guarantee that a large enough share of the population will deem the vaccine safe enough to take to ensure “herd immunity”. A recent Economist/YouGuv survey noted that only 36% of American adults would choose to get vaccinated when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, 32% would not get vaccinated, while 32% were unsure (Chart 10). Thus, a vaccine would be a bond-bearish development only if it is trusted to be safe to use – the mere announcement of a vaccine will not be enough to declare an “end” to the pandemic. Chart 9High Odds Of A Vaccine In 6-To-12 Months Chart 10Will Enough People Take The Vaccine? Central Banks Slowing QE Purchases Relative To Increased Fiscal Issuance Chart 11Still Room For The Fed, ECB and BoE To Expand QE Right now, it is easy for the major central banks to aggressively expand their balance sheets and provide additional monetary stimulus through asset purchases. Yet there may come a point where a capacity constraint is reached on buying government bonds if it impairs market functionality. That is currently the case in Japan, where the Bank of Japan now owns 49% of the Japanese government bond (JGB) market after years of aggressive QE purchases of JGBs. This has damaged the day-to-day liquidity of JGBs, where there have been instances of days where no single JGB has traded in the secondary market. A move by central banks to buy fewer bonds because they own too many of them could potentially push bond yields higher by worsening the demand/supply balance for government bonds - assuming private investors do not pick up the slack and buy more bonds, of course. Currently, the Fed only owns 22% of the US Treasury market with little evidence suggesting that its purchases are impairing the trading of Treasuries (Chart 11). The BoE and ECB own much larger shares of the UK and euro area government bond markets – 37% and 38%, respectively – suggesting that those central banks are closer to a BoJ-like capacity constraint. However, given the rising budget deficits and surging government bond issuance seen in Europe (and the US) so far in 2020, the odds of a capacity constraint soon being reached that could result in slower QE purchases are low. Bottom Line: Developed market bond yields have ignored improving cyclical economic data over the past few months, remaining stuck in narrow trading ranges at low levels. That broken correlation will persist until central banks become less concerned about supporting pandemic-ravaged economies and begin worrying more about rising inflation, financial stability or the size of their balance sheets. That shift will not happen anytime soon. Reviewing Our Tactical Inflation Breakeven Trades Back in June, we initiated a series of recommended inflation-focused trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Specifically, we went long 10-year inflation breakevens in the US, Italy, and Canada by buying on-the-run inflation-linked bonds and selling government bond futures.2 We chose those trades based on the output of our fundamental valuation models for 10-year inflation breakevens in eight inflation-linked bond (ILB) markets: the US, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Canada, and Australia. Our fair value models use two inputs for all regions: a) a long-run moving average of headline inflation, representing the medium-term trend that anchors inflation expectations; and b) the annual percentage change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms, which creates shorter-term deviations from the trend to account for moves in oil and currencies. There looks to be little remaining upside to our tactical long TIPS breakeven position. The past few months have seen a sharp rise in global inflation expectations, owing to the extraordinary monetary policy actions taken by the major developed market central banks and recovering growth prospects coming out of the COVID-19 recession. This has led to a convergence between 10-year inflation breakevens and their model-implied fair values in the aforementioned ILB markets (Chart 12). Most notably, breakevens in the US are now at fair value, while breakevens in the UK and Australia are trading above fair value. In the US, 10-year breakeven inflation rates are now back to the long-run average of realized headline inflation, while the -8% decline in the Brent oil price so far this month has lowered the model-implied fair value (Chart 13). Therefore, there looks to be little remaining upside to our tactical long TIPS breakeven position with most of the easy gains following the pandemic-induced collapse having already been realized. Chart 12Global Inflation Breakevens Have Moved Higher Our colleagues over at BCA Research US Bond Strategy have reached a similar conclusion, noting that the Fed’s Jackson Hole announcement of the move to Average Inflation Targeting supercharged the rising trend in TIPS breakevens.3 Chart 13US Breakevens Are At Fair Value Although they also note the likelihood of stronger US CPI prints over the next few months should keep US breakevens well supported heading into year-end. The time horizon for trades that enter our Tactical Overlay portfolio is limited to no longer than six months. Thus, with TIPS breakevens reverting back to fair value after just three months in the trade, we are choosing to take profits on our long 10-year US inflation breakeven trade for a total return of 2.88%. Chart 14UK Breakevens Are Above Fair Value In other ILB markets, UK breakevens are now an intriguing case, and not only for the monetary policy driven interplay between UK real yields and breakevens discussed earlier in this report. The overshoot of UK breakevens relative to our fair value model may be related to growing market speculation that the BoE will move to negative interest rates – an outcome we deem to be unlikely, as we discussed in a recent report.4 Alternatively, the higher breakevens may be a reflection of UK political uncertainty. The risk of a hard Brexit has resurfaced as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have now backed a bill that includes powers for the government to override its withdrawal agreement with the European Union; understandably, this has caused a sell-off in the pound. Within our fundamental fair value framework, the UK 10-year breakeven inflation rate has overshot both the 3-year moving average of headline inflation and the growth of GBP-denominated oil prices, leaving breakevens 0.72 standard deviations expensive (Chart 14). One possible explanation is that markets are pricing in a significant further depreciation in the pound given this resurfacing of Brexit risk. Within our model, GBP/USD impacts the fair value of breakeven inflation via Brent oil prices, which are denominated in local currency terms. Thus, we can back out an implied change in GBP/USD that would make the model-derived fair value breakeven rate equal to the actual 10-year UK inflation breakeven rate, holding all other variables in the model constant. This does produce some extreme results during periods of very rapid moves in UK breakevens, but we can standardize the data to use as an indicator of ILB market-implied views on the currency (Chart 15). With that in mind, pound bearishness in ILB markets is nearing levels where it has historically troughed. A favorable development in Brexit negotiations could cause a reversal in this pound-bearish trend and a sharp downward correction in UK inflation breakevens. We see a potential opportunity to play for narrower UK breakevens if our view on Brexit and negative rates in the UK prove to be correct. On that front, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, sees a no-deal Brexit by year-end as the less likely outcome, with odds of only 35%, given the political calculus that PM Johnson faces with the decision.5 Polls show that the UK public does not support a no-deal Brexit (Chart 16), which would severely hurt a UK economy that remains fragile due to the coronavirus, and would raise the odds of a new independence referendum in Scotland in 2021. Chart 15UK Breakevens Already Discount A Big Fall In GBP Chart 16Only 25% In The UK Think A No-Deal Brexit Is A Good Outcome We will monitor the situation closely in the coming weeks, but we see a potential opportunity to play for narrower UK breakevens if our view on Brexit and negative rates in the UK prove to be correct. Finally, although the majority of the gains from our long inflation breakeven trades in Canada and Italy have likely been realized, there are still some chips left on the table. Canadian breakeven inflation rates have risen in lockstep with Brent prices but have yet to converge with the long-run moving average of inflation (Chart 17). In Italy, the increases in oil prices in euro terms has outstripped the rise in breakevens, pushing up the model-implied fair value and leaving breakevens remain more than one standard deviation under fair value (Chart 18). We will look for the gap between breakevens and fair values to shrink further in these two countries before closing these trades, even though we are substantially in the green on both (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 19). Chart 17Canadian Breakevens Are Just Below Fair Value Chart 18Italian Breakevens Are Well Below Fair Value Bottom Line: Our models suggest US TIPS breakevens are now at fair value. We are taking profit on our tactical long US 10-year inflation breakeven trade for a return of 2.88%. Stay long 10-year breakevens in Italy and Canada until we see further shrinkage in the gap between inflation breakevens and model-implied fair value and watch for a selling opportunity in UK 10-year breakevens.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Pivot To Value", dated September 18, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. You can also learn more about The Good Judgement Project here: https://goodjudgment.com/about/ 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "The Fed’s New Framework Is Bond Bearish…But Not Yet", dated September 8, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rate Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The End-Game For Trump And Brexit", dated September 18, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, We will be working on our Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook next week, which will be published on Tuesday, September 29th. We will also be hosting a webcast on Thursday, October 1st at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where we will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Investors should favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. However, stocks remain technically overbought in the short term and vulnerable to a further correction.  Investors are not fully appreciating the degree to which fiscal policy has already tightened in the US. While we ultimately expect a deal to be reached, it may take a stock market sell-off to force Republican leaders to accede to Democratic demands for more spending. US monetary policy will stay accommodative for at least the next two years, a view that this week’s FOMC meeting further validated. Investors should pivot into cheaper areas of the stock market – in particular, deep cyclicals and financials, non-US stocks, and value stocks. Value stocks are especially appealing, as they are now trading at the biggest discount on record relative to growth stocks. The “pandemic trade” will give way to the “reopening trade.” The latter will benefit value stocks. In addition, stronger global growth, ongoing Chinese stimulus, a weaker US dollar, and modestly steeper yield curves all favor value indices. Value investors who want to accentuate their returns should pay special attention to smaller value companies outside the US. Market Commentary Chart 1Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. However, stocks remain technically overbought in the short term despite correcting modestly over the past few weeks. Tech stocks rallied hard into September. Aggressive buying of out-of-the-money call options helped fuel the rally. While some big institutional players such as Softbank have reportedly scaled back their positions, many retail investors remain unfazed. The triple leveraged long Nasdaq 100 ETF, TQQQ, experienced the largest weekly inflow on record in September. In addition to being technically stretched, equities face near-term risks from the impasse in the US Congress over a new stimulus bill. Investors are not fully appreciating the degree to which fiscal policy has already tightened in the US. Chart 1 shows that weekly unemployment payments have fallen by $15 billon since the end of July, representing a drop of more than 50%. At an annualized rate, this amounts to 3.7% of GDP in fiscal tightening. On top of that, the funds in the small business Paycheck Protection Program have run out, while many state and local governments face a severe cash crunch. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect a fiscal deal to be reached over the next few weeks. The fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Congress will stay in session until both sides agree on an aid package is good news in that regard. Nevertheless, given all the acrimony in Washington in the run up to the November election, there is still a non-negligible chance that a deal falls through. Why, then, are we still bullish on stocks on a 12-month horizon? Partly it is because voters want more stimulus, which means that fiscal policy is likely to be loosened again, even if this does come after the election. It is also because the pandemic seems to be receding. While the number of new cases is rising again in the EU and some other regions, fatality rates remain much lower than during the first wave. Progress also continues to be made on developing a viable vaccine. According to The Good Judgment Project, about 60% of “superforecasters” expect a mass-distributed vaccine to be available by Q1 of 2021, up from 45% just four weeks ago. Only 2% expect there to be no vaccine available by April 2022, down from over 50% in May (Chart 2). Chart 2High Odds Of A Vaccine Within 6-To-12 Months Lastly, monetary policy remains exceptionally accommodative. The Fed this week formally incorporated its new flexible average inflation targeting strategy into its post-meeting statement. The FOMC promised to keep rates at rock-bottom levels until the economy has reached “maximum employment” and inflation “is on track to moderately exceed two percent for some time.” The dot plot indicated that the vast majority of FOMC members did not expect rates to rise until at least the end of 2023. As Chart 3 shows, the global equity risk premium remains quite elevated. This favors stocks over bonds. Not all stocks are equally attractive, however. Four weeks ago, in a report titled “The Return of Nasdog,” we made the case that investors should pivot away from growth stocks towards value stocks. The report generated quite a bit of interest from readers. Below, we review and elaborate on some of the issues raised in a Q&A format. Q: Being long value stocks relative to growth stocks has been a widowmaker trade for more than a decade. Why do you think we have reached an inflection point? A: Value stocks are cheaper now compared to growth stocks than at any point in history – even cheaper than at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite Elevated Chart 4Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks     Admittedly, valuations are not a good timing tool. One needs a catalyst to unlock those valuations. Good news on the virus front may end up being such a catalyst. The “pandemic trade” benefited tech stocks, which are overrepresented in growth indices. It also favored health care stocks, which are similarly overrepresented in growth indices, at least globally (Table 1). The “reopening trade” will support companies such as banks, hotels, and transports that were crushed by lockdown measures and which are overrepresented in value indices. Table 1Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Chart 5 shows that retail sales at physical stores are rebounding, while online sales growth is coming down from highly elevated levels. Bank of America estimates that US e-commerce penetration doubled in just a few short months earlier this year. Some “reversion to the trend” is likely, even if that trend does favor online stores over the long haul. Meanwhile, PC shipments soared during the pandemic as companies and workers rushed out to buy computer gear to allow them to work from home (Chart 6). To the extent that this caused some spending to be brought forward, it could create an air pocket in tech demand over the next few quarters. Chart 5Are Brick-And-Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Chart 6The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge     Q: How are investors positioned towards value versus growth? A: According to the September BofA Global Fund Manager Survey, tech and pharma were the two sectors with the largest reported overweights. Thus, there is significant scope for money to shift out of these sectors. Q: What about the overall macro environment underpinning growth and value? A: While the relationship is far from perfect, value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks when the US dollar is weakening (Chart 7). Recall that growth stocks did very well during the late 1990s, a period of dollar strength. In contrast, value stocks outperformed between 2001 and 2007, a period during which the dollar was generally on the back foot. As we have spelled out in past reports, we expect the dollar to weaken over the next 12 months, which should benefit value stocks. Value stocks also tend to do best when global growth is accelerating (Chart 8). Provided that governments maintain adequate levels of fiscal support and a vaccine becomes available by early next year, global GDP should bounce back swiftly. Chart 7Value Stocks Tend To Outperform Growth Stocks When The US Dollar Is Weakening Chart 8Value Stocks Also Tend To Do Best When Global Growth Is Accelerating   Q: Won’t lower real bond yields favor growth stocks? A: By definition, growth companies generate more of their earnings further in the future than value companies. As such, a decline in real yields will tend to increase the present value of cash flows more for growth companies than for value companies. We do not expect real yields to rise significantly over the next two years. However, given that real yields are already deeply negative in almost all countries, they probably will not fall either. Q: You seem to be making the cyclical case for the outperformance of value stocks. But what about the secular case? It appears to me that the stronger earnings growth displayed by growth stocks will ultimately translate into higher long-term returns. A: Historically, that has not been the case. As Chart 9 and Table 2 illustrate, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by a wide margin over the past century. In particular, small cap value has clobbered small cap growth. Chart 9Value Stocks Have Outperformed Growth Stocks By A Wide Margin Over The Past Century Table 2Small Caps Vis-A-Vis Large Caps: Comparison of Total Returns How did value stocks manage to triumph over growth stocks if, as you say, growth stocks usually experience faster earnings growth? The answer has to do with what is priced in and what is not. If everyone expects a company’s earnings to grow next year, this will already be reflected in its share price. It is only unanticipated earnings growth that should move share prices. For the most part, both analysts and investors have tended to overextrapolate near-term earnings growth. As we discussed in a special report titled “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” while analysts are generally able to predict which companies will display superior earnings growth over the next one-to-two years, they systemically overestimate earnings growth on longer-term horizons (Chart 10). As a result, investors tend to overpay for growth, causing growth stocks to lag value stocks. Chart 10A Mug’s Game Q: That may have been true historically, but it seems that more recently, investors have been guilty of underpaying for growth. A: Yes and no. If one looks at the period between 2007 and 2017, the superior performance of growth stocks was broadly matched by their superior earnings growth. As a result, relative P/E ratios did not change much. Since 2017, however, the P/E ratio for growth indices has soared relative to value indices (Chart 11).  Chart 11AThe Outperformance Of Growth Stocks Over The Past Three Years Has Been Turbocharged By A Rapid P/E Multiple Expansion Chart 11BThe Outperformance Of Growth Stocks Over The Past Three Years Has Been Turbocharged By A Rapid P/E Multiple Expansion   Q: What has happened since 2017 that has caused growth stocks to become so much more expensive? A: FANG, FAANG, FANGMAN, whatever acronym you want to use, it was mainly a story about investors becoming infatuated with mega cap tech stocks. After seeing these companies beat earnings estimates quarter after quarter, investors decided that they deserve to trade at much higher valuation multiples. Q: What about other tech companies? A: For the most part, they were left in the dust. Our proprietary Equity Analyzer system allows us to sort companies based on all types of fundamental and technical factors. Chart 12 shows that “value tech” companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales have gotten completely clobbered by “growth tech” companies trading in the top quartile of these valuation metrics. Chart 12Value Tech Versus Growth Tech Interestingly, the opposite pattern was true among financials: “Value financials” – financials that trade cheaply based on the valuation measures listed above – have outperformed “growth financials.” The net result is a bit surprising: Since “value tech” underperformed the average tech stock, while “value financials” outperformed the average financial stock, the average “value tech” stock has delivered a return over the past decade that was almost identical to the average “value financial” stock. Chart 13There Was No Money To Be Made By Shifting Value Exposure From Financials To Tech In Recent Years Q: This seems to suggest that value managers would not have made any money by shifting exposure from financials to tech? A: Correct. Consider the iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF (ticker: VLUE). It is structured to have the same sector weights as the overall US market. It currently has 27% of its assets in technology and 10% in financials. Compare that to the Vanguard Value Index Fund ETF Shares (ticker: VTV). It has 10% of its assets in technology and 19% in financials. As Chart 13shows, VTV has actually outperformed VLUE over the past five years. Year to date, VTV is down 10%, while VLUE is down 15%. Q: While value managers would not have made money by shifting capital from financials to tech, I presume the same thing could not be said for growth managers. A: You can say that again. “Growth tech” outperformed the average tech stock, while “growth financials” underperformed the average financial stock. Thus, shifting money from “growth financials” to “growth tech” would have supercharged returns. Q: This still leaves open the question of why mega cap stocks were able to grow earnings so rapidly? A: Two explanations come to mind. First, tech companies often gain from so-called network effects: The more people there are who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Second, tech companies benefit from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Q: It seems this process could go on indefinitely? A: Not indefinitely. No company can control more than 100% of its market. There is also a limit to how big the overall market can get. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Q: These companies have plenty of cash. Can’t they try to enter new types of businesses if they want to keep growing? A: They can try, but there is no guarantee they will succeed. Kodak was one of the pioneers in digital photography. However, it could never really reinvent itself and ended up fading into oblivion. Moreover, while first-mover advantage is a powerful force, it is not invincible. At one point during the dotcom bubble, Palm’s market capitalization was over six times greater than Apple’s. The Blackberry superseded the PalmPilot; the iPhone, in turn, superseded the Blackberry. History suggests that many of today’s technological leaders will end up as laggards. Q: And I suppose government policy could also turn less friendly towards tech? A: That is a definite risk. Republicans have been cheap dates for tech companies. Republican politicians have showered tech companies with tax cuts and allowed them to exploit a variety of loopholes in the tax code. They also kept tech regulation to a minimum. All this happened despite the fact that many tech leaders have publicly panned conservative viewpoints, while tech company employees have rewarded Democratic politicians with the lion’s share of campaign donations (Chart 14). Chart 14Tech Company Employees Donate Heavily Towards Democrats Going forward, Republicans are likely to sour on big tech. According to a recent Pew Research study, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). Tucker Carlson, a leading indicator for where the Republican party is heading, has frequently lambasted tech companies on his highly popular television show. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies For their part, the Democrats are moving to the left. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leading indicator for the Democratic party, has voiced her support for Senator Elizabeth Warren’s calls to break up big tech. She has also accused Amazon of paying starvation wages, adding that "If Jeff Bezos wants to be a good person, he'd turn Amazon into a worker cooperative." Q: The political climate for tech companies may be souring. But couldn’t one say the same thing about banks and energy companies, which are overrepresented in value indices? A: One difference is that tech companies trade at premium valuations, while banks and energy companies trade near book value (Chart 16). Another difference is that banks have already felt the wrath of regulators. Thanks to Dodd-Frank and pending Basel III regulations, banks today function more like utilities than like the casinos of yesteryear. While private credit growth is unlikely to return to its pre-GFC pace, banks will still profit from a revival in global growth and increasing consolidation within their industry. Stronger global growth should also allow for modestly higher nominal bond yields and somewhat steeper yield curves. This will benefit bank shares (Chart 17). Chart 16Tech Firms Trade At Premium Valuations Chart 17Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares     As far as energy stocks are concerned, again, we need to benchmark our views to what the market expects. Oil is not going back above $100 per barrel anytime soon, but it does not need to for energy stocks to go up. Bob Ryan, BCA’s chief commodity strategist, sees Brent averaging $65/bbl in 2021, $19 above what is currently priced in forward markets. Q: What about materials and industrial stocks? They are also overrepresented in value indices. A: Both materials and industrials tend to outperform the broader market when global growth accelerates (Chart 18). To the extent we expect global growth to rise, this is good news for these two sectors. They also trade at attractive valuations. Q: How does China figure into this value/growth debate? A: As we saw during the 2001-2007 period, strong Chinese demand for commodities and industrial goods benefits value indices. Even though trend Chinese GDP growth has decelerated over the past decade, the Chinese economy is five-times as large as it was back then. In absolute terms, Chinese consumption of most metals continues to increase (Chart 19). Chart 18Materials And Industrials Usually Outperform When Growth Accelerates Chart 19Chinese Consumption Of Most Metals Continues To Rise   Chart 20 shows that Chinese GDP would need to grow by about 6% per year over the next decade to keep output-per-worker on track to converge with, say, South Korea by the middle of the century. Thus, Chinese demand for natural resources and machinery is unlikely to weaken anytime soon. Chart 20China Still Has Some Catching Up To Do Q: Let’s wrap up. What final tips would you give investors who want to pivot towards value? A: There are a number of ETFs that track value indices. We expect them to outperform the broad indices over the coming years. For investors who want even higher returns, a selective approach would help. Distinguishing between value stocks and value traps is not easy. True value stocks have often congregated in the shadows of the market, where there is limited analyst coverage and thin institutional ownership. The small-cap sector offers more opportunities for finding such mispriced stocks. Hence, it is not surprising that historically, the value premium has been greater in the small cap realm. The same is true for emerging markets and smaller developed economies (Chart 21).1 Thus, investors who want to accentuate their returns should pay special attention to smaller value companies outside the US. Chart 21AHistorically, The Value Premium Has Been Greater In The Small Cap Realm In Emerging Markets And Smaller Developed Economies Chart 21BHistorically, The Value Premium Has Been Greater In The Small Cap Realm In Emerging Markets And Smaller Developed Economies   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights If it can maintain production discipline over the next 2-3 years, OPEC 2.0 will be the oil market’s most important determinant of price levels for years. The massive increase in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity resulting from COVID-19-induced demand destruction, along with its low-cost production, global storage and distribution will allow it to bring crude to market quicker than US shale-oil producers, and to manage an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être.  As spare capacity is drawn down over the next couple of years, Brent and WTI forward curves will backwardate in in 1H21, as spare capacity and the slope of the forward curve are inversely related (lower spare capacity leads to higher backwardation). This will keep spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge (Chart of the Week). Parsimonious capital markets will continue to deny funding to all but the most profitable producers, which will continue to limit E+P ex-OPEC 2.0.  ESG-focused investments will increasingly favor energy producers outside the oil and gas sector.  As demand growth resumes, this will sow the seeds for higher oil prices in the mid-2020s. We will be updating our oil balances and 2H20 and 2021 forecasts – $46/bbl and $65/bbl for Brent in 2H20 and 2021 – next week.  Feature While the hit to oil producers’ revenues from the demand destruction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been severe – particularly for those states comprising OPEC 2.0, which are so heavily dependent on oil exports – it set the stage for the producer coalition to take control of global oil-price dynamics for the next couple of years. If the OPEC 2.0 coalition can maintain its production discipline, its member states could extend this control for years into the future, just as they are attempting to diversify their economies from this dependence on hydrocarbons. Once OPEC 2.0 member states manage to diversify a large part of their economies, the next optimal strategy will be to monetize their reserves and market share. Until then, it is our contention it is in these states' interest to have higher prices via gaining control of supply. The producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia today sits on some 7mm b/d of spare capacity that is a direct result of the global collapse in demand. This gives it a powerful lever to restrain the recovery of production growth in the US shales and elsewhere. Spare Capacity Turns The Tables On Shale Oil The enormous spare capacity now held by OPEC 2.0 – the majority of which is in KSA – allows the coalition to turn the tables on the US shales and producers ex-US Since its inception in late 2016, OPEC 2.0 has accommodated higher US shale production by reducing its output and then expanding it at a slower rate, as US production soared to meet domestic demand and, increasingly, global oil demand (Chart 2). OPEC 2.0 has been in operation since January 2017. Over that period, the coalition reduced its output growth ~ 0.37% for every 1% increase in crude and liquids output ex-OPEC 2.0. Within that adjustment, OPEC 2.0’s output falls by 0.16% for every 1% increase in US output, most of which was accounted for by the unprecedented growth of shale production.1 The enormous spare capacity now held by OPEC 2.0 – the majority of which is in KSA – allows the coalition to turn the tables on the US shales and producers ex-US (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekFalling OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Backwardate Brent Forward Curves Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Accommodated US Shales Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Would Benefit From Maintaining Spare Capacity At High Levels Along with its low-cost production, global storage and distribution, this spare capacity allows OPEC 2.0 member states to bring crude to market quicker than US shale-oil producers as the need for additional supply becomes apparent. This was demonstrated earlier this year by KSA when it engaged in a brief market-share war with Russia following the breakdown of negotiations to extend OPEC 2.0’s production cuts.2 The spare capacity also allows the coalition to manage an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être, by making crude available out of production on short notice. As a result, Brent and WTI forward curves will backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. By keeping forward curves backwardated, the amount of revenue – i.e., price x quantity – hedged is limited by lower forward prices vs. spot prices. This limits the volume of oil a producer can bring to market in the future. Extending OPEC 2.0’s Low-Cost Spare Capacity In the near term, we expect OPEC 2.0’s production to come back faster and stronger than that of the US shales. The advantage OPEC 2.0 realizes from holding spare capacity – KSA in particular – can be extended at low cost going forward.3 And, if OPEC 2.0 communicates its intent to maintain spare capacity at higher levels than have prevailed recently, as was indicated last week by Aramco’s CEO, who announced KSA intends to raise capacity 1mm b/d to 13mm b/d, this could, at the margin, disincentivize investment in production ex-OPEC 2.0 in the future.4 Developing spare capacity for low-cost producers like Aramco is akin to building a portfolio of deep-in-the-money options to increase output quickly at minimal expense. These options can be exercised – i.e., output can be increased in short order at low cost – before competitors can mobilize to meet the market need. What makes this strategy credible is KSA’s capacity to surge production and put oil on the water in VLCCs at astonishing speed, as noted above vis-à-vis the breakdown in negotiations earlier this year in Vienna to extend production cuts. In the near term, we expect OPEC 2.0’s production to come back faster and stronger than that of the US shales (Chart 4). This will allow them to begin rebuilding revenues sooner as demand recovers (Chart 5). Any demand increase in excess of OPEC 2.0’s flowing supply – which could be restrained to force refiners to draw storage (Chart 6) – can be met with spare capacity and storage held or controlled by coalition members. Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Supply Recovers Faster Than US Shales Chart 5Rate Of Demand Growth Will Exceed Supply Growth Chart 6Forcing Inventories Lower Capital-Market Parsimony Will Tighten Supply Equity investors have abandoned the oil and gas sector, as can be seen in the collapse in the percentage of the overall market accounted for by energy stocks (Chart 7). Chart 7Energy Share Of Overall Market Collapses This no doubt is fueled by underperformance vs. technology stocks and other alternatives available to investors, and to a migration toward Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing (Chart 8). Indeed, as our colleagues in BCA’s Global Asset Allocation Strategy noted, “ESG-related equities have outperformed global benchmarks over the past two years, as well as during the recent equity selloff.” In addition, “green energy” investments account for half of the $300 billion G20 governments have allocated to clean energy policies and renewable energy programs as part of the COVID-19 fiscal stimulus deployed worldwide.5 Chart 8ESG Investment Surge We believe this combination of a long-standing aversion to oil and gas equities and OPEC 2.0’s clear advantage in terms of its spare capacity, low-cost production and global storage and distribution networks will result in under-funding of new E+P, and will lead to a tighter market by the mid-2020s. This is particularly true for oil, which, is not confronting the competitive threat faced by natural gas vis-à-vis renewable energy. We will continue to develop these themes, and subject this thesis to fiery critique, borrowing from Kant’s methodology.6 Risks To Our View There are two major risks to the thesis developed here: OPEC 2.0 breaks down, as it came close to doing earlier this year (discussed above).  A breakdown of the coalition would lead to lower E&P investment via very low oil prices that almost surely would occur if this were to happen. This would be a far more volatile path to higher prices, which also would discourage investment. A battery-technology breakthrough that makes electric vehicles viable – i.e., unsubsidized – competitors to internal-combustion engine technology powering the vast majority of transportation. We expect Brent and WTI forward curves to backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s massive spare capacity resulting from COVID-19-induced demand destruction, its low-cost production and global storage and distribution network allow it to take control of crude-oil pricing dynamics over the next couple of years. These endowments also allow it to orchestrate an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être. As a result, we expect Brent and WTI forward curves to backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. Parsimonious capital markets and a preference for ESG-focused investment will increasingly favor energy producers outside the oil and gas sector. As demand growth resumes, this will sow the seeds for higher oil prices in the mid-2020s.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight JKM and TTF natural gas prices are up 49% and 27% over the past four weeks. The price spreads for December 2020 futures contracts between the US and Europe and Asia reached $1.6/MMBtu and $1.9/MMBtu this week. This will support the ongoing recovery in US LNG exports – which was briefly halted last month by Hurricane Laura – during the coming winter season (Chart 9). Separately, Libyan oil exports could be set to rebound following statements by General Haftar – the leader of Libyan National Army (LNA) – that he was committed to lifting the current blockade on the country’s exports, according to the US Embassy in Libya. Base Metals: Neutral China’s expansionary monetary and fiscal stimulus continued in August. The country’s total social financing (TSF) climbed past market expectations of CNY 2.59 trillion to CNY 3.58 trillion (Chart 10). This will provide further support to base metals prices – chiefly copper – over the coming months. The increase in TSF reflects the strong local government bond issuance and reinforces our view that the recovery in copper prices will be policy-driven – i.e. dictated by Chinese policymakers’ decisions on the allocation of total social financing funds in its economy with domestic supply adjusting to demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Palladium prices are up 7% since the beginning of September, supported by rebounding car sales and production in China. In August, vehicle sales grew by 12% y/y. We expect fiscal and credit stimulus in the country will allow car sales to continue growing y/y in the coming months. Ags/Softs:  Underweight Soybean prices remain strongly bid, looking to re-test 2018 highs. The latest weekly USDA crop progress report indicated continued deterioration in the number of soybean crops in good or excellent condition. Investor sentiment is fueled by China maintaining its promise to import record amounts of U.S. agricultural goods this year, as part of the Phase 1 trade deal. Last week, the U.S. Agriculture Department reported that Chinese buyers booked deals to buy 664,000 tonnes of soybeans, the largest daily total since July 22.  Chart 9LNG Chart 10COPPER PRICES       Footnotes 1     These estimates were generated by an ARDL model used to determine the sensitivity of OPEC 2.0 total liquids output to non-OPEC 2.0 production and consumption.  2     For a recap of this market-share war, please see KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War, which we published March 19, 2020.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  Briefly, KSA put millions of barrels on the water in a matter of months after Russia launched its market-share war at the end of OPEC’s March 2020 meeting in Vienna.  This demonstrated an ability to mobilize supply and deliver it that greatly surpassed the eight-month time frame we estimate is required for shale production to reach the market after prices signal the need for additional crude. 3    Please see The $200 billion annual value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the global economy published by The King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC) July 17, 2018, for a discussion of the global impact of KSA’s spare capacity. 4    Please see Aramco CEO: Saudi Arabia to raise oil production capacity to 13 million barrels per day published by Oil & Gas World Magazine September 9, 2020. 5    Please see ESG Investing: From Niche To Mainstream, published by BCA’s Global Asset Allocation Strategy August 25, 2020.  It is available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see O’Shea, James R. (2012), “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, An Introduction and Interpretation,” Acumen Publishing Limited, Durham, UK.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Stocks face near-term downside risks from further delays in passing a new US fiscal stimulus package, a potentially slower-than-expected rollout of a Covid-19 vaccine, and the unwinding of speculative call option positions in large-cap US tech companies. Nevertheless, we continue to favor equities over bonds over a 12-month horizon. One key reason is that the global equity risk premium – proxied by the difference between the stock market earnings yield and the real government bond yield – remains quite large. Many observers argue that the bond yield component of the equity risk premium is distorted by central bank manipulation. They also contend that low bond yields reflect poor economic prospects and that structurally low borrowing costs could lead to malinvestment down the road. In this report, we push back against these views. We argue that today’s low bond yields do, in fact, provide a reliable estimate of the risk-free component of the discount rate; that the drop in yields over the past year mainly reflects higher private-sector savings and easier monetary policy rather than pessimism about growth and earnings; and that instead of leading to overinvestment, the main effect of falling interest rates, at least so far, has been to inflate the rents earned by companies with monopoly power. All of this means that lower interest rates really do justify higher market valuations. The Correction Is Not Over, But We Are Sticking With Our Bullish 12-Month View On Stocks Chart 1Tech Stocks At Greatest Risk Of A Pullback After recouping some of their losses on Wednesday, stocks stumbled again on Thursday. Since reaching new highs last week, global equities have dropped by 5.3%. US equities have taken the brunt of the beating. They are down 7% from last week’s top, compared to 3% for non-US stocks (Chart 1). The tech-heavy Nasdaq remains 9.4% off its record high. We continue to see near-term downside risks to global stocks, particularly US equities. It has now been six weeks since emergency US federal unemployment benefits lapsed. The US economy is set to rebound at a brisk pace in the third quarter – the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model projects that output will grow 30% at an annualized pace – but GDP is rising from a very low base. In the absence of a new fiscal package, US growth could slow sharply in the fourth quarter and beyond, causing more workers to become permanently unemployed. Concern over the safety of the vaccines being developed to fight Covid-19 could also unsettle investors. On Wednesday, AstraZeneca announced that it had temporarily paused the Phase 3 trial of its vaccine co-developed with the University of Oxford after a patient suffered a severe reaction. Such delays are normal in the conduct of vaccine testing, but they do raise memories of the 1976 debacle with the Swine flu vaccine, which caused 450 Americans to come down with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a life-threatening neurological disorder.1 Chart 2Nasdaq Volatility Declined Even As Share Prices Tumbled These worries come on the heels of a six-month rally in tech stocks – one that was dangerously amplified by speculative call option purchases by retail investors. The preference among retail investors for short-dated calls allowed them to gain control of large swathes of shares at relatively little cost. Market makers and other counterparties who sold the calls were forced to buy the underlying stock to hedge their exposure. This created a self-reinforcing feedback loop where rising call option prices generated more purchases of the underlying stock, leading to even higher call prices. Starting last week, the process began to go in reverse. It is noteworthy that Nasdaq implied volatility actually fell on both Monday and Wednesday as tech stocks imploded, a possible sign that nervous investors were liquidating their call positions (Chart 2). It is difficult to know how much further this process has to run, but our guess is that a capitulation point has not yet been reached. This suggests that the correction is not yet over.   TINA’s Siren Song Despite our near-term concerns, we expect global equities to be higher in 12 months’ time. At least one of the nine vaccine candidates currently in Phase 3 trials is likely to produce a viable formula. Policymakers are also liable to heed the will of voters and maintain generous fiscal stimulus measures. All this should allow global growth to pick up. Stocks usually do well when global growth is accelerating (Chart 3). And then there is TINA. TINA — There Is No Alternative — has become a popular adage on Wall Street. As the argument goes, no matter how expensive stocks seem to get, bonds and cash are even less attractive. There is some logic to this view. Today, the dividend yield on the S&P 500 stands at 1.6%. While this dividend yield is well below its historic average of 4.3%, it is still higher than the 0.68% yield on the 10-year Treasury note (Chart 4). Chart 3Stocks Usually Do Well When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 4Bond Yields Have Fallen Below Dividend Yields Imagine an investor having to decide whether to place their money in an S&P 500 index fund or a 10-year Treasury note. Dividends-per-share paid by S&P 500 companies have almost always increased over time. However, even if we make the pessimistic assumption that dividends-per-share remain unchanged for the next ten years, the value of the S&P 500 would still have to fall by 9% over the next decade to equal the return on the 10-year note. Assuming that inflation averages 2% over this period, the real value of the S&P 500 would need to drop by 25%. The picture is even more dramatic outside the US. In the euro area, the index would have to fall by over 30% in real terms for investors to make more money in bonds than stocks. In the UK, it would need to fall by over 50%. Elevated Equity Risk Premia Granted, stocks are riskier than bonds. However, based on a comparison of dividend yields with bond yields, stocks today are significantly cheaper than usual (Chart 5). Chart 5AStocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Chart 5BStocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds The relative attractiveness of stocks can also be inferred by subtracting the real bond yield from the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield on stocks in order to get an implied equity risk premium (ERP)2 (Chart 6). Outside the US, the ERP is high both because earnings yields are elevated and because real bond yields are depressed. In the US, which accounts for 56% of global stock market capitalization, the earnings yield is below its long-term average. Nevertheless, the US ERP is still quite high because real bond yields reside deep in negative territory. In fact, the US ERP has barely fallen since March because the decline in real yields has largely offset the rise in stock prices (Chart 7). Chart 6Equity Risk Premia Are Elevated Chart 7The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices   Are Bond Yields Fake News? Stock market bears will argue that the ERP is overstated by the abnormally low level of bond yields. Their argument typically centers on three points: Quantitative easing, forward guidance, NIRP and ZIRP have distorted bond yields to such an extent that we can no longer use them as a reliable measure of the risk-free component of the discount rate. Even if one accepts the premise that current bond yields are a valid proxy for the risk-free rate, the fact that yields are so low is hardly a cause for celebration. This is because today’s low yields reflect dismal economic prospects, which justifies a higher-than-normal equity risk premium. Low bond yields are incentivizing all sorts of malinvestment. With time, this will depress the rate of return on capital, leading to lower stock prices. Let’s examine all three arguments in turn. Are Bond Yields Being Manipulated? The term financial repression gets bandied around quite often these days. There is no doubt that central banks would like to keep yields low, but how much higher would yields be in the absence of any unorthodox monetary measures? Our guess is not much higher. The simplest test of whether bond yields are above or below their equilibrium level is to look at whether growth is above or below trend. The recovery following the financial crisis was anemic, suggesting that monetary policy was only modestly accommodative. If anything, one can argue that in much of the world, bond yields would be even lower today were it not for the fact that nominal interest rates cannot go much below zero. Do Low Bond Yields Reflect Bad News? Bond yields can decline for many reasons. Some of these reasons are positive for equity investors, while others are negative. If yields fall on the expectation of weaker economic growth, that is clearly bad for stocks. On the flipside, if yields drop because monetary policy has turned more dovish, that is good for stocks. The impact on equities from other factors influencing bond yields can be ambiguous. For example, consider the case of an increase in private-sector savings. All things equal, higher savings will lead to less spending. A decline in spending is likely to result in lower output and diminished corporate profits. That is bad for stocks. However, if governments absorb the excess private-sector savings by running larger budget deficits, there may end up being no net loss in aggregate demand. In that case, stock prices may not fall. Indeed, one can very easily envision a scenario where an adverse shock to private-sector spending leads to an increase in equity valuations. To see this point, consider a standard dividend discount model. Suppose something happens that leads the private sector to spend less at any given interest rate. Let us also suppose that the central bank reacts to this shock by cutting interest rates all the way down to zero, at which point governments, taking advantage of cheaper borrowing costs, step in and increase fiscal stimulus. The upshot could be a lower interest rate but at the same level of aggregate spending (See Box 1 for a formal economic discussion of how this process works). If aggregate demand – and by extension, corporate earnings and dividends — drop temporarily, while interest rates fall permanently (or at least semi-permanently), the present value of cash flows will rise. As far-fetched as this scenario may seem, something along these lines appears to have happened over the past six months. Chart 8 shows that analysts expect global profits to contract by 19% in 2020, but then rebound by 29% in 2021 and rise a further 16% the following year, leaving 2022 profits 21% above 2019 levels. Like everywhere else, analysts expect US profits to return to their long-term trend over the next few years. Meanwhile, the 30-year TIPS yield – a proxy for the risk-free component of the discount rate – has fallen by 94 basis points since the start of the year. Even if one assumes, contrary to the optimistic forecasts of analysts, that the level of US EPS does not return to its pre-pandemic trend until 2030, this would still leave the fair value of the S&P 500 17.5% higher than it was at the start of the year (Chart 9). Chart 8Analysts Expect Global Profits To Contract This Year Before Rebounding Chart 9The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Will Low Interest Rates Lead To Malinvestment? A drop in interest rates may seem like a free lunch for shareholders: It increases the present value of future cash flows without reducing the cash flows themselves. In fact, one could argue that lower rates actually increase future cash flows by shrinking net interest payments on outstanding debt. That might be all fine and dandy, but what about the effect of low interest rates on future investment decisions? To the extent that lower rates increase the market value of a firm’s capital stock relative to its replacement cost – the so-called Tobin’s Q ratio – lower rates could spur more investment. Higher investment, in turn, could drive down the rate of return on capital, leading to lower profits (Box 2 illustrates this point with a simple example featuring a lemonade stand). While there is some truth to this logic, it is less compelling than it once was. This is because much of the capital stock of listed companies today takes the form of intangible capital – which is often difficult to reproduce – rather than physical capital. Such intangible capital may include patents and trademarks as well as monopoly power. In particular, internet companies have gained significant monopoly power from network effects: The more people use their service, the more valuable their service becomes. This is a key reason why falling interest rates have helped the tech giants more than other companies. The Path Ahead The section above argued that today’s low bond yields do, in fact, provide a reliable estimate of the risk-free component of the discount rate; that the drop in yields over the past year mainly reflects higher private-sector savings and easier monetary policy rather than pessimism about growth and earnings; and that instead of leading to overinvestment, the main effect of falling interest rates, at least so far, has been to inflate the rents earned by companies with monopoly power. All this means that lower interest rates really do justify higher market valuations. Looking out, while bond yields are unlikely to rise significantly over the next two years in the absence of any meaningful inflationary pressures, yields are unlikely to fall either given how low they already are. This is not necessarily bad news for stocks. As mentioned above, the equity risk premium is quite high, which means that stocks can rise even if bond yields do edge somewhat higher. The more interesting action is likely to occur beneath the broad indices. If bond yields stabilize, this will remove a major headwind to bank shares (Chart 10). On the flipside, the reopening of economies will benefit companies that were crushed by lockdown measures. Money will shift from “pandemic plays” to “recovery plays.” Chart 10Stabilization In Bond Yields Would Remove A Major Headwind To Bank Shares Chart 11US Stocks Are More Expensive   As we predicted three weeks ago in a report titled “The Return Of Nasdog,” tech and health care stocks will go from leaders to laggards. The US has a higher concentration of tech and health care stocks than most other regions. US stocks are also quite expensive based on standard valuation measures, including the Tobin's Q ratio discussed above (Chart 11). The bottom line is that investors should remain overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon, while pivoting towards value stocks and non-US markets.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1The Role Of Monetary And Fiscal Policy Following Savings Shocks Box 2Fancy Some Lemonade? An Example Of Tobin’s Q Footnotes 1 Rick Perlstein, “Gerald Ford Rushed Out a Vaccine. It Was a Fiasco,” The New York Times, September 2, 2020. 2 It is necessary to subtract the real bond yield, rather than the nominal bond yield, from the earnings yield because the earnings yield provides an estimate of the real total expected return to shareholders. For further discussion on this, please see Appendix A of the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights China’s surge in refined copper imports allows it to cover a structural short position it has in this critical commodity – mostly in its unrefined state – and ensures the stimulus being deployed to revive its economy ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party in July will not falter due to a lack of basic raw materials (Chart of the Week). We expect continued resilience in commodities generally into 2021 – particularly in base metals, iron ore and crude oil – as markets realize China’s Communist Party is intent on showcasing its brand of policy-driven, vertically integrated capitalism as the engine of its robust economic growth. As with oil, we expect copper demand will benefit from a weaker USD and stronger global trade. The odds of a COVID-19 vaccine being available by year-end or early 2021 remain favorable, which also will support a revival in demand.1 We are keeping our COMEX copper forecast at $3.00/lb at end-2020, and expect 2021 to finish at $3.15/lb. We would not be surprised by higher prices, and are, therefore, getting long December 2021 COMEX copper at tonight's close. Feature The surge in refined copper imports hedged Chinese firms against supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and reduced availability of scrap copper on global markets this year. COVID-19 may have derailed the Communist Party’s realization of the “Chinese Dream” this year, wherein the leadership vowed real per-capita GDP would double in the decade ending in 2020, but it is unlikely to diminish the celebration of the Party’s 100th anniversary in July.2 Chart of the WeekVol Falls As Know Unknowns Are Resolved The global commodity-demand destruction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic depressed the prices of commodities generally, particularly those which China is structurally short – e.g., copper, iron ore, oil and natural gas. As terrible as the pandemic has been in human terms, it has allowed Chinese firms and the State Reserve Bureau to sharply increase imports of refined copper, which rose 34% in the January-to-July period to 2.5mm MT amid such low prices, which bottomed at $2.10/lb in late March and now are trading above $3.00/lb.3 China accounts for more than 50% of global refined copper consumption and ~ 40% of refined production (Chart 2).4 Chart 2China Dominates Metals Consumption The surge in refined copper imports hedged Chinese firms against supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and reduced availability of scrap copper on global markets this year. Global copper ore and concentrate supply fell ~ 3% y/y in 2Q20, led by a 28% decline in Peru’s mine production, according to the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (Chart 3). This was a result of containment policies that limited mining activities to slow the pandemic’s spread in Latin America. In Chile, COVID-19 cases stabilized in recent months at around 100 per million people (Chart 4). In Peru, cases have been declining since August, but from an elevated level. Supply is expected to recover rapidly as these economies reopen, but further mine disruptions remain a risk. Chart 3Peru's Copper Ore Supplies Recovering Chart 4COVID-19 Copper Supply Risks Falling Commodity-Demand Indicators Move Higher we expect the effect of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies globally will continue to show up in our indicators and for the US dollar to resume its downward trajectory. Global central banks and government stimulus unleashed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a depreciating US dollar, pushed our commodity-demand indicators higher over the last few months (Chart 5). This supported copper prices, which are up 42% since their March 23 low. Moreover, the pickup in economic activity in China’s major trading partners provided further support to copper demand, given that ~ 17% of China’s copper consumption comes from exports of products containing copper (Chart 6).5 Chart 5Commodity Demand Is Reviving Chart 6Expect Chinese Employment Gains As Economy Continues To Recover For the balance of 2H20, we expect the effect of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies globally will continue to show up in our indicators and for the US dollar to resume its downward trajectory. These are key factors driving our positive view on metal – especially copper – prices. Communist Party’s 100th Anniversary Will Boost Commodity Prices China’s buying spree for commodities it is structurally short – particularly copper, iron ore and oil – minimizes the risk fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to revive its economy will be derailed this year or next. This is particularly important next year: We expect stimulus will continue and will be hitting the economy full force in time for the Communist Party’s centennial celebrations in July. For the infrastructure and construction spending that will be spurred by the massive stimulus, this is critical to spurring employment – a key goal of the Party’s domestic harmony focus – domestic manufacturing, services, and exports (Chart 6).6 This will keep demand for copper – and commodities generally – strong into 2021, as markets realize China’s Communist Party is intent on showcasing its brand of policy-driven, vertically integrated capitalism as the engine of its world-beating economic performance. And, because stocks of critical commodities are increasing as stimulus is hitting the domestic economy next year, the risk of massively inflating prices while the county is celebrating the Party’s centennial in July – as happened following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) – is minimized, but not completely eliminated (Chart 7). Chart 7COMEX Stocks Will Move To China That said, we still expect copper to move higher next year. In our modeling of prices, we note world PMIs, EM FX rates, the USD, also drive copper prices, in addition to those factors discussed above specific to China. We expect COMEX high-grade copper prices to end 2020 at $3.00/lb, and to average $3.11/lb next year (Chart 8). On the back of this expectation, we are getting long December 2021 COMEX copper at tonight’s close, expecting 2021 to end at $3.15/lb. Chart 8Copper Prices Expected To Increase Risks To Our Copper View Geopolitical risks remain the chief threat to our bullish copper view. The US Presidential election campaign rhetoric, in particular, has turned bellicose vis-à-vis China, with President Donald Trump threatening to “decouple” economically from China if he is reelected.7 These sorts of pronouncement threaten to escalate what could now be considered a trade dispute to an all-out trade war, particularly if it includes sanctions against US firms investing in manufacturing and services in China, as Trump promises. At the limit, this would put a long-term bid under the USD, and reverse the nascent recovery in commodity demand resulting from a weaker dollar. Outright military confrontation between the US and China also is a risk, particularly as tensions in the South China Sea and the Asia-Pacific region continue. The most likely confrontation would be an escalation of hostilities resulting from a naval or aerial face-off, the number of which has been steadily increasing. The threat of a second wave of COVID-19 also remains a risk, particularly if it results in another round of lockdowns globally. That said, we believe the odds of this are very low, as the capacity to absorb another shutdown in economic activity in DM and EM economies likely has been exhausted by measures already implemented this year. It is highly unlikely any economy can afford another round of economic shutdown without triggering an economic depression. Bottom Line: China’s surge in refined copper imports allows it to cover its structural short position in the commodity, and, equally importantly, to ensure an expected revival of economic activity into 2021 – when the Communist Party celebrates its 100th anniversary – will not falter because it lacks basic raw materials. We are keeping our COMEX copper forecast at $3.00/lb at end-2020, and expect 2021 prices to average $3.11/lb. On the back of this expectation, we are getting long December 2021 COMEX copper at tonight’s close.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices dipped below $40/bbl for the first time since mid-June. Prior to this move, prices had been stable in a narrow range around $43/bbl since mid-June. Pessimism is increasing re the outlook for demand, as Saudi Arabia reduced its official selling prices (OSPs) for crude delivered to Asian buyers by $1.40/bbl. The negative sentiment was exacerbated by the selloff in tech stocks that began last Thursday. WTI net speculative positions are down to 20% of total open interests vs. 22% in July, as hedge funds exit oil markets. Base Metals: Neutral The LMEX index is up 4% over the past four weeks, supported by higher metals’ consumption and imports in China. Moreover, mobility trends in Europe, Japan, and the US have begun to turn up again in recent weeks based on Apple mobility data. The recovery in China’s economic activity remains the main pillar of our base metals outlook. However, Europe, Japan, and the US still represent a non-negligible share of global metal demand (e.g. ~ 24% copper consumption). Hence, the recent uptick in mobility data is constructive for base metal prices.  Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices are down 2% since last week, pressured by a slight increase in the US dollar and real rates. The divergence in COVID-19 cases between the US and Europe increases the risk of a short-term bounce higher if this leads to the US economy outperforming that of the EU (Chart 9). Still, mounting geopolitical risks ahead of the US election, lower-for-longer interest rates, and a resumption of the downward trend in the USD over the medium term should support gold later this year. Ags/Softs:  Underweight Soybean prices remain steady, near 2-year highs. The USDA crop progress report listed 55% of soybeans in good or excellent condition for the week ending September 6, 2020. This is a substantial deterioration compared to 66% in those categories last week and 73% at the beginning of August. Corn futures were supported by similar weak supply fundamentals. The USDA reported 55% of corn crops in good or excellent condition against 62% the previous week. Going forward, it will be important to monitor the DXY as it has been strengthening since the beginning of September and could be a headwind to these commodity prices if it breaks to the upside (Chart 10). Chart 9EU Cases Are Rising Chart 10US DXY Strengthening     Footnotes   1     Please see Lower Vol As OPEC 2.0 Gains Control, published September 3, 2020, for additional discussion of vaccine availability. 2     Please see Iron Ore, Steel Poised For Rally, which we published February 13, 2020, for a discussion of the commodity-market implications of China’s dual policy goals of doubling GDP between 2010 and 2020 and preparing for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see China's July refined copper imports surge 90% on year boosted by open arbitrage published by S&P Global Platts September 1, 2020. 4    China also accounts for close to 50% of copper ore imports, according to he Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). 5    Please see The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on World Copper Supply, published by the International Copper Study Group on May 21, 2020. 6    For an update of the stimulus measures and China’s economic performance, please see China Macro And Market Review published September 9, 2020, by our China Investment Strategy colleagues. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7     Please see Trump threatens to ‘decouple’ U.S. economy from China, accuses Biden of ‘treachery’ published by marketwatch.com September 7, 2020.       Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades