Sectors

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

There is a lot of uncertainty that reverberates through the equity markets and the dust has yet to settle down from Monday’s big crack. Small caps (similar to weak balance sheet stocks, middle panel) have cratered for three reasons: First, they are massively indebted as the bottom panel of the chart shows not only in absolute terms, but also compared with their large cap brethren. Second, small caps have been mired in earnings deflation for a while and the looming recession now aggravates the fall in these high beta stocks. Finally, small caps have a large weighting in financials in general and small regional banks in particular. As such, the recent double whammy of the oil price collapse and bond yield plunge has wreaked havoc in small cap indexes. We have been cyclically avoiding small caps and instead preferring large caps since mid-2018 and late-last year we also added this size preference to our high-conviction call list as a modest hedge to most other high-conviction calls that were levered to higher interest rates. Today, from a portfolio risk management perspective, we are instituting a trailing stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect gains. Bottom Line: Stick with the large cap bias for a while longer.  

We have been cyclically bearish the broad equity market and vindicated, especially given yesterday's circuit breaker drawdown in the SPX, heeding the messages of our EPS profit model, that had no pulse, and of the bond markets, with the 10/2 yield curve inversion last summer forewarning of recession. As a reminder, we have been a proponent that "it will not be different this time" and a recession would ensue, and there is little doubt we are in recession now. We believe the only sustainable way out of this mess is a big fiscal package as the Fed's easing via ZIRP and QE5 are given. With regard to a fiscal package we are looking for something similar to TARP in magnitude in order to stem the equity market hemorrhaging and instill some confidence that there is plenty of money available to deal with the fallout of the coronavirus. Q1 earnings season will be a kitchen sink quarter similar to Q4/2018 as CEOs have an opportunity to flush all the bad news in one shot. What worries us most is a doubling in the junk spread near the 2016 peak that will further tighten financial conditions and the looming bankruptcies that would push the default rate higher as the VIX has been forecasting (see chart). Counter-party risk is also on our radar screens as these violent moves in FX, fixed income, vol and equity markets will leave a visible mark. Bottom Line: With regard to equity market investment strategy, we would stay patient at the current juncture before deploying cyclically oriented capital and really hide in staples and health care stocks. Please look forward to the upcoming Monday's report for an update on our overweight recommendation in the health care sector and its key subcomponents.

Highlights Financial markets have experienced two weeks of wild swings: Following the negative 5-standard-deviation weekly move in the S&P 500 two weeks ago, the index moved at least 2.8% in each of last week’s first four sessions. 10- and 30-year Treasury yields made one all-time low after another. The coronavirus has arrived in the United States: It would appear inevitable that the coronavirus is going to spread across the US; the unknowns are how long it will spread, how deadly it will be, and how much it will impact the economy. Confronted with these unknowns, markets shot first and left asking questions for later. The selling may have gone a little far. The Fed and the Democratic candidates for president were in the news last week, … : The Fed made its first intra-meeting rate cut since the financial crisis was raging, cutting the fed funds rate by 50 basis points instead of waiting for its regularly scheduled March 17-18 gathering. Super Tuesday upended the chase for the Democratic presidential nomination, as our geopolitical strategists foresaw. … and we offer our quick read on their market impact: We expect that the Fed’s rate cut will be modestly positive for markets and the economy, while Joe Biden’s move to the head of the Democratic pack greatly diminished a risk that would otherwise have troubled investors all the way to November 3rd. Feature US equities have endured a rollercoaster ride over the last two-and-a-half weeks. From its all-time intraday high of 3,393.52 on February 19th, to the February 28th intraday low of 2,855.84, the S&P 500 corrected by 15.8% in just seven sessions. The brunt of the decline occurred two weeks ago, when the index lost 11.5% in its fourth worst week in the last six decades. The decline amounted to more than a negative 5-standard-deviation event, and took its place among what we now consider to be landmark episodes in US stock market history (Table 1). Table 1Socialism + Pandemic = History (But Not The Good Kind) The epic rout followed a weekend of distressing news. First, the coronavirus (COVID-19) slipped its Asian bonds, popping up fully formed in Italy and Iran in a sobering demonstration of its global reach. Second, Bernie Sanders had seemingly solidified his grip on the Democratic presidential nomination by trouncing the rest of the crowded field in the Nevada caucuses with nearly twice the share of the vote that he captured in his Iowa and New Hampshire wins. We therefore characterize the February 28th intraday low as the coronavirus/Sanders bottom. The former is still running around freely, but the latter has been largely contained. COVID-19 will surely be with us for a while longer, and may yet push the S&P 500 below its February 28th low, but it will have to do so without help from Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden reclaimed front-runner status following his tremendous Super Tuesday performance, and support for him coalesced with remarkable speed, relieving investors’ acute concern about a Sanders presidency. The primary campaign is still in its early stages, and the gaffe-prone Biden is capable of multiple stumbles between now and the nominating convention, but a general election without a self-declared socialist bent on ending health insurance as we know it will provoke considerably less market anxiety. The Rate Cut Equities had been pining for a rate cut, beginning last week’s surge upon the news that central bankers would be joining the G-7 Finance Ministers on their hastily arranged Tuesday morning conference call. After an immediate 2.5% pop upon the announcement of the intra-meeting cut, however, the S&P 500 sagged and wound up ending Tuesday’s session nearly 2% lower than its pre-cut level. The dismal market reception, and Powell’s own halting, tepid responses to questions at the press conference to discuss the rationale for the move left investors wondering if the Fed had made a mistake. We neither know nor care if it will turn out to be good policy, but we expect that the rate cut will lend support to risk assets over our 12-month investment horizon. Why would the Fed use monetary policy to try to combat a public health crisis, or any supply shock? Monetary policy tools were not made to fight public health crises. They will not speed the development of an antidote, make medical care more widely available, or make up for a lack of preparedness at the public health agencies leading the effort to blunt COVID-19’s spread. They also are not particularly well-suited to combat supply shocks. They cannot resolve global supply bottlenecks, put more people back to work in China, South Korea and Italy, or create and distribute all the test kits and protective clothing that medical professionals sorely need. It is within the Fed’s power, however, to try to keep COVID-19’s second-order economic consequences from taking root. Negative headlines, deserted shopping districts and runs on products like hand sanitizer and face masks can drag down business and consumer confidence. Falling confidence can weigh on consumption and investment, hobbling output, stifling employment growth, and raising the specter of a negatively self-reinforcing dynamic in which layoffs lead to less consumption, which feeds more layoffs, and less investment, etcetera. If the Fed can bolster the spirits of consumers and businesses, it can help to contain COVID-19’s adverse economic impact. Won’t this move leave the Fed with less ammunition down the road? Yes, it surely will, especially if the Fed would prefer to stick to conventional policy tools to combat the next recession. Last week’s cut may postpone the start date of that recession, however, affording the Fed a chance to execute a series of rate hikes before it arrives. For an investor with a timeframe that doesn’t exceed twelve months, it may not matter, provided the increased accommodation successfully reduces near-term recession risk. Do you think this move will be effective? At the margin, yes, we think it will. First of all, it will contribute to the mortgage-refinancing wave that has been building since the beginning of the year (Chart 1). With an average 3.45% 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate, data provider Black Knight estimates 11 million borrowers could save at least 75 basis points by refinancing their existing loans.1 If the average rate were to fall to 3%, as it would if the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields simply eases back to the 2% neighborhood (Chart 2), the pool of potential refinancers would expand to 19 million. Reduced mortgage payments put more money in homeowners’ pockets and will help support consumption at the margin. Chart 1Mortgage Refis Were Already Ramping Up, ... Chart 2... And There Will Be Even More Activity Once Mortgage Spreads Normalize Lower rates will also increase demand for new-home purchases, which have positive multiplier effects, and other big-ticket consumer goods. They will also support investment at the margin, as hurdle rates fall, and more opportunities are projected to generate a positive net present value. Potential homebuyers may be less prone to attend open houses or conduct home searches if COVID-19 spreads, and skittish managers may be less prone to invest, but easier monetary conditions do promote economic activity. Finally, a Fed that is demonstrably committed to easing monetary conditions to mitigate COVID-19’s potential negative impacts may help shore up business and consumer confidence. It will take confidence to keep gloomy virus headlines from becoming a self-fulfilling recession prophecy. As Figure 1 illustrates, the Fed does have the means to boost demand in financial markets and the real economy. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy What will it mean for markets? It may encourage investors to pay more for each dollar of a corporation’s earnings, helping to cushion equities from falling earnings projections (the Confidence/Risk Taking channel in Figure 1), though we think a surer outcome is that it will keep the search for yield at a fever pitch. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments can no longer rely on highly-rated sovereign bonds to deliver the income to meet their fixed obligations, but have very little leeway to allocate away from fixed income. They have therefore been forced to venture further and further out the risk curve (Figure 1’s Portfolio Balance Effect), which has had the effect of providing an ample supply of funds for less-than-pristine borrowers. Under zero- and negative-interest-rate policy (ZIRP and NIRP, respectively) just about any borrower aside from brick-and-mortar retailers and thinly capitalized oil drillers can attract a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner simply by offering an incremental 50-75 bps of yield. Since no borrower defaults, or goes bankrupt, as long as there is a lender willing to roll over its maturing obligations, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy has had the effect of limiting default rates. We expect that the Fed’s move back in the direction of ZIRP will continue to squeeze spreads and ease financial conditions. That’s far from an ideal fundamental basis for owning spread product, and it won’t keep credit outperforming forever, but we expect it will allow spread product to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Recession Prospects There is no doubt that the probability of a recession is rising. COVID-19 is already exerting intense pressure on the airline and hotel industries, and strapped small businesses will find themselves in its crosshairs soon. It is certainly possible that a recession could sneak up on us while we focus on our assessment of the monetary policy backdrop. But just as COVID-19 survival rates are heavily influenced by a patient’s intrinsic condition, the economy’s prognosis may be a function of its pre-outbreak status. To assess the economy’s vital signs, we begin with housing, the major economic segment with the greatest interest-rate sensitivity. If monetary policy is less accommodative than we’ve estimated, the housing market might be gasping for air, but it appears to be as fit as a fiddle. Permits and starts turned sharply higher in the middle of last year (Chart 3, top panel), following the sales component of the NAHB survey (Chart 3, bottom panel) and purchase mortgage applications (Chart 3, middle panel). Homes are already quite affordable, relative to history (Chart 4, top panel), and they’re bound to get even more affordable as mortgage rates fall. Chart 3Housing Charts Are Up And To The Right Across The Board Chart 4Homes Are Amply Affordable Nothing in the available data indicates that housing is running too hot. Residential investment’s contribution to GDP has flipped from barely negative to modestly positive (Chart 5), and there are no signs that its current course is unsustainable. Unsold inventories and the share of vacant homes are at 25-year lows (Chart 6), and starts and permits are only just catching up with the multi-year average of household formations, suggesting that the market has been undersupplied since the crisis excesses were worked off. The overall takeaway is that the housing market is in the early days of an overdue recovery that has plenty of room to run. Chart 5Residential Investment's Current Pace Is Easily Sustainable, ... Chart 6... And The Housing Market Still Looks Undersupplied Chart 7The Labor Market Is Strong Table 2No Sign Of Recession Here February’s employment situation report, ignored by markets in the throes of Friday's selloff, suggests that the labor market, and by extension the economy, was in fighting trim before COVID-19 took root in American soil (Chart 7). February’s net job additions far surpassed consensus estimates, and the figures for January and December were revised appreciably higher (Table 2). With the three-month moving average of net additions coming in one-third higher than expected, the report was nothing short of tremendous. The March release is sure to be worse, and the all-time record streak of expanding monthly payrolls may well come to an end, but the patient was in an awfully robust state before it encountered the virus, and that bodes well for its immediate future. The Democratic Primaries Super Tuesday turned out to be super for US financial markets. With all of the Democratic party’s machinery now at the service of Joe Biden, the probability that frightening left-tail outcomes might emerge from the general election has been dramatically reduced. Markets can live with a Biden-Trump contest no matter how it turns out. Although we thought that markets were exaggerating the potentially negative conditions that would ensue under President Sanders, they would have been subject to rolling bouts of angst every time his general election prospects rose. Though our geopolitical strategists unwaveringly saw the former vice president as the Democratic frontrunner, theirs was a decidedly minority view. Following the Nevada caucus, Sanders was viewed far and wide as the presumptive nominee. Although a Biden administration would presumably be less market-friendly than the current administration, he himself is a card-carrying member of the establishment and wouldn’t do anything that would upset the apple cart. From an investment perspective, Biden is the candidate that would Make America Predictable Again, and even if re-election is markets’ preferred outcome, the prospect of a Biden presidency is hardly frightening. Investment Implications Although our conviction level has fallen in the face of COVID-19 uncertainties, we hold to our view that a soft patch is more likely than a recession, and a correction is more likely than a bear market. We remain constructive on risk assets because we think the selling has gotten overdone. There may well be more of it, and the S&P 500 could reach its 2,708.92 bear-market level before we can publish again next Monday, but we will be buying it in our own account all the way there. We think the most plausible worst-case scenario is a sharp but short recession, produced by a nasty supply shock that frightens households and businesses enough that they cease to consume or invest. The demand strike would imperil indebted businesses that suffered the biggest revenue declines: airlines, hotels, restaurants, retailers, thinly capitalized oil producers and a range of small businesses. They would shrink their workforces and many would default on their loans. That would be bad, as all recessions are bad, but it wouldn’t be a replay of the crisis. Credit extended to the sorts of borrowers listed above, ex-small businesses, is well-dispersed throughout the economy via corporate bonds and securitizations. The exposures the SIFI banks and their large- and mid-cap regional bank cousins have retained will be easily absorbed by the layers of additional capital mandated by Dodd-Frank and Basel 3. It seems to us that markets are pricing in a significant probability of something much worse than a run-of-the-mill recession, and we think that sets up an attractive risk-reward profile for investors in risk assets. We reiterate our risk-friendly recommendations, though we now recommend that fixed-income investors maintain benchmark duration positioning. We failed to appreciate the potential scope for a decline in long yields and are correcting course now.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Boston, Claire and Raimonde, Olivia, “A 30-Year Mortgage Below 3%? Treasury Rally Offers Bargain Loans,” Bloomberg, March 5, 2020.

Underweight Our intra-sector positioning shifts with the recent S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals downgrade to underweight1 and this Monday’s trimming of the S&P software index to neutral, reduce the S&P tech sector to a below benchmark allocation. Business investment in tech has been losing market share for the better part of the last year and according to the national accounts tech capex is contracting. Excluding the software industry, capital outlays are in dire straits (top & second panels). Meanwhile, lofty valuations, with the tech forward P/E trading at a 20% premium to the overall market, signal that there is no cushion for this deep cyclical sector that has 60% of sales originating abroad, the largest among its GICS1 peers (third panel). Tach on the coronavirus outbreak, and if supply chain breakdowns increase over the course of the next few weeks, then more tech profit warnings are looming and the resulting hit to still ultra-wide relative profit margins and EPS will likely be severe (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We trimmed the S&P tech sector to underweight. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report. ​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Crosscurrents" dated February 3, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights At the current rate of work resumption, March’s PMI should rebound to its “normal range” from February’s historic lows. If so, our simple calculation, using China’s PMI figures and GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template, suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2%. Chinese stocks passively outperformed global benchmarks in the last two weeks.  The likelihood of a stimulus overshoot in the next 6-12 months continues to rise, supporting our view that Chinese stocks will actively outperform global benchmark in the coming months. Cyclical stocks have significantly outperformed defensives lately. While this is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude of a tech stock rally in the domestic market of late appears to be somewhat excessive. As such, investors should focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary. The depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. Feature Despite the past week’s plunge in global equities due to the threat of a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese stocks have outperformed relative to global benchmarks. This underscores our view that epidemic risks within China are slowly abating, and China’s reflationary response to the crisis will likely overcompensate for the short-term economic shock. Tables 1 and 2 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets in the past month. On the growth front, both the February official and Caixin PMIs dropped to historic lows as a result of the virus outbreak and nationwide lockdown. On the other hand, economic data from January confirmed that pre-outbreak activity in China was on track to recovery. Daily data also suggests that production in China continues to resume. Moreover, monetary conditions have significantly loosened and fiscal supports have materially stepped up.  Chinese equities in both onshore and offshore markets dropped by 2% and 7% respectively (in absolute terms) from their January 13 peaks. Nevertheless, they have both significantly outperformed global equities, particularly in the past week. Equally-weighted cyclical stocks versus defensives in the onshore market have also moved up sharply, driven by a rally in the technology sector stocks. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese stocks, the magnitude appears to be excessive. Thus, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China to favor exposure in resources, industrials and consumer discretionary stocks. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we have a number of observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Inventory And Production Shortages Are A Bigger Near-Term Concern Than Weaknesses In Demand February’s drop in the official PMI below 40% is reminiscent of November 2008, which was the height of the global financial crisis. The raw material inventory sub-index of the PMI in February fell to a record low, a clear indication of strain in China’s manufacturing sector. While the finished goods inventory sub-index ticked up slightly compared with January, factories will likely run out of existing raw materials to produce goods if transportation logistics do not return to normal soon (Chart 1). A higher number in the new orders sub-index relative to production output also suggests the pressure on the supply side will intensify if the virus outbreak in China worsens and continues to disrupt manufacturing activities. This will in turn undermine the effectiveness of Chinese policy response.   Daily data from various sources suggests Chinese industrial activities continue to pick up. Between February 10 (the first official return-to-work day after an extended Chinese New Year holiday) and February 25 (the cutoff date for responding to PMI surveys), daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants was only about 60% of consumption compared from the same period last year (adjusted for the Lunar Year calendar). This is in line with the 35.7 reading in February’s manufacturing PMI, versus 49.2 a year ago. In the last four days of February, however, coal consumption reached nearly 70% of last year’s consumption. This figure is in keeping with a 10 percentage point increase in the rate of work resumption of enterprises above-designated size in China’s coastal regions.1 If energy consumption and work resumption rates reach about 90% by the end of March compared with Q1 2019, then PMI in March should pick up to 45% or higher. A 45% or higher reading in March’s PMI will imply economic impact from the virus outbreak is mostly limited to February. A simple calculation using China’s GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2% in real terms. This is in line with the estimate from BCA's Global Investment Strategy service.2 As we pointed out in November last year,3 China is frontloading additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 2020 to secure the economic recovery, which started to bud prior to the virus outbreak. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection. The monthly flow in total social financing in January (with only three work weeks effectively) reached above RMB 5 trillion. This figure exceeded that in January 2019, the highest monthly credit number last year. Local government bond issuance in January was almost double that a year ago, and a total of 1.2 trillion local government bonds were issued in the first two months of this year - a 53% jump from the same period last year. This suggests that fiscal stimulus has indeed stepped up in 2020. Money supply in January was slightly distorted by the earlier Chinese New Year (it fell in January this year instead of February as in most years) and the COVID-19 outbreak.  M1 registered zero growth from a year ago, whereas it grew by 0.4% in January 2019.4 Normally, during the month of the Chinese New Year, households have more cash in deposits whereas corporations have less as they pay pre-holiday bonuses to employees. This seasonality factor causes the growth rate in M0 to rise and M1 growth to fall. The seasonality was exacerbated by the nationwide lockdown on January 20 this year, as many real estate developers reportedly suffered from a significant reduction in home sales and delays in deposits for down payments. Household consumption in the service sector during the Chinese New Year was also severely suppressed. This explains near-zero growth in M1 and a larger-than-expected increase in household deposits in January (Chart 2). We expect the growth in both M0 and M1 to start normalizing in March, as production and household consumption continue to resume. While we do not expect large fluctuations in housing prices, we think growth in home sales may accelerate from Q2 2020. There are early signs that the government is starting to relax restrictions on the real estate sector, on a region by region basis. Land sales remain a major source of local governments’ income, accounting for more than half of total revenues as of last year. Chart 3 shows that as government expenditures lead land sales, a major increase in fiscal stimulus and local government spending means that a significant bump in land sales will be needed in 2020. A strengthening supply of land, coupled with the unlikelihood of large fluctuations in property prices, suggests that there will be more policy supports to the real estate sector and more incentives to boost housing demand. Chart 2Corporates Are Short On Cash Chart 3Land And Home Sales Likely To Pick Up In 2020 In the past two weeks, China’s equity market has registered a near-vertical outperformance in both investable and domestic stocks relative to global benchmarks (Chart 4). While this recent outperformance was passive in nature, our policy assessment supports future active outperformance. The recently announced pro-growth policy initiatives increasingly resemble those rolled out at the start of the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. These policy initiatives increase the odds that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” will overcompensate for the short-term economic shock, and will likely lead to a significant rebound in corporate profits in the next 6-12 months.  This supports our bullish view on Chinese stocks. Chart 5 also shows that, unlike during the 2015’s “bubble and bust” cycle, both the valuation and margin trading as a percentage of total market cap in China’s onshore market remain materially lower than 2015. Equally-weighted cyclical sectors continue to outperform defensives in both China’s investable and domestic markets, particularly the latter where stock prices in the technology sector were up 12% within the past month. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks relative to defensives is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude appears to be somewhat excessive. Given this, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China’s economy to focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary stocks. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Strongly Outperformed Global Benchmarks Over The Past Two Weeks Chart 5Onshore Market Trading Does Not Seem Overly Leveraged China’s three-month repo rate (the de facto policy rate) has fallen significantly in the past month, roughly 30bps below its lowest level in 2016 (Chart 6). China’s government bond yields have also reached their lowest level since 2016. While corporate bond yield spreads in other major economies have picked up sharply in the past month, the reverse is happening in China. This suggests that the market is pricing in further easing and the notion that policy supports will be effective in preventing a surge in corporate bond default rate. From a global perspective, yield spreads on China’s onshore corporate bonds have been elevated since 2016. This indicates that investors have long either priced in a much higher default rate among Chinese corporate bond issuers, or demand an unjustifiably large risk premium (Chart 7). Since we expect Chinese policymakers to continue easing, risks of a surge in China’s corporate bond default rate remain low this year. As such, until we see signs that the Chinese authorities are reverting to a financial de-risking mode, we will continue to favor onshore corporate versus duration-matched government bonds. Chart 6Monetary Policy Now More Accommodative Than 2015-2016 Chart 7Chinese Corporates Pay High Risk Premium For Their Bonds, Even At A Relatively Low Default Rate Chart 8The RMB Likely To Continue Outperforming Other EM Currencies As we go to press, the Federal Reserve Bank has just made a 50bps cut to the Fed rate, the first emergency cut since the global financial crisis. The USD weakened against the Euro, the Japanese Yen, as well as the RMB immediately following the rate cut. While this reflects the market’s concerns of a worsening virus outbreak and the rising possibility of an economic slowdown in the US, the USD as a countercyclical currency will likely appreciate against most cyclical currencies as the virus continues spreading globally. Hence, the depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. The continuation of resuming production in China and the expectations of a Chinese economic recovery in Q2 will support an appreciation in the RMB against other EM currencies (Chart 8).   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    http://app.21jingji.com/html/2020yiqing_fgfc/ 2   Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4   M1 is mainly made up by cash demand deposits from corporations, whereas M0 is mainly deposits from households Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Neutral Market events last week compelled us to take profits of 51% in the S&P software index above and beyond the S&P 500’s return since the late-2017 inception and downgrade exposure to neutral. Last Monday we wrote that AAPL’s profit warning was the tip of the iceberg and an avalanche of warnings would ensue.1 MSFT followed suit and issued their own profit warning and this negative backdrop is not yet reflected in the sell side’s S&P software profit and revenue forecasts. Tack on the message from the contracting software sector deflator and odds are high that sales will underwhelm in the coming quarters (third panel). The latest GDP report also revealed that, up to recently bulletproof, software capex growth sunk to nil in Q4 (bottom panel). Not only in absolute, but also in relative terms software outlays have petered out and have been decreasing in intensity as measured by the decelerating contribution to GDP growth (second panel). Bottom Line: We took profits of 51% since inception in the S&P software index and downgraded to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ADBE, CRM, ORCL, INTU, NOW, ADSK, ANSS, SNPS, CDNS, FTNT, PAYC, CTXS, NLOK. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.   1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Vertigo" dated February 24, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Recently, we have been inundated with client requests to update our analysis and incorporate the coronavirus epidemic to our adverse EPS scenario. The chart below shows that in our worst case scenario, EPS will contract by 2.41% in calendar 2020. Assuming final 2019 EPS comes in at 162.95, using I/B/E/S’ latest estimate, then the 2020 EPS level falls to 159.02. Assigning a trough multiple of 16x results in a 2,544 SPX ending value as a worst case outcome. Importantly, our newly weighted expected 2020 EPS falls to 164.48 versus 169.40 previously as we penciled in a 60% and 50% probability that our worst case scenario materializes in EPS and multiple assumptions, respectively. As a result our expected end-2020 SPX value falls to 2,755 which makes the S&P 500 still 8% overvalued. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. For more details on our EPS model, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.