Health Care

Special Report

Highlights We reiterate our longstanding overweight on healthcare equities for the next 12 months and possibly beyond. The macro environment, as well as underlying demand factors, will continue to drive the sector’s outperformance. Within healthcare equities, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology over pharmaceuticals. Healthcare corporate bonds, however, are not especially attractive, and therefore warrant no more than a neutral position. Feature Chart 1Healthcare Has Outperformed Over The Past Decade... Over the past decade, global health care stocks have been clear outperformers, alongside information technology and consumer discretionary stocks, rising by almost 50% relative to the broad market (Chart 1). Not only have they benefited from increased demand from an aging population in developed economies and a growing middle class in emerging markets, they have also provided a downside cushion during recessions and bear markets, given their defensive, non- cyclical nature. The COVID-19 pandemic leads us to reiterate our longstanding overweight position on global healthcare equities over the next 12 months and possibly beyond. Favorable tailwinds will continue to drive healthcare outperformance. It is likely that government spending on healthcare will increase over the coming years. Innovative solutions in healthcare technology (healthtech), as well as increased overall research and development (R&D), the shift to value-based healthcare delivery, the focus on preventive medicine, and a low risk of substantial regulatory change and reform (at least in the US, assuming former Vice President Biden is elected president this November) should continue to support the sector’s outperformance. In this Special Report, we analyze whether our long-term overweight position on healthcare equities remains valid. In a later section, we also review healthcare-related investments in bonds and private equity. Why We Like Healthcare BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service has been positive on global healthcare stocks for over five years. The main reason is that we see demand for healthcare services continuing to rise, as life expectancy increases, populations age – people over 65 will comprise 25% of the developed world’s population by 2040, up from 15% in 2020 – and the middle class in emerging economies becomes richer (Charts 2&3). As people live longer, healthcare spending should rise since, after the age of 65 (retirement), it tends to squeeze out discretionary spending (Chart 4). Chart 2...As The Global Population Grew Older... Chart 3...And Richer       Healthcare spending everywhere represents a large proportion of GDP, but the percentage varies considerably between countries. In the US for example, healthcare spending comprises 16.9% of GDP, higher than in other advanced economies, where it averages 9.9%, and substantially higher than in emerging economies (average 6.5% of GDP) (Chart 5). It is likely that these figures will increase over the next few years. Chart 4Healthcare Expenditure Dominates Late-Life Spending Chart 5Spending On Healthcare Will Rise   A strong case can be made for serious outbreaks of infectious diseases becoming more common, and therefore governments will have to increase their readiness. The number of countries experiencing a significant outbreak has almost doubled over the past decade, after being on a declining trend during the prior 15 years (Chart 6). The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks are becoming more frequent and causing more economic damage.1 The non-cyclical nature of healthcare demand makes the industry less vulnerable to economic downturns. In times of below-trend growth, investors rush into defensive-growth stocks. Over the past two recessions, the drawdown of healthcare equities was, respectively, 20% and 27% less than the broad market. Chart 6Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease Chart 7The Defensive Side Of Healthcare   However, the sector is not totally cyclically insensitive, given its capital intensity and reliance on debt. In the US, healthcare sector debt amounts to almost $500 billion (Chart 7). This also leaves it vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nevertheless, the current macro outlook should keep a lid on interest rates for some time. The healthcare industry has lagged in digitalization (Chart 8). This offers wide-ranging opportunities for the sector, particularly in healthtech, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Innovative solutions in robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and genomics will drive the industry in the years to come. Digitalization will accelerate productivity and improve profitability. Chart 8The Healthcare Sector Is Way Behind In Digitalization Lastly, valuations for healthcare equities in most countries remain attractive, close to their long-run averages. The only exceptions are the UK and Japan, which are two standard deviations above the historical mean relative to their respective markets (Chart 9). The Future Of Healthcare Every crisis provides insights into what went wrong, what needs to be changed, and what areas should be explored. The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. The pandemic has highlighted supply-chain fragilities, particularly a shortage of some healthcare equipment and drugs, the production of which is outsourced. In the US, for example, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), over 70% of facilities producing essential medicines for the US are located abroad (Chart 10). Chart 9Valuations Remain Reasonable Chart 10Supply Chain Fragilities   Some argue that reshoring healthcare production is essential. Joe Biden, favored to be the next US president, has highlighted this in his plan to rebuild US supply chains.2 This could, however, lead to higher healthcare costs. This would either require increased government spending to subsidize medical expenses, or lead to fewer people being able to afford adequate healthcare. This effect would be pronounced in economies where a large percentage of the population is uninsured, around 10% in the US, and much more so in some emerging economies where healthcare quality is poor. This might be less of a risk for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, where the largest cost of bringing a new drug to market is R&D and marketing, rather than manufacturing. In the first months of the outbreak, resources such as ventilators, hospital and ICU beds, and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) quickly became scarce. Inventories of such items and overall hospital capacity will need to increase. This will entail massive investments to boost the public healthcare infrastructure and increase the number of healthcare workers. Chart 11COVID-19 Unveiled Poor Health Standards... The pandemic also underlined weaknesses in social and health standards. The excessive number of deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes in some developed economies emphasizes the need for investment in this area. For example in Quebec, Canada, a staggering 80% of the province’s deaths occurred in nursing homes and senior residences (both public and private), illustrating the mismanagement and lack of funding (Chart 11). Most notably, care homes run for profit (approximately 70% of the total in the US) have seen almost four times as many COVID-19 infections as those not. The quality ratings of for-profit nursing homes, as measured by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), are much lower on average than those of non-profit or government-run facilities (Chart 12). This could imply the mass nationalization of nursing homes. However, this is unlikely. A better option would be to impose higher standards on privately run homes, reducing the sector to a smaller number of high-quality providers. Chart 12...In Most For-Profit Nursing Homes Chart 13The Evolution Of Genome Sequencing Is Illustrated In The Price More positively, there remains a large gap to be filled by a new era of technology-driven, integrated, and online healthcare. Investments in biotechnology – particularly related to genetic information – are also likely to increase, as DNA sequencing becomes cheaper (Chart 13). The way patients interact with physicians will also change. The American Medical Association (AMA) surveyed more than 1000 physicians on the use of digital tools in their practices. Reliance on digital tools for monitoring and clinical support has increased significantly over the past three years. The largest jump however was in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 14). Chart 14The Transition To A Digital-Driven Healthcare Model “Contact tracing” is a term that has been widely used during the coronavirus outbreak. The ability to track those infected and monitor their interactions to limit the spread of the virus is seen as a crucial step to mitigate further contagion. This would help not only to eradicate the virus, but might be developed into a long-lasting technology. Similar to how security screening equipment was developed after 9/11, there should be investment opportunities in the medical-screening segment. Breaking Down Healthcare Equities It is important to note that not all healthcare equities are equal: Different regions and industries have performed differently. In this report, we distinguish between the industry groups and subgroups, based on the GICS Level 2 and Level 3 classifications. We also look at the nine largest regions in the MSCI indexes to see if certain regions provide more favorable opportunities. Healthcare equities are broken down into two industry groups, which in turn break down into six industries: Healthcare equipment & services Healthcare equipment & supplies Healthcare providers & services Healthcare technology Pharmaceuticals, biotechnology & life sciences Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology Life sciences tools & services In Table 1, we drill down the constituent weights of the MSCI healthcare indexes. This allows us not only to analyze the size of the sector and its parts, but also to gain multiple insights. For example, a bet on Swiss healthcare stocks is essentially a bet on pharmaceuticals, given the greater-than-80% weighting of that industry. Exposure to the overall Danish equity index is by default a play on healthcare stocks, since they comprise almost 60% of the index. Table 1Global Healthcare Weights Chart 15Healthcare Has Outperformed Broad Indices Globally... As noted earlier, global healthcare stocks have outperformed the broad index by almost 50% over the past decade. This is true across all regions. However, several distinctions can be made. US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities have outperformed the global healthcare benchmark over the past decade, but their counterparts in the euro area, UK, and Japan have lagged (Chart 15). On a risk-adjusted basis, Danish healthcare equities have been the best performer with a Sharpe-ratio of 0.84 and an annualized return of 18% since 2000 (Table 2).   Table 2...However Not All Healthcare Stocks Are Alike Investment Opportunities Chart 16Within Healthcare Equities, Favor Biotechnology and Healthcare Technology... Viewing healthcare as a set of separate segments, rather than as a single industry, highlights pockets of opportunity.  A selective approach might be preferable for asset allocators in the coming years. As discussed in The Future Of Healthcare section, the sector is likely to shift to a model that relies more on technology, is data-driven, and harnesses the power of digitization, robotics, and AI. The patient will be at the center of the new healthcare model.  We divide our overview of investment opportunities into three categories: equities, corporate bonds, and private investments. Equities: Based on our view of the future of healthcare and the structure of the GICS equity classifications, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology, and would have only a benchmark allocation to pharmaceuticals. There are insights to be drawn from the fundamentals, historical performance, and valuation metrics. Historically, pharmaceutical equities stand out as the worst performers within the sector. Over the past decade, they have underperformed the global healthcare benchmark by 20%, whereas biotechnology and healthcare technology stocks have outperformed by 59% and 127%, respectively (Chart 16). The outperformance of biotechnology has predominantly been earnings-driven, whereas pharmaceuticals’ and healthcare technology stock prices appear to be detached from earnings (Chart 17). It is worth nothing that despite the fact that valuations for those industries appear expensive relative to the broad market, we remain positive on their outlook. As we drill deeper into Level 3 industries, the small number of constituents within the index makes relying on valuations challenging (Chart 18). Chart 17..Despite A Detachment From Earnings... Chart 18...And Elevated Valuations   Chart 19No Attractive Opportunities Within Healthcare Corporate Bonds Corporate Bonds: Within the corporate bond universe, we favor those that qualify for central banks’ purchase programs: Investment-grade bonds and the highest tranche of high-yield. BCA Research’s US fixed-income strategists have an overweight recommendation on US healthcare corporate bonds, though their recommendations are based on a six-to-12 month investment horizon rather than the longer perspective that we are taking in this report.3 Both healthcare and pharmaceuticals bonds, similar to their equity counterparts, trade defensively, outperforming the broad corporate index when spreads widen and underperforming as they tighten (Chart 19). This applies to both investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The credit risk measure favored by our US bond strategists is the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio. This measure confirms the sector’s defensive nature: A value below 1 implies credit risk lower than the market. However, the recent uptick in the DTS ratio of healthcare investment-grade bonds shows the sector has become riskier and as such may trade more cyclically in the short term. Nevertheless, the macro environment should remain favorable. Pricing power is still strong, with medical care services rising by almost 6.0%, and drug prices rising by 1.4% on a year-over-year basis, outpacing overall consumer prices (Chart 20). Neither segment within the investment-grade space offers an attractive spread advantage over the broad index. However, the risk outlook for healthcare remains better than that for pharmaceuticals, particularly related to political risk (as discussed later in the Risks section). Private Investments: Venture-capital investments in healthtech reached a quarterly record high of $8.2 billion in Q1 2020. The recent pandemic is likely only to push this trend higher. Moreover, large private-equity investments in recent years have been targeted at biopharma.4 According to Bain & Company, global biopharma private-equity deals where value was disclosed, reached $40.7 billion in 2019, up from $16.5 billion the prior year.5  The number of biotech firms going public is also trending up, despite slipping to 48 in 2019 from 58 in 2018 (Chart 21). To date (as of early June), 21 out of 43 US IPOs this year are healthcare-related. Chart 20Pricing Power Remains Favorable Chart 21More Biotech IPOs Are Coming To Market   Additionally, M&A activity has been increasing, particularly within the biotechnology segment, although the economic shutdown has slowed the deal flow recently. The number of M&A deals peaked in March 2020, when the average premium is 45% (Chart 22). The long-term rising trend is likely to persist. Over the next year, firms with drugs or vaccines related to COVID-19 would be clear targets for acquisitions and should outperform. Over the long term, we also expect to see some industry consolidation. Risks We see the following as the biggest risks to our overall positive outlook for healthcare investments: Quicker-Than-Expected Economic Growth Rebound: As we highlighted, the healthcare sector is defensive – outperforming the broad market during recessions and economic slowdowns. However, if growth rebounds more quickly, driven by further fiscal and monetary stimulus, the upside for healthcare performance could be challenged. Political Risk: Joe Biden might swing to the left in the run-up to the US presidential election to bring on board supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, we see that particular risk for healthcare as relatively small (Chart 23). Biden’s approach is to restore and expand Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), shifting some of the burden of healthcare spending from individuals to the government. Overall, this should be positive for healthcare spending, particularly for insurers and healthcare providers. However, pharmaceutical companies may face headwinds if the administration imposes price caps on drug prices. Chart 22Secondary Market Activity Is Also Strong Chart 23Political Risk Has Waned As Biden's Chances Of Election Have Increased Chart 24Reliance On Inorganic Growth Might Prove Unsustainable Lack Of Innovation: Over the past two decades, the healthcare sector has shifted to relying on inorganic growth, driven by takeovers, rather than on research and development. Capital expenditure as a percentage of sales by both pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms fell sharply in the 2000s and has stagnated around 2% and 4%, respectively since (Chart 24). Only A Few Make It: While more IPOs in the healthcare sector is a sign of improving innovation, it is worth noting that only a few newly listed companies are successful. Over the past decade, only 3% of the 349 biotech IPOs had positive earnings at the time of their IPO. This nevertheless is a consequence of the nature of the industry: Companies tend to list while they await a big breakthrough in product development or regulatory approval. Conclusion We continue to recommend investors hold an above-benchmark allocation to healthcare-related investments on a long-term basis. Aging populations, the need to improve the quality of global healthcare, a likely increase in government spending, the shift to digitalized healthcare, and demand which is non-cyclical all support this stance. Healthcare equities in general, and particularly biotechnology and healthcare technology, should perform well over the coming years. For investors with global mandates, allocations to US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities should outperform those in the euro area, Japan, and the UK. Corporate bonds do not offer any advantage over the broad corporate US bond index. Political risks for the US healthcare sector should be limited even if the Democrats win the White House. However, the risk is highest for pharmaceuticals, in the event where the government imposes price caps.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  "World Economic Forum, Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact, Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy," January 2019. 2  For more info please see Joe Biden https://joebiden.com/supplychains/ 3  Please see US Bond Strategy, "Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic," dated June 9, 2020.available at usbs.bcaresarch.com. 4  Biotech refers to manufactured products that rely on using living systems and organisms. The biopharma industry is backed by biotechnology, the science, which allows products to be manufactured biologically. 5  Bain & Company, Global Healthcare Private Equity and Corporate M&A Report 2020.

Highlights For financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This implies underweight European stocks versus US stocks, and overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. Play good news in Europe by remaining long EUR, CHF, and SEK versus USD, and long US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Short silver. Feature Chart Of The WeekDenmark's OMX Is At An All-Time High, While The FTSE 100 Is Languishing. Why? Once upon a time, the stock market existed as a barometer of the economy. Or at least, a good representation of the size and composition of profits in the host economy. But that time is long gone. Today, a tiny handful of companies are driving the performance of supposedly broad indexes such as the FTSE 100 and the S&P 500. Indeed, we should more accurately call the FTSE 100 the FTSE ‘10’ ignoring the other 90. And we should call the S&P 500 the S&P ‘5’ ignoring the other 495. Meaning that stock markets are no longer stock ‘markets’. Yet many analysts still try and explain the stock market’s performance through traditional top-down macro drivers such as GDP growth, profit margins across the host economy, and so on. The trouble is that when the stock market is dominated by a tiny handful of companies, this 20th century approach is doomed to fail. Today, we must take a more granular approach based on the type of companies that are dominating each stock market. Sector Concentration Is Driving Stock Markets The handful of companies that dominate each stock market tend to be the leaders in their global sector. This means that each stock market is defined by a sector concentration, which has often evolved by chance, based on where companies chose to start up and list. This sector concentration usually has little or no connection with the host economy. For example, Denmark’s OMX index is dominated by Novo Nordisk, a global biotech company. The FTSE 100 is heavily weighted to the oil majors Royal Dutch and BP as well as global bank HSBC, which have only a limited exposure to the UK economy. On the other side of the Atlantic, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are massively over-represented in the S&P 500 compared with their contribution to the US economy. A crucial defining feature of a stock market turns out to be its exposure to healthcare and technology – whose profits are in major structural uptrends – versus the exposure to financials and energy – whose profits are in major structural downtrends (Charts 2 - 5). Chart I-2Healthcare Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-3Technology Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-4Financial Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend Chart I-5Energy Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend The stock market capitalisation in healthcare and technology stands at 52 percent for Denmark and 40 percent for the US, compared with just 20 percent for Europe and 12 percent for the UK. The flip side is that the stock market capitalisation in financials and energy stands at just 8 percent for Denmark and 11 percent for the US, compared with 21 percent for Europe and 30 percent for the UK. This explains, for example, why Denmark’s OMX is hitting all-time highs while the FTSE 100 is languishing (Chart of the Week). That said, the price of the growing stream of healthcare and technology profits can still fall if it is at an unjustifiably high level. And the price of the shrinking stream of financial and energy profits can still rise if it is at an unjustifiably low level. Hence, the key question is: what determines the prices of these two groups of sectors, one whose profits are in a major uptrend, the other whose profits are in a major downtrend? Healthcare And Tech Performance Hinges On The Bond Yield The price of a rapidly growing profit stream is weighted to the values of the large distant cashflows, making it highly sensitive to the discount rate applied to those distant cashflows. Whereas the price of a rapidly shrinking profit stream is weighted to the values of the large immediate cashflows, making it much more sensitive to the near-term evolution of the economy (Box I-1). Box I-1Bond Yield Sensitivity Versus Economic Sensitivity The upshot is that for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major uptrend, the key driver of the price is the direction of the bond yield. Whereas for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major downtrend, the key driver is the near-term direction of the world economy (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Exposure To Healthcare And Technology Determines Bond Yield Sensitivity Chart I-7Exposure To Financials And Energy Determines Economic Sensitivity Pulling all of this together, the rally in healthcare and technology stocks is extremely vulnerable to a sustained rise in the bond yield. But a sustained rise in the bond yield seems highly unlikely without a breakthrough vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. While the coronavirus is still in play, the long-term hollowing out and scarring in the jobs market will only become apparent in the coming months once furlough schemes and temporary relief programs end. This will force all central banks to remain ultra-dovish and where possible, become more dovish. Meanwhile, for financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This translates to underweight Europe versus the US. And overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. How To Play Good News In Europe Things have been going right in Europe. First, unlike in the US, the COVID-19 outbreak is subsiding, at least for now. New infections have been steadily declining through the warm summer months (Chart I-8). Chart I-8New Infections Declining In Europe, Rising In The US Second, the ECB has injected ample liquidity into the banking system which, combined with ultra-low interest rates, has permitted a strong expansion in bank lending. Though somewhat disappointingly, the bank lending surveys tell us that the loans are being used for emergency working capital requirements rather than investment. Third, the EU has approved a €750 billion Recovery Fund, over half of which will take the form of grants to the sectors and regions most stricken by the coronavirus crisis. Given that the fund will be financed by jointly issued EU bonds, this amounts to a fiscal transfer to the areas that need the most help. Hence, even if the amount of the stimulus may be smaller than in other parts of the word, it comprises a huge symbolic step towards greater unity in the EU and euro area. Still, despite this trifecta of good news, European stock markets have not outperformed (Chart I-9). This just emphasises that stock market relative performance has little connection with domestic economics and politics. To reiterate, stock market relative performance is almost always the result of the sector concentration of a handful of dominant stocks. Chart I-9Despite Good News In Europe, European Equities Are Not Outperforming Begging the question: how to play the continuation of good news in Europe? The answer is through the currency and fixed income markets, which have a much stronger connection with domestic economics and politics (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10Play Good News In Europe Via European Currencies... Chart I-11...And Sovereign Yield Spread Tightening Remain long a basket of EUR, CHF, and SEK versus the USD. Our favourite cross out of these three is long CHF/USD given the haven character of the CHF in periods of market stress. To play bond yield convergence between the US and Europe and between core and periphery Europe, remain long US 30-year T-bonds and Spanish 30-year Bonos versus German 30-year bunds and French 30-year OATs.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System* The spectacular rally in silver is fractally fragile, and at a point which has signalled several trend reversals through the past five years. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short silver, with the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 12.5 percent. In other trades, long GBP/RUB achieved its profit target. Against this, short Germany versus UK and long bitcoin cash versus ethereum reached their stop-losses. Long nickel versus copper reached the end of its holding period in partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 59 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields     Interest Rate 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      

Special Report

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

Highlights The economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did have a lockdown. This proves that the current recession is not ‘man-made’, it is ‘pandemic-made’. While the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios: favouring US T-bonds in bond portfolios, and technology and healthcare in equity portfolios. The technology sector has become defensive, largely because it has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Fractal trade: short AUD/CHF. Feature Chart I-IASweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Chart I-1B...But Led To Many More ##br##Infections Sweden and Denmark are neighbours. They speak near-identical languages and share a broadly similar culture and demographic. Yet the two countries have followed completely different strategies to halt the coronavirus pandemic. Sweden chose not to impose a lockdown. Instead, it opted for a ‘trust based’ approach, relying on its citizens to act sensibly and appropriately. Whereas Denmark imposed one of Europe’s earliest and most draconian lockdowns. The contrasting approaches of Sweden and neighbouring Denmark provide us with the closest thing to a controlled experiment on pandemic strategies. The Recession Is Not ‘Man-Made’, It Is ‘Pandemic-Made’ The surprising thing is that the economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did. This year, the unemployment rates in both economies have surged by 2 percentage points (albeit the latest data is for May in Sweden and April in Denmark). Furthermore, high-frequency measures of consumption show that Sweden suffered almost as severe a contraction as Denmark (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Chart I-2Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark This surprising result challenges the popular view that this global recession is man-made. This view argues that without the government-imposed lockdowns, the global economy would not have entered a tailspin. But if this view is right, then why did consumption crash in Sweden? The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behaviour to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behaviour is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark. People will shun public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, and even think twice about letting their children go to school. In a pandemic, the majority of people will change their behaviour even without a lockdown. But if the cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why impose a lockdown? The answer is that without a lockdown, the majority will behave sensibly to avoid catching the virus, but a minority will take a ‘devil may care’ attitude. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all coronavirus infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. All of which brings us back to Sweden versus Denmark.  As a result of not imposing a mandatory lockdown to rein in its super-spreaders, Sweden now has one of the world’s worst coronavirus infection and mortality rates, four times higher than Denmark (Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark Chart I-4Avoiding A Lockdown Meant More Infections… Chart I-5…And More ##br##Deaths Put simply, containing the pandemic depends on reining in a minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark. In contrast, the economy depends on the behaviour of the majority. In a pandemic the majority will voluntarily exercise caution. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in consumption. Looking ahead, will the widespread adoption of face masks and plexiglass screens change the public’s cautious behaviour? To a certain extent, yes – it will permit essential activities and let people take calculated risks. That said, if you are forced to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops, and you have to spread out in restaurants while being served by a masked waiter, then – rightly or wrongly – you are getting a strong signal: the danger is still out there. Meaning that many people will continue to shun discretionary activities and spending. The upshot is that while the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Explaining Why Technology Is Now Defensive A defensive bias to your portfolio now requires an exposure to technology – because in 2020 the tech sector is behaving like a classic defensive. Its relative performance is correlating positively with the bond price, like other classic defensive sectors such as healthcare (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... Chart I-7...Like Healthcare The behaviour of the technology sector in the current recession contrasts with its performance in the global financial crisis of 2008. Back then, it behaved like a classic cyclical – its relative performance correlated negatively with the bond price (Chart I-8). Begging the question: why has the tech sector’s behaviour flipped from cyclical to defensive? Chart I-8In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical The main reason is that the tech sector’s composition has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. In 2008, the sector market cap had a 65:35 tilt to technology hardware. But today, it is the mirror-image: a 65:35 tilt to computer and software services (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Computer and software services have many defensive characteristics suited to the current environment: For many companies, enterprise software is now business critical. It is a must-have rather than a like-to-have. Computer and software services use a subscription-based revenue model, minimising the dependency on discretionary spending. Computer and software services are helping firms to cut costs through automation and back-office efficiencies as well as facilitating the boom in ‘working from home’. The sector is cash rich. Despite these defensive characteristics, there remains a lingering worry: is the tech sector overvalued? The Rally In Growth Defensives Is Not A Mania  Some people fear that the recent run-up in stock markets does not make sense, other than as a ‘Robin Hood’ day-trader fuelled mania. After all, the pandemic is still very much in play, and so are other geopolitical risks, so how can some stock prices be near all-time highs? Yet the recent run-up in growth defensives such as tech and healthcare does make sense. Their valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield, implying that the rally is based on fundamentals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Simply put, if the 10-year T-bond is going to deliver a pitiful 0.7 percent a year over the next decade, then the prospective return from growth defensives must also compress. It would be absurd to expect these stocks to be priced for high single digit returns. Since late 2018, the decline in growth defensives’ forward earnings yield has broadly tracked the 250bps decline in the 10-year T-bond yield. Given that the forward earnings yield correlates well with the 10-year prospective return, the depressed bond yield is depressing the prospective return from growth defensives – as it should. Tech and healthcare valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield. But with the pandemic and geopolitical risks menacing in the background, shouldn’t the gap between the prospective return on stocks and bonds – the equity risk premium – be larger? This is open to debate. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the appeal of owning bonds also diminishes because bond prices have limited upside. Nevertheless, the gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield has gone up this year and is much larger than in 2018 (Chart I-11). This suggests that valuations are taking some account of the pandemic and other risks. Moreover, in a longer-term perspective the current gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield, at +4 percent, hardly indicates a mania. In the true mania of 2000, the gap stood at -4 percent! (Chart I-12) Chart I-11The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 Chart I-12Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania In summary, until the pandemic is conquered, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Bond investors should overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Equity investors should overweight the growth defensives, technology and healthcare, which implies overweighting the technology-heavy US versus Europe. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Stay overweight healthcare-heavy Switzerland, and bank-light France and Germany (albeit expect a technical 5 percent underperformance of Germany versus the UK in the coming weeks). And stay underweight bank-heavy Austria. Fractal Trading System* The AUD is technically overbought and vulnerable to a tactical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/CHF, with a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 4.2 percent. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-13AUD/CHF When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate 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  

Special Report

The Fed’s efforts to jawbone the US dollar are paying off as investors have been shedding their greenback exposure over the past several weeks. In recent research,1 we have also been highlighting that although Powell would never admit it, the Fed is trying to devalue the greenback and reflate the global economy. The knock-on effect of a depreciating USD is to rekindle S&P sales. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices,2 the SPX derives approximately 43% of its sales from abroad making the US dollar among the key macro profitability drivers (Chart 1, middle panel, US dollar shown advanced and inverted). One of the mechanisms to undermine the greenback is to flood the market with dollars. Ample US dollar based liquidity has historically served as a catalyst to reignite global growth and consequently S&P earnings (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 1US Dollar - The Key Driver Chart 2Bearish Across All Timeframes The Dollar: A Bearish Case The fate of the US dollar is yet to be sealed, but piling evidence suggests that the path of least resistance will be lower. Looking at structural (five years+) dynamics, swelling twin deficits emit a bearish USD signal. In more detail, prior to COVID-19 outbreak, the US twin deficits were estimated to gradually rise towards the 7.5% mark (Chart 2, top panel, dotted red line), but now the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates3 that the US fiscal deficit alone will be approximately 11% of nominal GDP for 2020. In other words, the recent pandemic has exacerbated already structurally bearish dynamics for the US dollar. Switching gears from a structural to a medium term horizon (2-3 years), BCA’s four-factor macro model, is sending an unambiguous bearish message regarding the greenback’s fate (Chart 2, middle panel). Finally, on a short-term time horizon, the USD is lagging the money multiplier by approximately 3 months. The COVID-19 induced recession and resulting money printing will likely exert extreme downward pressure on the US dollar (Chart 2, bottom panel). Summarizing, when looking across three different time horizons, the evidence is pointing toward a weakening US dollar for the foreseeable future. SPX Sectors And US Dollar Correlations With a rising probability of a US dollar bear market on the horizon, it pays to look back in time and examine which S&P GICS1 sectors benefited from a depreciating US dollar. The purpose of this Special Report is to shed light on the empirical evidence of SPX sectors and USD correlations and serve as a roadmap of sector winners and losers during USD bear markets. Table 1 provides foreign sales exposure for each of the sectors. All else equal, a falling greenback should be synonymous with technology, materials, and energy sectors outperforming as they are the most internationally exposed sectors. In contrast, should the USD change its course and head north, financials, telecom, REITs, and utilities will be the key beneficiaries. Why? Because most of these industries are landlocked in the US and thus in a relative sense should benefit when the US dollar roars. Table 1S&P 500 GICS1 Foreign Sales As A Percent Of Total Sales* To confirm the above hypothesis, we have identified three previous US dollar bear markets (Chart 3) and computed GICS1-level sector relative returns (Table 2). Chart 3US Dollar Bear Markets Table 2S&P 500 Gics1 Returns* During US Dollar Bear Markets Looking at median return profile reveals that our hypothesis held as all three: technology, materials, and energy decisively outperformed the market when the US dollar headed south. Similarly, domestically focused and predominately defensive industries such as utilities and telecoms underperformed the market with the consumer staples sector being a notable outlier – something that we address in the consumer staples section of the report. What follows next is a detailed discussion on each of the GICS1 sectors historical relationship with the US dollar, ranked in order of foreign sales exposure from highest to lowest. For completion purposes, we also provided S&P 500 GICS1 relative sector performance against the US dollar charts since 1970 in the Appendix.     Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Technology (Neutral)  Technology sits atop the foreign sales exposure table garnering 58% of revenues from abroad, which is a full 15% percentage points higher than S&P 500 (Table 1). In two out of the three periods of USD bear markets that we examined, tech stocks bested the broad market and the median outperformance sat over 9%. Nevertheless, the correlation between the US dollar and relative share prices is muted over a longer-term horizon (see Appendix Chart A1 below). Likely, one reason for the inconclusive long-term correlation between tech and the greenback is that the majority of tech gadgets are manufactured overseas (Chart 4, third panel). Therefore, an appreciating currency boosts margins via deflating input costs. Tack on the resilient nature of demand for tech hardware goods and especially software and services which preserves high selling prices and offsets and negative P&L losses from a rising greenback. We are currently neutral the S&P technology sector and employ a barbell portfolio approach preferring software and services and avoiding hardware and equipment. Chart 4Technology Materials (Neutral) The materials sector behaves similarly to its brother the energy sector as both move in the opposite direction of the greenback (Chart 5, top panel). Consequently, materials stocks have outperformed the market during periods of US dollar weakness that we analyzed. The third panel of Chart 5 shows that our materials exports proxy is the flip image of the greenback. This tight inverse relationship is exacerbated by the negative impact of a firming dollar on underlying metals commodity prices (Chart 5, second panel). As a result, materials profit margins widen when the dollar falls and narrow when it rises. Ultimately, S&P materials earnings reflect this USD-commodity dynamic (Chart 5, bottom panel) We are currently neutral the S&P materials index. Chart 5Materials Energy (Overweight) The energy sector enjoys a tight inverse correlation with the US dollar (Chart 6, top panel) as it is the third most globally exposed sector as shown in Table 1 with 51% of sales coming from abroad. As nearly all of the global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, a weakening USD underpins the price of crude oil (Chart 6, second panel). In turn, US energy sector exports rise reflecting the fall in the greenback (Chart 6, third panel). Finally, the S&P energy companies enjoy a boost to their income statements (Chart 6, bottom panel), which explains the sizable median sector outperformance of 43% during dollar bear markets as highlighted in Table 2. We are currently overweight the S&P energy sector and have recently capitalized on 40%+ combined gains in the long XOP/short GDX pair trades.4 Chart 6Energy Industrials (Overweight) US industrials stocks’ foreign sales exposure is on a par with the S&P 500, which explains why the sector only barely outperformed the broad market during periods of dollar weakness. Still, the correlation between this manufacturing-heavy sector and the greenback is negative (Chart 7, top & second panels). Similar to its deep cyclical brethren (materials and energy), the link comes via the commodity channel. A softening dollar boosts global growth, which in turn supports higher commodity prices. Not only do US capital goods producers benefit from overall rising demand (i.e. infrastructure spending), but also via market share gains in global markets as the falling greenback results in a comparative input cost advantage (Chart 7, third panel). Finally, P&L translation gain effects act as another fillip to industrials stocks profits when dollar heads south. We are currently overweight the S&P industrials index. Chart 7Industrials Health Care (Overweight) The defensive health care sector is positively correlated with the dollar as its foreign sales revenues are below the ones of the SPX (Chart 8, top panel). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the relationship between the sector’s exports and the USD has been mostly positive, which is counterintuitive (Chart 8, middle panel). Keep in mind that pharma and biotech represent roughly half the index and derive 75%+ of their profits domestically as they dictate pricing terms to the US government (it is written into law). This is not the case in Europe where the NHS and the German government for example, have a big say on what pharmaceuticals can charge for their drugs. The bottom panel of Chart 8 summarizes the domestic nature of the health care sector, highlighting the tight positive relationship between the sector’s earnings and the greenback. We are currently modestly overweight the S&P health care sector. Chart 8Health Care Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) While the impact of the US dollar on the consumer discretionary sector varied over time switching from a positive to a negative and vice versa, today the sector enjoys a positive correlation with the currency (Chart 9, top panel). The 33% foreign sales exposure may appear as a significant proportion, but it is still a full 10% percentage points below the SPX (Table 1). The implication is that even though the exports benefit from a falling dollar (Chart 9, middle panel), this bump is not enough to drive sector outperformance. Likely, the key reason why consumer discretionary stocks currently enjoy a positive correlation with the dollar is the US large trade deficit. In other words, the US imports the lion’s share of its consumer goods. As the dollar grinds higher, the cost of imports decreases for the US consumer, which provides a boost to companies’ earnings (Chart 9, bottom panel). Tack on the heavy weight AMZN has in the sector (comprising 40% of consumer discretionary sector market cap) and the positive correlation with the currency is explained away. We are currently overweight the S&P consumer discretionary index. Chart 9Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples (Neutral) While a softening US dollar generally favors cyclical industries as it reignites global trade, the defensive S&P consumer staples sector outperformed the overall market on a median basis during USD bear markets (Table 2). Granted, the results are likely skewed as staples stocks rallied more than 300% in the last two decades of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is a key differentiating factor at play that helped the consumer staples sector trounce other defensive industries during US dollar bear markets. Staples stocks derive 33% (Table 1) of their sales from abroad, whereas other traditional defensive industries (utilities, telecom services) have virtually no export exposure. In other words, given that staples companies are mostly manufacturers, a depreciating currency acts as a tonic to sales via the export relief valve (Chart 10, bottom panel). We are currently neutral the S&P consumer staples sector. Chart 10Consumer Staples Financials (Overweight) Financials sit at the bottom half of our Table 1 in terms of their foreign sales exposure, which underpins the sector’s positive correlation with the greenback (Chart 11, top panel), and explains why the sector underperforms the market during dollar bear markets. One of the transmission channels between this sector’s performance and the currency is via increased credit demand. Currency appreciation suppresses inflation and supports purchasing power, and thus loan demand, in addition to keeping bond yields low (Chart 11, middle panel). The process reverses as the US dollar stars to depreciate. We are currently overweight the S&P financials index. Chart 11Financials Utilities (Underweight) Utilities underperformed in all three dollar bear markets we analyzed. As we highlighted in the energy section of the report, a softening dollar is synonymous with higher crude oil prices, which in turn raise inflation expectations. The ensuing selloff in the 10-year Treasury, compels investors to shed this bond proxy equity sector (Chart 12, middle panel). With virtually no exports, utilities also miss on the positive currency translation effects that other GICS1 sectors enjoy. In fact, utilities underperformed by the widest margin on a median basis across all GICS1 sectors (Table 2). This defensive sector typically attracts safe haven flows when the dollar spikes and investors run for cover. This positive correlation with the dollar is clearly reflected in industry earnings, which rise and fall in lockstep with momentum in the greenback (Chart 12, bottom panel). We are currently underweight the S&P utilities sector. Chart 12Utilities Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Telecom services relative performance is positively correlated with the dollar, similarly to its defensive sibling, the utilities sector. In fact, telecom carriers go neck-in-neck with utilities as the former is the second worst performing sector during dollar bear markets (Table 2). A softening dollar has proven to be fatal to the industry’s relative pricing power beyond intra industry competition. In fact, industry selling prices are slated to head south anew if history at least rhymes (Chart 13, middle panel). Importantly, this defensive sector is in a structural downtrend and is trying to stay relevant and avoid becoming a “dumb pipeline” with the eventual proliferation of 5G. Worrisomely, telecoms only manage to claw back some of their severe losses during recessions. But, the latest iteration is an aberration as this safe haven sector has failed to stand up to its defensive stature likely owing to the heavy debt load. We are currently neutral the niche S&P telecom services index that now hides underneath the S&P communication services sector. Chart 13Telecom Services REITs (Underweight) Surprisingly, US REITs enjoy an overall negative correlation with the dollar, especially since 1993, and in fact lead the greenback by about 18 months (Chart 14). Our hypothesis would have been a positive correlation courtesy of the landlocked nature of this sector i.e. no export exposure. Granted, in the three periods of dollar bear markets we examined, REITs slightly outperformed the market by 2.5% on a median basis. While the causal link (if any) is yet to be established and the correlation may be spurious, our sense is that forward interest rate differentials are at work and more than offset the domestic nature of this index. REITs have a high dividend yield and thus outperform when the competing risk free asset the 10-year Treasury yield is falling and vice versa (except during recessions). As a result, REITs outperformance is more often than not synonymous with a depreciating currency as lower Treasury yields would exert downward pressure on the USD ceteris paribus.  We are currently underweight the S&P REITs index. Chart 14REITs   Appendix Chart A1Appendix: Technology Chart A2Appendix: Materials Chart A3Appendix: Energy Chart A4Appendix: Industrials Chart A5Appendix: Health Care Chart A6Appendix: Consumer Discretionary Chart A7Appendix: Consumer Staples Chart A8Appendix: Financials Chart A9Appendix: Utilities Chart A10Appendix: Telecommunication Services Chart A11 landscapeAppendix: REITs   Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bottomless Punchbowl” dated May 11, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://us.spindices.com/indexology/djia-and-sp-500/sp-500-global-sales 3    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-05/56351-CBO-interim-projections.pdf 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value” dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.  

Highlights China and India periodically fight each other on their fuzzy Himalayan border with zero market consequences. A major conflict is possible in the current environment – but it would present a buying opportunity. Chinese escalation with India would not have a negative impact on global trade and economy, unlike escalation with the US or its East Asian allies. If China gets into a major conflict with India, it is less likely to stage major military actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It would reduce much more significant geopolitical risks. Go strategically long Indian pharmaceuticals. Feature India and China have engaged in their first deadly military clash since 1967. An Indian colonel and at least 20 troops died in fighting on June 15 in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh, where territorial disputes have heated up over the past month.At least 50 Chinese troops are estimated dead.1 Chart 1Regional Equities May Not Shrug Off War In Himalayas ... At First It was a minor incident. No shots were fired. Combatants used stones and knives and threw each other off cliffs. However, the occasion of the battle was a negotiation to de-escalate tensions, and talks have gone on since June 3. So that bodes ill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has not responded but China’s foreign ministry is making conciliatory remarks. Normally India-China border clashes occur during the summer, when weather permits, and do not last long and do not impact the rest of the world, either politically or financially. However, the structural and cyclical drivers of the conflict suggest it could escalate over the summer. A major escalation between nuclear powers is unlikely but could conceivably cause volatility in global financial markets. Global equity investors are focused on other things (COVID-19, global stimulus), but recent volatility suggests that Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani bourses could be vulnerable to any major military escalation (Chart 1). However, a Himalayan-inspired selloff would be short-lived and would present a buying opportunity. India-China tensions are far less relevant to global financial markets than China’s disputes with the United States in East Asia. If the US uses India as a pretext for tougher actions on China, then that is a different story. But it is unlikely for reasons explained below. Our base case strategic assessment of India remains the same: Chinese expansionism will pressure India to speed up economic development to gain greater influence in South Asia. India will also pursue better trade and defense relations with the United States and its allies in East Asia and the Pacific. We are tactically cautious on global equities, but strategically we expect equities to beat bonds and cyclicals to beat defensives. Selloffs stemming from Himalayan conflict will create buying opportunities for emerging market equities, especially India. The Drivers Of The Ladakh Skirmish India and China have a 2,170-mile border in the Himalayan mountains that is disputed in India’s northwest (Aksai Chin) and northeast (Sikkim; Arunachal Pradesh). These border disputes have simmered for decades and occasionally flare into violent incidents, usually meaningless. An India-China border war could occur, but is unlikely. Today’s clashes are mostly taking place in eastern Ladakh, as with disputes in 2013-14. Minor incidents have also occurred in India’s northeast (Naku La, Sikkim). These may be unrelated, but they may also suggest a broad India-China border conflict is in the works (Map 1). Map 1India And China Often Fight Over Undefined Himalayan Border When Ice Melts There is always a local spark for clashes along the Line of Actual Control. These tend to be triggered by infrastructure construction or military patrols that cross the countries’ various border claims. Typically China triggers the incident as it is always pouring more money and concrete into new structures to solidify its territorial claims, whereas India’s resources are more limited. However, in recent years India has grown more capable. Both sides may also be surging infrastructure spending amid the recession (Chart 2). Chart 2China No Longer Alone In Nation-Building In Himalayas Chart 3China's Slower Growth Jeopardizes Communist Party Legitimacy In the current dispute both sides claim the other broke the peace. Indian builders supposedly violated China’s space while working on the Darbuk-Shayok-DBO road which connects to an airfield near Galwan Valley, the site of the clash. But the Indian side argues that Chinese military forces have ventured several miles from their usual outposts and amassed major forces on their side suggesting they are preparing for a bigger effort to expand their control of territory. 2 We may never know who “started” it. There is no clear border and even the Line of Actual Control is hard to define.3 Investors should not confuse the proximate cause of this conflict for the underlying cause. There are structural and cyclical factors at work on both sides: 1. China’s declining domestic stability and rising international assertiveness. The crises of 2008, 2015, 2018-19, and 2020 have caused a hard break in China’s economic model. Slower trend growth jeopardizes the Communist Party’s long-term monopoly on power (Chart 3). The Xi Jinping administration has responded to each crisis by tightening the party’s grip and reasserting central Beijing control. This is true at home, in peripheral territories like Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and abroad, as in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative. Territorial disputes have flared up across China’s borders. India is no exception, with incidents in 2013, 2014, 2017, and now 2020 marking the change (Table 1). Table 1China’s Territorial Assertiveness Triggers Clashes With India The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor strengthens the alliance between these two countries and deepens India’s insecurities. India perceives China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a threat of economic and eventually military encirclement. In 2017, the Doklam dispute between China, Bhutan, and India – which lasted over two months – served to distract the Chinese populace from a major increase in US pressure on China’s periphery. That was President Trump’s “fire and fury” campaign to intimidate North Korea into entering nuclear negotiations (Chart 4). In 2020, China faces its first recessionary environment since the mid-1970s as well as rocky relations with the United States over trade, technology, Hong Kong, North Korea again, and possibly even the Taiwan Strait. It is a convenient time to turn the public’s attention to the Himalayas. Chart 4China's Last Dispute With India Occurred During US-North Korea Tensions 2. India’s emerging national consensus and international coming-of-age. India’s rise as a global power has accelerated since the Great Recession, especially after oil prices fell in 2014. Prime Minister Modi has won two smashing general elections with single-party majorities, in 2014 and 2019. His movement also maintains the upper hand in state legislatures, which is important given that India’s weak federal government cannot simply force structural reforms onto the country (Map 2). Modi’s electoral success reflects a deeper national consensus on the need for stronger central leadership, faster economic development, deeper international trade and investment ties, and pro-efficiency reforms such as the creation of a single market. The policy retreat from globalization benefits insular and service-oriented economies like India at the expense of mercantilist trading powers such as China. America’s pivot to Asia and “Indo-Pacific” strategy create a chance for India to attract investment as multinational corporations diversify away from China (Chart 5). Map 2Modi’s Political Capital At State-Level Chart 5India Attracts Investment As Supply Chains Diversify From China Chart 6US And India Fiscal Stimulus Enable Supply Chain Shift Out Of China In August 2019, after Modi’s big election victory, he launched an ambitious agenda of state-building. He converted the autonomous region of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories under New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This change of status quo angered China and Pakistan, which felt their own territory threatened. Chinese territorial pressure could be retribution for these administrative reforms. China and Pakistan will also want to undermine Modi’s party in upcoming elections for the state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. China’s territorial encroachments reflect its desire to gain control of the entire Aksai Chin plateau. India does not want China to gain such a strategic advantage at the head of the Indus River and valley. The global pandemic and recession reinforced these structural and cyclical trends by pushing both India and China to use nationalist devices to divert their populations from domestic ills. The use of fiscal stimulus across the world enables leaders to pursue risky strategic policies (Chart 6). There is also a tactical issue: India took over the chairmanship of the World Health Assembly in May, while the US is lobbying on behalf of Taiwan’s long desire to be represented in the World Health Organization in the wake of COVID-19. China is resisting this call and could be using Ladakh as a pressure tactic.4 How Far Will Sino-Indian Conflict Escalate? Reports suggest that India and China have reinforced troops in and near Ladakh and have brought more firepower and airpower into range.5 Some of this activity, on both sides, consists of seasonal military drills. So it is not certain that a build-up is occurring. China is less constrained and more capable of escalation than India. If China continues pressing its territorial advance, or if India tries to reclaim territory or take other territory in compensation, then the fight will expand. The conflict is taking place in rocky recesses at a far remove from the rest of the world, so there is a temptation to believe that any escalation can be controlled.6 This may be false and lead to tit-for-tat escalation. Table 2Military Balance: India Versus China In Himalayas Which side faces greater constraints? China is least constrained and most capable of escalation. Over the short run, China can utilize improved military command and capabilities in the area and can control the media and political response at home. Besting India would demonstrate that all Asian territorial claimants should defer to China. However, over the long run, aggression would cement the balance-of-power alliance between the US and India. India is more constrained than China, less capable of escalation: Modi has considerable political capital, but his conventional military advantage in this area is eroding and China has the higher ground from which to stage attacks (Table 2). India’s loss in the 1962 Himalayan war with China was a national humiliation. A repeat of such an event could destroy much of Modi’s mystique as a strongman leader and national savior. In the worst-case scenario, China would demonstrate superior military capability while the US and its allies would remain utterly aloof, leaving India looking both weak and isolated. Therefore India will engage in tit-for-tat military response while seeking diplomatic de-escalation. The US lacks interest in the dispute: Trump has already offered to mediate, presumably to demonstrate his deal-making skills again before the election. But the US does not have a compelling interest in this dispute and India does not want US mediation. If Trump takes punitive measures against China it will be for other reasons. Serious punitive measures require the stock market and economy to relapse, since at the moment Trump’s average approval rating is 43% and he hopes financial and economic gains will help him recover (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Odds President Trump Will Hike Tariffs On China Before US Election The above points suggest that China can afford to escalate if it wants to show India and the rest of Asia that the US is toothless and that China’s territorial claims in Asia should not be opposed. Since COVID-19, China has been aggressive in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, despite the fact that these areas bring economic risks. The Himalayas do not. The implication is that China’s risk appetite is large, particularly in territorial disputes, and driven by social and economic pressure at home. Investment Takeaways Because India and China (and Pakistan) have nuclear arms, and because the US could get involved, it is possible that a major escalation could occur and cause volatility in global financial markets. But it would not last long and no parties will use nuclear arms over Himalayan territorial disputes. A major conflict that results in a Chinese victory would subtract from Prime Minister Modi’s political capital and hence weigh on Indian equities, which have broken down badly since COVID-19 (Chart 7). The reason is that strong political support for Modi would enable India to continue making structural economic reforms that increase productivity. Chart 7Indian Equities Underperforming Since COVID-19 Chart 8India’s Path To Regional Primacy Lies Through Economic Opening And Reform In the long run, a major conflict, especially a humiliating defeat, would accelerate India’s attempts to improve national economic prowess for the sake of strategic security. Since India cannot achieve its strategic objective of primacy in South Asia merely through military power, it will need to do so through a stronger economic pull (Chart 8). This is an impetus for structural economic reform even beyond Modi. Hence our secularly bullish outlook on India. Indian pharmaceutical equities offer an investment opportunity (Chart 9). In an attempt to address land acquisition, which is one of the biggest constraints faced by companies looking to invest in India, New Delhi has announced that it is developing an area the size of Luxembourg to attract businesses moving out of China. The government reached out to over 1,000 US companies in April with incentives for them to move their facilities to India, with a focus on industries in which India has a comparative advantage, such as medical equipment suppliers, food processing units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers. Chart 9US And Indian Stimulus Policies Will Boost Investment In Indian Pharma While India is not as economically competitive as China, it could be attractive for non-strategic industries that would not want to relocate to the US but are looking to reduce uncertainty from US-China tensions. The next round of US fiscal stimulus is also likely to contain significant provisions that will incentivize companies to relocate from China, particularly in the medical and health care sector. For global investors, while a major Sino-Indian escalation could lead to short-term volatility, it would ultimately be a positive development if Beijing vented its nationalism on a strip of earth that is not globally relevant, rather than on the seas, which are highly relevant. Conflict between the US and China in East Asia is a far greater risk than Sino-Indian conflict. Indeed Chinese and American actions over the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, or the South and East China Seas are still far more likely than Sino-Indian tensions to affect global trade and stability and financial markets this year. The US could impose sanctions on Chinese tech and trade, a military incident could occur in the Taiwan Strait, North Korea could provoke US President Donald Trump into a new round of “fire and fury” that triggers a showdown with China, or the US and China could fight a naval skirmish in the South or East China Sea. None of these options is low probability, especially surrounding the US election. Over the short run, global investors should prepare for greater equity volatility, primarily because of hiccups in delivering new stimulus in the US, EU, and China, plus US domestic political risks and US-China-Asia strategic tensions. Stay long JPY-USD. Over the long run, a global growth rebound driven by massive global fiscal and monetary stimulus will drive the US dollar to weaken, global equities to outperform bonds, and cyclicals to outperform defensives. We remain long China-sensitive plays as well as infrastructure, cyber-security, and defense stocks. Strategically, go long Indian pharmaceuticals relative to the emerging market benchmark.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Guardian, "Soldiers fell to their deaths as India and China’s troops fought with rocks," June 17, 2020. 2 See Ashley J. Tellis, "Hustling in the Himalayas: The Sino-Indian Border Confrontation," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 4, 2020. See also Mohan Guruswamy, "India-China Border Dispute: Is A Give And Take Possible Now?" South Asia Monitor, June 3, 2020. 3 The Treaty of Tingmosgang (1684) only specifies one checkpost, at the Lhari Stream near Demchok, leaving everything else to disputed Indian and Chinese claims. See Alexander Davis and Ruth Gamble, "The local cost of rising India-China tensions," June 1, 2020. 4 See Nayanima Basu, "India Isn’t Worried About Tension With China, Unlikely To Give In To US Pressure On Taiwan," May 13, 2020. 5 See Ren Feng and He Penglei, "PLA Xizang Military Command holds coordinated exercise in plateau region," China Military Online, June 15, 2020. See also "空降兵某旅积极探索远程兵力投送新模式 空地同步 奔赴高原". 6 The reason escalation is normally limited is because of the extreme difficulty of operating extended military operations and resupply at 13,000-feet altitude. Both sides have the ability to surge reinforcements and equalize the contest. The cost and difficulty of retaking lost territory is often prohibitive. And while India’s conventional military power may overbalance China in this region, China has the uphill advantage and has made leaps and bounds in operational capabilities in recent decades. In short, escalation is normally controllable. See Aidan Milliff, "Tension High, Altitude Higher: Logistical And Physiological Constraints On The Indo-Chinese Border," War On The Rocks, June 8, 2020.

A profligate US government where $3 trillion + fiscal packages are passed with a strong bipartisan consensus compelled us to examine S&P sector performance during inflationary periods. Specifically, health care stocks have consistently outperformed during inflationary periods (see chart). Over the long haul, it has paid to overweight this sector given the structural uptrend in relative share prices. Spending on health care services is non-cyclical and demand for such services is on a secular rise around the globe, and most recently further catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic: in the developed markets driven largely by the aging population and in the emerging markets by the accelerating adoption of health care safety nets and higher standards. As a reminder, we are currently overweight the S&P health care sector. For more details on S&P GICS1 sector performance during inflationary periods, please refer to our recent Special Report.

  In a webcast this Friday I will be joined by our Chief US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou to debate ‘Sectors To Own, And Sectors To Avoid In The Post-Covid World’. Today’s report preludes five of the points that we will debate. Please join us for the full discussion and conclusions on Friday, June 12, at 8:00 AM EDT (1:00 PM BST, 2:00 PM CEST, 8.00 PM HKT).   Highlights Technology is behaving like a Defensive. Defensive versus Cyclical = Growth versus Value. Growth stocks are not a bubble if bond yields stay ultra-low. The post-Covid world will reinforce existing sector mega-trends. Sectors are driving regional and country relative performance. Fractal trade: Long ZAR/CLP.   Chart of the WeekSector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price 1. Technology Is Behaving Like A Defensive How do we judge an equity sector’s sensitivity to the post-Covid economy, so that we can define it as cyclical or defensive? One approach is to compare the sector’s relative performance with the bond price. According to this approach, the more negatively sensitive to the bond price, the more cyclical is the sector. And the more positively sensitive to the bond price, the more defensive is the sector (Chart I-1).   On this basis the most cyclical sectors in the post-Covid economy are, unsurprisingly: energy, banks, and materials. Healthcare is unsurprisingly defensive. Meanwhile, the industrials sector sits closest to neutral between cyclical and defensive, showing the least sensitivity to the bond price. The tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced. The big surprise is technology, whose high positive sensitivity to the bond price during the 2020 crisis qualifies it as even more defensive than healthcare. This contrasts sharply with its behaviour during the 2008 crisis. Back then, tech’s relative performance was negatively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically cyclical. But over the past year, tech’s relative performance has been positively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically defensive (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2In 2008, Tech Behaved Like ##br##A Cyclical... Chart I-3...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive This is not to say that the big tech companies cannot suffer shocks. They can. For example, from new superior technologies, or from anti-oligopoly legislation. However, the tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced over the past decade. 2. Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value If we reclassify the tech sector as defensive in the 2020s economy, then the post mid-March rebound in stocks was first led by defensives. Cyclicals took over leadership of the rally only in May. Moreover, with the reclassification of tech as defensive, the two dominant defensive sectors become tech and healthcare. But tech and healthcare are also the dominant ‘growth’ sectors. The upshot is that growth versus value has now become precisely the same decision as defensive versus cyclical (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value 3. Growth Stocks Are Not A Bubble If Bond Yields Stay Ultra-Low Some people fear that growth stocks have become dangerously overvalued. There is even mention of the B-word. Let’s address these fears. Yes, valuations have become richer. For example, the forward earnings yield for healthcare is down to 5 percent; and for big tech it is down to just over 4 percent. This valuation starting point has proved to be an excellent guide to prospective 10-year returns, and now implies an expected annualised return from big tech in the mid-single digits. Yet this modest positive return is well above the extremes of the negative 10-year returns implied and delivered from the dot com bubble (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Moreover, we must judge the implied returns from growth stocks against those available from competing long-duration assets – specifically, against the benchmark of high-quality government bond yields. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. Meaning higher absolute valuations (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Chart I-7Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 In the real bubble of 2000, big tech was priced to return 12 percent (per annum) less than the 10-year T-bond. Whereas today, the implied return from big tech – though low in absolute terms – is above the ultra-low yield on the 10-year T-bond. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. The upshot is that high absolute valuations of growth stocks are contingent on bond yields remaining at ultra-low levels. And that the biggest threat to growth stock valuations would be a sustained rise in bond yields. 4. The Post-Covid World Will Reinforce Existing Sector Mega-Trends If a sector maintains a structural uptrend in sales and profits, then a big drop in the share price provides an excellent buying opportunity for long-term investors. This is because the lower share price stretches the elastic between the price and the up-trending profits, resulting in an eventual catch-up. However, if sales and profits are in terminal decline, then the sell-off is not a buying opportunity other than on a tactical basis. This is because the elastic will lose its tension as profits drift down towards the lower price. In fact, despite the sell-off, if the profit downtrend continues, the price may be forced ultimately to catch-down. This leads to a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion. After a big drop in the stock market, long-term investors should not buy everything that has dropped. And they should not buy the stocks and sectors that have dropped the most if their profits are in major downtrends. In this regard, the post-Covid world is likely to reinforce the existing mega-trends. The profits of oil and gas, and of European banks will remain in major structural downtrends (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Conversely, the profits of healthcare, and of European personal products will remain in major structural uptrends (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-8Oil And Gas Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Chart I-9Bank Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Chart I-10Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Chart I-11Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend   5. Sectors Are Driving Regional And Country Relative Performance Finally, sector winners and losers determine regional and country equity market winners and losers. Nowadays, a stock market’s relative performance is predominantly a play on its distinguishing overweight and underweight ‘sector fingerprint’. This is because major stock markets are dominated by multinational corporations which are plays on their global sectors, rather than the region or country in which they have a stock market listing. It follows that when tech and healthcare outperform, the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform, while healthcare-lite emerging markets (EM) must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. Sector mega-trends will shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance. Equally, when energy and banks underperform, the energy-heavy Norway and bank-heavy Spain stock markets must underperform. (Chart I-12 and Chart I-13). These are just a few examples. Every stock market is defined by a sector fingerprint which drives its relative performance.  Chart I-12Sector Relative Performance Drives... Chart I-13...Regional And Country Relative Performance If sector mega-trends continue, they will also shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance – favouring those stock markets that are heavy in growth stocks and light in old-fashioned cyclicals. Please join the webcast to hear the full debate and conclusions. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is to go long the South African rand versus the Chilean peso. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. In other trades, long Spanish 10-year bonds versus New Zealand 10-year bonds achieved its 3.5 percent profit target at which it was closed. And long Australia versus New Zealand equities is approaching its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-14ZAR/CLP   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate 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  

Highlights Duration: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but continue to hold yield curve steepeners (on both the nominal and real yield curves) as well as overweight TIPS positions versus nominal Treasuries. These tactical trades will profit from higher Treasury yields in the near-term. Healthcare: We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Healthcare bonds relative to the overall investment grade corporate index. But we also recommend an underweight allocation to high-yield Healthcare relative to the high-yield corporate index.  Pharmaceuticals: Investors should underweight Pharmaceutical bonds in both the investment grade and high-yield credit universes. How Much Higher For Bond Yields? Two weeks ago, we warned that bonds would struggle in the near-term as the re-opening of the US economy led to an improvement in economic data.1 However, we definitely didn’t anticipate the magnitude of the positive data surprise that has occurred since then. The US Economic Surprise Index was -55 one week ago and today it sits at +66 (Chart 1)! The bulk of that jump occurred after Friday’s employment report revealed that 2.5 million jobs were added in May when Bloomberg’s consensus estimate had called for a contraction of 7.5 million. Against this back-drop, it shouldn’t be too surprising that bond yields jumped sharply. The 30-year Treasury yield rose 27 bps last week to 1.68% and the 10-year yield rose 26 bps to 0.91% (Chart 2). The 2-year yield rose a more modest 6 bps to 0.22%, as the Fed maintains its tight grip on the front-end of the curve. Chart 1Back In Business Chart 2Yields Have Room To Move Higher For investors, the first relevant question is: How high can yields go? Our view is that if last week does indeed represent the cyclical economic trough, then forward rates at the long-end of the curve will revert to levels consistent with market expectations for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. The median estimate of that rate from the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Market Participants is 2%, but with an unusually wide interquartile range of 1.3% to 2.5% (Chart 2, bottom panel). At the very least, we’d expect the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields to re-test their respective 200-day moving averages of 1.38% and 1.91%, respectively. However, we are not ready to declare last week the economic trough for three reasons: First, we cannot rule out a re-acceleration in the number of confirmed COVID cases as the economy re-opens. This could lead to the re-imposition of lockdown measures come fall. Second, last week’s positive economic data might cause some members of Congress to question the need for further fiscal stimulus. This would be a mistake. In last week’s report we showed that fiscal measures have done a good job propping up household income so far, but these measures are temporary and will need to be renewed.2  Even after last week’s large drop, the unemployment rate is still 3.3% above its Great Recession peak (Chart 1, bottom panel). This is by no means a fully healed economy that can withstand policymakers taking their feet off the gas. Even after last week’s large drop, the unemployment rate is still 3.3% above its Great Recession peak. Finally, US political risks are heightened with anti-police protests occurring daily in most major cities. Added to that, President Trump is now the underdog heading into November’s election and he will need to develop a reelection bid that doesn’t hinge on the economy. Our geopolitical strategists think a doubling down on “America First” foreign and trade policies makes the most sense.3 A significant move in that direction would certainly send a flight to quality into US bonds. Investment Strategy As we advised two weeks ago, nimble investors should tactically reduce duration as yields still have more upside in the next month or two. However, we are not yet sufficiently confident in the sustainability of the economic rebound to recommend reducing portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rather, we continue to recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while holding several less risky positions that will profit from higher yields. Specifically, investors should hold duration-neutral curve steepeners along the nominal Treasury curve. We advise going long the 5-year note and short a 2/10 barbell.4 We also like holding TIPS over nominal Treasuries and positioning for a steeper real Treasury curve.5 In terms of spread product, we also recommend staying the course. This entails overweighting corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, Aaa consumer ABS, Aaa CMBS (both agency and non-agency) and municipal bonds, while avoiding corporate bonds rated B and below and residential mortgage-backed securities. Appendix A at the end of this report shows how these positions have performed since the March 23 peak in spreads. The remainder of this report focuses on the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors of both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. Investment Grade Healthcare & Pharma Risk Profile When assessing the risk profiles for investment grade-rated Healthcare and Pharmaceutical bonds, we first consider the credit rating distributions of both sectors relative to the overall Bloomberg Barclays corporate index (Chart 3). Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distribution* Immediately, we see that the Healthcare sector has a lower credit rating than the benchmark: 71% of the Healthcare index is rated Baa, compared to 48% for the corporate index. Meanwhile, the Pharmaceuticals sector has slightly higher credit quality than the corporate benchmark: 12% of the Pharmaceuticals index is rated Aa or Aaa, compared to 8% for the corporate index. Credit rating alone suggests that Healthcare should trade cyclically relative to the corporate index. That is, it should outperform during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. However, this turns out to not be the case. Chart 4 shows that healthcare has outperformed the corporate benchmark during each of the last five major bouts of spread widening and underperformed during periods of spread tightening. Clearly, despite its low credit rating, Healthcare trades like a defensive corporate bond sector. Healthcare’s historically defensive nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio, which has tended to be below 1.0 (Chart 4, top panel).6 Though recently, the DTS ratio climbed above 1.0 due to a lengthening of the sector’s duration (Chart 4, bottom panel). This suggests that Healthcare, while historically defensive, might trade more cyclically during the next 12 months. Neither the Healthcare nor Pharmaceuticals sectors offer a spread advantage over the corporate index. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, are a much more cut and dry defensive sector (Chart 5). The DTS ratio is almost always below 1.0 and the sector has a strong track record of outperforming the corporate index during periods of spread widening (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3) Chart 4IG Healthcare Risk Profile Chart 5IG Pharma Risk Profile   Valuation Turning to valuation, we find that neither sector offers a spread advantage compared to the corporate index or its comparable credit tier (Table 1). This is true whether we look at the raw option-adjusted spread or if we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread.7  It is interesting to note that the Healthcare index offers a spread advantage compared to the A-rated corporate index. On the one hand, this is not surprising because the Healthcare index carries an average Baa rating. On the other hand, we have seen that Healthcare tends to trade more defensively than its average credit rating implies. This arguably makes its spread advantage over A-rated debt somewhat compelling. Table 1IG Healthcare & Pharma Valuation Balance Sheet Health Both the Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors loaded up on debt during the last recovery. The amount of Healthcare debt in the corporate index grew 8.8 times since 2010. Meanwhile, total debt in the corporate index grew 2.4 times. The result is that Healthcare’s weight in the corporate index increased from 1.1% in 2010 to 4.3% today (Chart 6). The Pharma sector also increased its debt load at a faster pace than the overall corporate universe since 2010 (3.2 times versus 2.4 times), but the boom in Pharma debt has been much milder than in Healthcare. The weight of Pharmaceuticals in the corporate index increased from 4.1% in 2010 to 5.5% today (Chart 7). Chart 6IG Healthcare Debt Growth Chart 7IG Pharma Debt Growth Despite rapid debt growth during the past few years, credit quality in both the Healthcare and Pharma sectors appears quite solid. Appendix B lists the issuers in the Healthcare index, grouping them by credit tier and indicating whether they carry a positive, stable or negative ratings outlook from Moody’s. Of the 56 issuers in the Healthcare index, only six currently have a negative ratings outlook. The two largest issuers in the Healthcare index are Cigna and CVS Health. Both carry Baa ratings, but Moody’s just confirmed Cigna’s ratings outlook at stable in mid-May. CVS Health, on the other hand, has carried a negative ratings outlook since 2018. Appendix C lists issuers in the Pharmaceuticals index. Of the 17 issuers, only four carry a negative ratings outlook. None of the Baa-rated Pharmaceutical issuers currently has a negative ratings outlook. The two biggest issuers in the index are Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbvie. Bristol-Myers Squibb is A-rated with a negative outlook, while Abbvie is Baa-rated with a stable outlook. Macro Considerations In a typical demand-driven recession, consumers tend to prioritize healthcare spending while they cut back on more discretionary outlays. This dynamic is probably what causes healthcare bonds to trade defensively relative to the overall corporate index. However, the unique nature of the COVID recession has thrown this traditional pattern into reverse. Consumer spending on health care services is down 40% since February while overall consumer spending is 19% lower (Chart 8). Oddly, healthcare bonds shrugged off this year’s massive drop in spending and continued to behave defensively – outperforming the corporate index when spreads widened and underperforming since the March 23 peak in spreads. Despite the plunge in spending, pricing power in the health care industry remains strong. Health care services prices continue to accelerate even as overall inflation has dropped sharply (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike healthcare, pharmaceutical spending has held firm during the past couple of months (Chart 9). Consumer spending on pharmaceuticals is only down 4% since February, while overall consumer spending is down 19%. But despite firm spending, medicinal drug prices have decelerated in concert with the overall headline CPI (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 8Healthcare Demand & Pricing Power Chart 9Pharmaceutical Demand & Pricing Power Investment Conclusions Putting everything together, we are inclined to recommend an underweight allocation to Pharmaceuticals and an overweight allocation to investment grade Healthcare. Pharmaceuticals are simply too expensive and too defensive for the current environment. Given our positive outlook on investment grade corporate bonds, we should target cyclical sectors with elevated spreads that have more room to compress. Healthcare is slightly more interesting. It has behaved like a typical defensive sector so far this year, but there are some indications that it is becoming more cyclical. The DTS ratio recently shot above 1.0 and consumer spending on healthcare services is poised for a rapid snapback. In terms of valuation, healthcare is expensive relative to other Baa-rated bonds but cheap versus the A-rated universe. This would seem to make healthcare a good risk-adjusted bet. Even if the sector continues to behave defensively, its spread advantage over A-rated bonds makes it an attractively priced defensive sector. High-Yield Healthcare & Pharma Risk Profile Considering the risk profile of high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals, we first notice that both sectors have significantly lower credit ratings than the overall junk index (Chart 10). Ba-rated credits account for 29% and 24% of the Healthcare and Pharma indexes, respectively, compared to 54% for the High-Yield index as a whole. Chart 10High-Yield Credit Rating Distribution* The fact that significant portions of the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical indexes are rated B and lower immediately raises alarm bells. This is because we do not expect that many B-rated or lower issuers will be able to take advantage of the Fed’s Main Street Lending Program. This lack of Fed support for the lower-rated junk tiers has led us to recommend underweighting junk bonds rated B & below.8 High-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors have significantly lower credit ratings than the overall junk index. Interestingly, despite low credit ratings, a look at both sectors’ DTS ratios and historical excess returns reveals that they tend to trade defensively relative to the high-yield benchmark index. Healthcare outperformed the high-yield index by 473 bps from the beginning of the year until the March 23 peak in spreads and has underperformed the index by 123 bps since (Chart 11). Similarly, Pharmaceuticals outperformed the junk index by 670 bps from the beginning of the year until March 23 and have since underperformed by 136 bps (Chart 12). Chart 11HY Healthcare Risk Profile Chart 12HY Pharma Risk Profile Valuation Turning to spreads, we would characterize both high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals as expensive (Table 2). Despite both sectors carrying average credit ratings of B, they offer spreads that are below both the overall junk index average and the average for other B-rated credits. Tight option-adjusted spreads are at least partially attributable to low average duration for both sectors. If we adjust for duration differences by looking at 12-month breakeven spreads, we see that Pharmaceuticals look somewhat cheap versus other B-rated credits while Healthcare remains expensive. Table 2HY Healthcare & Pharma Valuation Balance Sheet Health Healthcare debt has grown less quickly than overall high-yield index debt since 2010 (Chart 13). Healthcare debt has grown 1.7 times since 2010 while the overall index has grown 1.8 times. This has caused Healthcare’s weight in the index to fall from 6.2% to 5.7%. In contrast, the high-yield Pharmaceuticals sector has grown rapidly during the past decade (Chart 14). Pharma debt has increased 10.3 times since 2010 compared to 1.8 times for the overall index. This has brought the sector’s weight in the index up to 2.3% from 0.4% Chart 13HY Healthcare Debt Growth Chart 14HY Pharma Debt Growth Looking beyond debt growth, in the current environment we are mostly concerned with the number of issuers in each index that will be able to access Fed support through the Main Street Lending facilities. In this regard, neither sector fares particularly well. Appendix D lists all high-yield Healthcare issuers along with their ratings outlooks, number of employees, 2019 revenues and total debt-to-EBITDA ratios. To qualify for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities, issuers must have either less than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenues. Additionally, they must be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0. We estimate that all but three of the Ba-rated Healthcare issuers are eligible for the Main Street program, but only one of the B-rated issuers is eligible. High-yield Pharmaceuticals issuers are listed in Appendix E. Here, we once again find that only one of the B-rated issuers is likely to qualify for the Main Street lending facilities. Of the two Ba-rated issuers, one is likely to qualify. The other is Bausch Health, a Canadian firm that is by far the largest issuer in the Pharma index. It would need to turn to the Canadian authorities for help in an emergency lending situation. Investment Conclusions We recommend underweight allocations to both the high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors. In the current environment we prefer to focus our high-yield credit exposure on the Ba-rated credit tier where issuers are more likely to have access to Fed support. The large concentration of B-rated and lower issuers in both the Healthcare and Pharma sectors, along with their generally expensive valuations, makes us wary about both sectors. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B Table 4Investment Grade Healthcare Issuers Appendix C Table 5Investment Grade Pharmaceuticals Issuers Appendix D Table 6High-Yield Healthcare Issuers Appendix E Table 7High-Yield Pharmaceuticals Issuers   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens”, dated May 26, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Filling The Income Gap”, dated June 2, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update)”, dated May 29, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended yield curve position please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on these recommendations please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 7 The 12-month breakeven spread represents the spread widening that must occur for a sector to underperform a duration-matched position in Treasury securities during the next 12 months. It can be proxied by option-adjusted spread divided by duration. 8 For more details please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification