Technology
Highlights The tech sector is in a manic phase. This mania has further room to run because inflation will remain low for at least the next two years and global central banks will maintain very easy policy conditions, which will cap the upside in bond yields. Tech will have its day of reckoning when inflation can rise and the sector’s weight will drag down the market. Bubbles are prone to severe corrections; this one is no exception. In the near term, tech earnings will probably miss lofty embedded expectations. The falling dollar is a problem for the sector and the election season introduces great risks. In the near term, inflation breakeven rates, the silver-to-gold ratio and the deep cyclicals-to-defensives ratio will all rise further. Industrials have a window to outperform technology. Feature The S&P 500 continues its ascent, increasingly driven higher by surging tech stocks. The extreme resilience of a few tech titans has resulted in an incredibly concentrated equity market, in which the capitalization of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook equals that of 224 deep and early cyclical stocks in the S&P 500. Such a narrow market raises three questions: is the tech sector in a bubble? What will pop this bubble? If the tech bubble bursts, will the S&P 500 shrug it off or decline with giant technology firms? We believe that tech stocks are in a bubble and the mania will expand further as long as inflation remains low and monetary conditions stay accommodative, despite occasional pullbacks. Moreover, the broad market will suffer when the bubble eventually bursts. Each Decade Has Its Bubble BCA Research’s Emerging Market Strategy team recently demonstrated that each decade in the past 60 years has experienced its own financial excess (Chart I-1).1 Three forces fueled each of these manias: an extended phase of easy monetary policy; a narrative that drove funds towards fashionable assets; and an extended period of superior returns that accentuated the inevitability of participating in the bubble. Chart I-1Each Decade Has Its Bubble In the 1960s, the mania surrounded the so-called “Nifty 50” stocks, as exemplified by Disney. The Nifty 50 were large-cap companies with solid franchises and a proven track record of dividend growth. Meanwhile, the period of low inflation from 1960 to 1966 allowed the US Federal Reserve to keep the unemployment rate below NAIRU, which indicated that policy was accommodative. When inflation began to rise in 1966, the Fed lifted interest rates to 7.75% in 1973, and the bubble evaporated with the recession started that year. In the 1970s, the mania involved precious metals, such as gold and silver. Precious metals benefited from the 33% fall in the dollar, the surge in inflation from 2.9% in 1970 to 14.7% in 1980, and the Fed’s incapacity to get ahead of the inflation curve through most of the decade. Then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker burst this bubble when he boosted interest rates to 19% in 1981 to kill off inflation, which also started the 93% dollar rally that culminated in 1985. Tech stocks are in a bubble and the mania will expand further as long as inflation remains low and monetary conditions stay accommodative. In the 1980s, the mania centered on Japan. The Japanese economy experienced a miraculous post-war expansion, with real GDP per capita surging by a cumulative average growth rate of 7% between 1945 and 1980. By the mid-1980s, the prevailing belief was that Japanese firms would dominate every industry. Moreover, after the Ministry of Finance allowed the yen to surge following the September 1985 Plaza Accord, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) cut interest rates by 2.5%, creating very easy domestic monetary conditions. This lax policy setting unleashed a surge in credit and asset valuations that pushed up the Nikkei-225 five times by the end of the decade and resulted in an 860% increase in the value of Japanese banks. The BoJ lifted interest rates by 3.5 percentage points between 1987 and 1990. The market peaked in December 1989 and the Nikkei collapsed by 82% during the next 19 years. In the 1990s, tech stocks and the NASDAQ captured investors’ imagination. The internet, computing power and software, all drove an increase in productivity growth to a two-decade high and investors understood that the sector’s earnings prowess was only beginning. Moreover, as inflation fell through the 1990s, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan kept policy rates more or less flat for four years before cutting the fed funds rate by 75 basis points in 1998. Additionally, around the turn of the millennium, the Fed increased the size of its balance sheet by $90 billion as a precautionary measure against Y2K. Consequently, with the ensuing euphoria, investors pushed the NASDAQ’s valuation to a P/E ratio of 72, extrapolating far into the future much-too-strong earnings growth. The bubble imploded when the Fed normalized policy. We are not even thinking about thinking about raising rates. In the 2000s, the dominant story was the unstoppable upswing of the Chinese economy, the nation’s rapid urbanization and insatiable thirst for commodities. The lack of investment in commodity extraction through the 1990s exacerbated the rally in natural resources. The easy Fed policy implemented in the wake of the tech crash of 2000 to 2003, and the dollar’s 40% plunge between 2002 and 2008 added to the bullish mix in favor of resources. Commodity indices surged and iron ore, which derives a particularly large share of demand from construction in China, increased 12-fold between 2000 and 2011. The rise in the broad trade-weighted dollar that began in 2011 along with a slowdown in Chinese growth initiated in 2010 ultimately quashed commodities. Is The Tech Bubble About To End? Chart I-2The Drivers Of The Tech Bubble Historically, bubbles often abort at the end of the decade in which they materialize. Will the ongoing mania suffer the same fate as its predecessors? For now, the pillars of the tech bubble remain intact. The strength of tech stocks reflects both their superior ability to generate cash flow growth and the structural decline in bond yields (Chart I-2). It is easy to understand why superior cash flow growth would result in strong tech performance, but the role of lower yields is not obvious. Tech stocks derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred earnings and the terminal value of those cash flows. These distant profits are sensitive to fluctuations in the discount rate and, therefore, their present value soars when bond yields fall. The ability of tech to generate expanding earnings remains intact. Companies have curtailed capital expenditures due to the COVID-19 crisis, but they continue to spend on their software and hardware needs (Chart I-3). The growing prevalence of work-from-home arrangements and the proliferation of global cyberattacks (see Section II) will only feed the tech sector’s profit outperformance. Crucially, easy money and low interest rates will endure for an extended period. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated, “We are not even thinking about thinking about raising rates.” Our BCA Fed Monitor confirms this message (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Robust Tech Spending Chart I-4Easy Money As Far As The Eye Can See Chart I-5Inflation Is The Tech Slayer Ultimately, much will depend on inflation. As BCA Research’s Equity Sector Strategy service recently demonstrated, the tech sector abhors rising inflation.2 Even during the seemingly unstoppable technology surge in the 1990s, the sector’s outperformance ended following an increase in core CPI (Chart I-5). Tech’s business model is optimized for deflationary conditions, especially when compared with other cyclical industries. Moreover, rising inflation puts upward pressure on interest rates and ultimately requires greater real interest rates to control accelerating CPI increases. Climbing real interest rates disproportionally hurt growth stocks, due to their heightened sensitivity to discount rates. Inflation will stay low as long as the labor market remains far from full employment. The slow progress in employment indicators suggests that the unemployment rate will be above NAIRU for at least two to three years (Chart I-6). Moreover, our Global CPI diffusion Index is also consistent with extended muted inflation (Chart I-7, top panels). The slowdown in money velocity and the weakness in the demand (as approximated by the smoothed growth rate of retail sales relative to average weekly earnings) will only exacerbate low inflation in the coming year or two (Chart I-7, bottom panels). Chart I-6Far From Full Employment Chart I-7For Now, Disinflation Dominates In this context, valuations have room for more expansion. The NASDAQ may be pricey, but it is far from the 1990s’ nosebleed levels when nominal 10-year yields stood at 6.8% compared with today’s 0.55%, and 10-year TIPS yielded 4.3% and not their current -0.9%. In effect, both the equity risk premium and long-term expected growth rates embedded in tech stocks are much more conservative than in the late 1990s. The equity risk premium and long-term expected growth rates embedded in tech stocks are much more conservative than in the late 1990s. Finally, investors have largely missed the rally in stocks, which implies that a large proportion of the gains in tech stocks have not accrued to many investors. Since 2010, companies have been the main buyers of stocks while households and pension plans have constantly sold the asset class (Chart I-8). Additionally, investor sentiment remains firmly bearish and cash holdings of investors and households have surged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart I-9). Thus, there is a lot of pent-up demand for financial assets. TINA (‘there is no alternative’) will invite investors to pour funds into equities with 10-year yields stuck near 0.6% and short rates at zero. Tech stocks will benefit from this trend. Chart I-8Households And Pension Plans Have Divested Chart I-9Not A Generalized Euphoria... Practical Considerations For Investors Bubbles are highly dangerous for investors. A lack of participation in a mania often results in disastrous underperformance for institutional investors, but staying invested in the bubbly asset too long can be even more lethal for a portfolio’s performance. This dichotomy means that as long as there is low inflation and accommodative policy, we cannot underweight or overweight tech stocks. BCA Research’s equity strategists are neutral on tech, but within the sector they overweight the more defensive software and services components relative to the high-beta hardware and equipment industry groups.3 Three potential risks that can crystalize a period of correction in tech stocks over the remainder of 2020. Another risk inherent to bubbles is that they are often volatile; the current tech exuberance will not be different. In the second half of the 1990s, the NASDAQ experienced ten 10% or more corrections and tumbled by more than 20% in 1998 before leaping to new highs. Currently, we monitor three potential risks that can crystalize a period of correction in tech stocks over the remainder of 2020. Risk 1: Tech Earnings Do Not Meet The Hype Chart I-10...But A Localized Euphoria Today, tech stocks are vulnerable to a sharp pullback because investors are willing to bid up these shares in light of their perceived high growth rate (Chart I-10). This sector-specific euphoria increases the likelihood that if second-quarter tech earnings disappoint, then a significant correction will occur in widely held companies. The stock prices of Microsoft, Netflix and Snapchat have been punished following disappointing Q2 results. Retail investors indirectly amplify the risk created by potential earnings disappointments. Users of free trading apps (e.g.: Robinhood) are the marginal buyers, but more importantly their order flows are sold to large institutional houses who front-run these small players. Large investors with immense buying power can swing the price of the stocks popular with retail investors. Hence, when small investors unload due to bad news, a selling deluge ensues. Risk 2: A Weak Dollar Tech stocks thrive with a strong dollar because it is synonymous with low inflation and low yields. Consequently, a rising USD puts upward pressure on tech multiples. Moreover, a depreciating dollar is linked to robust global growth, which lifts the earnings prospects of other deep cyclical stocks more than tech equities, hurting the latter’s relative performance. The US election also creates a serious risk for tech stocks. The dollar is falling prey to a confluence of factors. The outlook for the US balance-of-payments is deteriorating sharply as the twin deficit explodes higher. Moreover, the national savings rate will remain in a downtrend after 2020 (Chart I-11). The US fiscal deficit will narrow from its current level of at least 18% of GDP, but it will not return for many years to the 4.6% of GDP that prevailed in 2019. The unemployment rate will stay above NAIRU for at least two to three years and the median voter increasingly favors economic populism. These two forces will generate high levels of spending. Meanwhile, a negative nominal output gap will weigh on tax revenues. Concerning private savings, the household savings rate will normalize from its April high of 33% of disposable income because consumer confidence will improve, thanks to strong consumer balance sheets and a limited decline in household net worth (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Vanishing US Savings Chart I-12Household Balance Sheets Are Alright Chart I-13Forget The Breakup Songs For Now A poor balance of payments would not be a hurdle for the dollar if US real interest rates were high and foreign investors had confidence in the US economy, but neither of these conditions exists. US real interest rates have fallen relative to the rest of the world and the economic impact of the second wave of COVID-19 infections in the US partly explains the strength in the euro. Moreover, the recently agreed EUR750 billion of common bond issuance by the EU will curtail the probability of a euro breakup, which will compress European risk premia (Chart I-13). This development is highly positive for the euro, which could quickly move toward the 1.20 to 1.25 zone. The global economic recovery amplifies the negative impulse for the dollar. We have often argued that the USD is a countercyclical currency (Chart I-14).4 Hence, the recent uptick in Chinese stimulus and the positive outlook for the global industrial cycle bodes poorly for the US dollar. Moreover, a weak dollar can unleash a feedback loop that supercharges global growth. According to the Bank for International Settlements, foreign issuers have emitted $12-$14 trillion of USD-denominated liabilities. A weak dollar would diminish the cost of servicing this debt and ease global financial conditions, which would boost the world’s economic outlook. The brightening outlook would further feed the dollar’s weakness and underpin its momentum behavior (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Shifting international flows create the last major headwind for the US dollar. Fund repatriation by US economic agents has been a critical driver of the dollar since 2014. The USD rallied in tandem with a surge of repatriation in the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, despite the lack of appetite for US assets by foreigners (Chart I-15). Now that the effect of the tax cuts has passed, repatriations are dwindling from their 2019 peak. Meanwhile, foreign investors’ appetite for dollar assets is not returning, especially as flows into US Treasurys are collapsing (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Chart I-14The Dollar Feedback Loop Chart I-15Flows Are Turning Against The Greenback The dollar’s recent rally runs the risk of a short-term pause. Our USD Capitulation Index is at a level consistent with a short-term rebound (Chart I-16). Nonetheless, the list of dollar-bearish factors noted above suggests that any rebound in the dollar would be temporary. Risk 3: The Election Run-Up The US election also creates a serious risk for tech stocks. President Trump’s approval rating remains in tatters despite the vigorous rebound in equities since March 23 (Chart I-17). His support at this stage of the presidential cycle clearly lags that of previous presidents who were re-elected (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Consequently, our Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a subjective probability of 35% that he will remain in the White House next January.5 This creates two problems for investors. When cornered, President Trump often lashes out at foreign economies, which leads to geopolitical tensions. The heated rhetoric toward China will likely worsen in the coming three months, which raises the prospect of another leg in the US-Sino trade war, with negative effects for tech firms that extract 58% of their revenues from abroad. Furthermore, if former Vice-President Joe Biden clinches the presidency, then the Senate will turn Democrat. The Democrats will likely reverse Trump’s corporate tax cuts, which would hurt all stocks and prompt some liquidation in tech holdings. Chart I-16A Temporary Dollar Bounce Is Likely Chart I-17President Trump"s Disapproval Rating Is A Danger The tech industry remains an attractive target for populist ire because of its wide profit margins and elevated concentration and market power. During the run-up to November 3rd, investors will be reminded that politicians on both sides of the aisle want to regulate tech. Investors will need to raise the equity risk premium for the sector as these voices get louder. Implications For The Broad Market The strength of the tech sector will be tested in the coming two quarters. Any short-term interruption to the mania prompted by the three aforementioned risks will cause a correction in the S&P 500 because the tech sector (including Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix) represents 40% of the index’s market capitalization (Chart I-18). As our equity strategist recently highlighted, without its five largest components (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook), the S&P 500 would have increased by only 23% in the past five years instead of its current 54% return. To add color to those numbers, these five tech titans have added $4.8 trillion to the S&P 500 market capitalization versus $3.8 trillion added by the next 495 companies.6 Any short-term interruption to the mania will cause a correction in the S&P 500. Despite this risk, we continue to anticipate that the S&P 500 will find a floor between 2800 and 2900.7 Some crucial factors underpin equities. Global monetary policy remains extraordinarily accommodative, China is stimulating aggressively, Washington will not let a large fiscal cliff destroy the recovery ahead of a presidential election, and the weaker dollar has a reflationary impact on global economic activity. Additionally, we still expect the second wave of COVID-19 to be less deadly than the first and result in much more limited lockdowns compared with March and April. BCA’s neutral stance on tech remains appropriate even after the short-term dynamics discussed above are factored in. The absence of inflationary pressures in the next two years or so and the position of global central banks that they will maintain loose monetary conditions until inflation has overshot a 2% target indicate that conditions persist for an expanding tech mania. Moreover, the dollar’s weakness is unlikely to last more than 12 to 18 months. The US still possesses a higher trend growth rate than the rest of the G-10 and sports a higher neutral rate of interest (Chart I-19). Additionally, China will ultimately rein in its ongoing credit expansion, which will hurt the global industrial cycle. Hence, the deterioration of interest rate differentials between the US and the rest of the world is temporary. Chart I-18The 1% Vs The 99% Chart I-19The US Still Has Stronger Trend Growth The Return Of The Inflation Trade Chart I-20Will Yields Move Up? To navigate what will remain a trendless but volatile market until the presidential election, we still favor trades levered to the global economic recovery. Inflation breakeven rates can climb further. The inflation trade is back in fashion, with an increase in gold and commodity prices. The weakness in the dollar and the fall in real interest rates are both reflationary, and they will accelerate the uptick in inflation expectations, especially because global central banks have promised to stay behind the inflation curve as the economy recovers. Mounting inflation expectations will also create some near-term upside risks for nominal bond yields. Since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), an average of the ISM manufacturing survey and its prices paid component have provided useful early signals for yields. This indicator has turned sharply higher (Chart I-20). Moreover, commercial banks are quickly accumulating securities on their balance sheets, which is creating a lot of liquidity. Banks have been able to increase their book value despite generous loan-loss provisions, therefore, they will be able to transform this liquidity into loans when the economic outlook clears enough to ease credit standards. Bond yields will sniff out this situation ahead of time. Central banks want to maintain loose monetary conditions, but there is a limit to how much additional easing they will tolerate as the economy recovers and fiscal support remains generous. Hence, while inflation breakeven rates can move up, the decline in real yields has reached an advanced stage. In this context, if central banks do not provide further accommodation and inflation expectations go up, then real interest rates will cease to decline and nominal rates will start to drift higher. Silver will continue to outperform gold. While we have been positive on gold and gold stocks since June 2019,8 more recently we have strongly favored silver. Industrial uses constitute a larger share of the demand for silver than that of gold. As a result, the silver-to-gold ratio is highly pro-cyclical. While gold is vulnerable to an increased improvement in economic sentiment (Chart I-21), silver will continue to shine in an environment where inflation expectations increase further and economic activity is recovering. We continue to like global deep cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. We continue to like global deep cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. The pickup in China’s economic activity, as captured by our China Economic Diffusion Index, remains consistent with upside to this trade (Chart I-22). Domestic growth will accelerate further in the second half of 2020 because China’s credit flows continue to increase as a share of GDP, especially when companies have yet to spend the funds borrowed in the second quarter. Additionally, infrastructure spending will continue to expand as local governments have only issued 50% of their annual quota of special bonds (Chart I-22, bottom panel). Chart I-21A Risk For Gold Chart I-22China Is On The Go An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities is also consistent with higher inflation expectations, a rising silver-to-gold ratio and a weaker US dollar (Chart I-23). The near-term outlook also supports buying industrial equities relative to tech stocks. While we have been positive on both materials and industrials, the former has lagged tech. However, our BCA Technical Indicator for US industrial stocks is massively oversold relative to the tech sector (Chart I-24). In light of a declining dollar, rising inflation breakeven rates, strengthening commodity prices and accelerating Chinese credit flows, the probability that industrials outperform tech for three to six months is rapidly escalating. Chart I-23The Inflation Trades Chart I-24Long Industrials / Short Tech Our relative profits indicator between the industrial and tech sectors is rebounding from depressed readings. The global economic recovery will lift industrials’ revenues more than it will help the tech sector’s income because it will allow weak industrial production levels to improve relative to stable IT spending. Moreover, the industrial wage bill is well contained compared with the tech wage bill. The probability that industrials outperform tech for three to six months is rapidly escalating. Finally, our valuation indicator also favors industrials. Relative to tech stocks, industrial equities are trading at their largest discount since the aftermath of the GFC, suggesting that there is little downside left in this price ratio, at least as long as the dollar is correcting. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 30, 2020 Next Report: August 27, 2020 II. Russia And Cyber Security After COVID-19 Dear Clients, This month we offer you a Special Report on Russia and cyber security by our colleague and friend, Elmo Wright. Elmo recently retired from US Army civil service after 43 years working in intelligence, either on active duty, reserves, or as a civilian. From 2018 to 2020, he served as the senior civilian executive at the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center. He has served on five continents and provided analysis of the most pressing global trends in national security and intelligence. In this Special Report with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team, Elmo analyzes Russia’s cyber capabilities and argues that structural and cyclical factors, including COVID-19, will ensure the continued salience of Russian and global cyber security challenges in the coming years. His thesis reinforces our recommendation that investors buy cyber security equities. Elmo’s work for this report is in his personal capacity and does not represent any position of the US government. Only publicly available information was used as background research material for Elmo’s contribution to the report. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst As the US elections come closer, there will be a return to news about Russia and its potential interference via social media. Russia will continue to use cyber, both state sponsored attacks, and in coordination with criminal groups, to advance Russian national security objectives. In contrast to nuclear doctrine, there is no commonly accepted framework for cyber warfare between Russia and other nations that provides understandable signals for escalation, de-escalation, appropriate targets, or goals. US efforts to conduct military operations against Russia or China would likely be countered by Russian or Chinese cyber operations before any physical military operations could be initiated. Cyber security stocks offer a way for investors to capitalize on our long-term themes of nationalism, multipolarity, and de-globalization. The ISE Cyber Security Index offers value relative to the broad NASDAQ and S&P 500 indexes as well as the S&P tech sector. Chart II-1Russian Cyber Interference Resurfaces Around US Elections As the national elections in the US come closer, there will be a return to news about Russia and its potential interference via social media. Indeed Russia is making headlines even as we go to press. This report aims to provide context for Russian cyber capabilities in general as a contributor to overall geopolitical instability (Chart II-1). We forecast Russia will continue to use cyber, both state sponsored attacks, and in coordination with criminal groups, to advance Russian national security objectives. As background, the word cyber is commonly accepted to be derived from cybernetics, a phrase attributed to Norbert Wiener, an MIT scientist. The phrase itself is related to the ancient Greek word for steering or helmsman, in other words, control. Chart II-2Russian Excellence In Math Makes It Competitive In Cybernetics Russia has a long history of excellence in science, especially theoretical work in mathematics and physics (Chart II-2). Those fields can explain natural phenomena in formulas and mathematical relationships. The Soviets believed that centralized state planning that manipulated data in formulas could lead to better outcomes in all aspects of the society. Although central state economic planning did not work out for the Soviet economy, Soviet military science built on the concept of data relationships in formulas to develop its theory of troop control, a derivative of reflexive control, that is, the presenting of data to the recipient, either friendly or enemy, in order to get that recipient to act in a way favorable to Soviet military plans. One can see the Soviets embraced the idea of cybernetics as very congruent to their desire for top down control. Russia, as the core part of the Soviet Union, retained significant numbers of scientists and mathematicians who were naturally drawn to the ability of computers to take data and manipulate that data according to formulas. Other Russian scientists and mathematicians emigrated to the West where their expertise was rewarded in the rise in the use of computers to manipulate data. Over time, the term cyber has come to be associated with many aspects of computers, especially the intellectual and physical structures hidden behind the direct interface of a person with a keyboard and screen. Russian expertise in the use of computers to do cyber work was not limited to working for the State. As the Soviet Union broke apart and many people lost their jobs working for the State, there were those persons who took their talents to criminal ventures. And in the symbiotic nature of society in Russia, many of those who went into criminal ventures were former intelligence and security personnel who could maintain their connection to the official organizations that were successors to the KGB, the GRU, and others. Russia is the source of the most sophisticated cyber threats to the US. Senior Russian military officials, such as General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation armed forces, equivalent to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have noted the growth of nonmilitary means of achieving strategic goals, and specifically in the information space. Gerasimov, in an article in 2013, has been widely quoted that all elements of national power have to be harnessed, including cyber capabilities. One Soviet and Russian military concept that relates to the information space is maskirovka, the use of camouflage, deception, and disinformation to confuse the enemy. Maskirovka is intimately connected with the Soviet/Russian concept of “active measures”. Active measures include actions taken generally by intelligence services to provide propaganda, false information, and otherwise sow discord and confusion among the enemy ranks at all levels of war as well as in the political, economic, and social spheres. In today’s time period, cyber, especially social media, offers the opportunity for the wide spread of aspects of maskirovka and active measures to all users, as well as targeted groups (Chart II-3). Reporting indicates a continued Russian emphasis on cyber as a means for active measures concealed by maskirovka. Chart II-3Social Media Offers Russia An Opportunity For The Spread Of Maskirovka Wikileaks has provided a platform for the dissemination of information normally hidden from the general public. It is noteworthy how much of the information on the Wikileaks platform relates to the US and the West, and relatively little on Russia. Possible factors that explain that characteristic include the disparity in penalties for disclosing information between the US and the West versus Russia; the greater number of journalists and other persons involved in the media, both for profit and personal reasons, in the West; and the language barriers involved in understanding Russian versus English. A final possible factor in Wikileaks greater dissemination of Western information might be an aspect of active measures undertaken by Russia. There are numerous actions attributed to Russian state actors in the cyber field in the recent past (Table II-1). They include a distributed denial of service attack on Estonia (2007); hacking the Ministry of Defense in the country of Georgia during a military conflict (2008); attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure (2015); and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (2016). Chancellor Angela Merkel recently publicly named and shamed Russia for a cyber-attack on Germany circa 2015 (Appendix). Table II-1Russian State Actors Responsible For Many Of This Year’s Cyber Attacks Chart II-4Russian Use Of Cyber Is A Top Threat To The US Senior US officials have cited Russia as the source of the most sophisticated cyber threats to the US, both for espionage and state sponsored attacks against US national security capabilities such as energy, transportation, and telecommunications infrastructure; as well as for criminal activity such as ransom ware and identity theft. Russian use of cyber, both state sponsored and sponsoring criminal actors, has been the top threat to the US in each of the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessments for 2017, 2018, and 2019 (Chart II-4). Although the 2020 annual threat assessment was not made public in Congressional testimony, there’s little reason to suspect that Russian use of cyber would not continue to be cited as the top threat. Other nation states have state sponsored cyber capabilities which are of national security concern to the US, including China, Iran, and North Korea. These nation states are called out in the US intelligence community Annual Threat Assessments. Each of these nation states has been identified as committing intelligence and economic cyber attacks against the US and other Western nations. The recent speech by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation designates China as the top threat. Given the nature of the internet, the pathway of a cyber attack will likely bounce around multiple countries before reaching its intended target. As the Director notes, forensic identification of the source of a cyber attack takes time and expertise. However, there is a clear record of specifically identifying the state sponsored entity that commits attacks on US or Western government information technology and infrastructure. More likely than confusing one state sponsored cyber actor from one country to another would be the potential blending of criminal elements across national boundaries. In this case, cyber criminal elements with Russian backgrounds or connections are clearly the most capable. Cyber-crime is rising despite deterrence. The stages of cyber conflict include reconnaissance, penetration, mapping, exfiltration, and operations. The US National Security Agency has an extensive technical cyber threat framework which goes into much detail. Cyber security professionals note the ongoing actions in cyber space and the attempts by elements suspected to be linked to Russia to gain and maintain access to US networks for potential military operations, or to exfiltrate data for criminal or other purposes. Part of the frustration of cyber security experts is the lack of transparency and timely reporting of those affected by malign cyber activities. Although some cyber activities may go on for multiple months, the exfiltration of data, or the emplacement of malware may only take a few seconds. Many networks lack the ability to detect penetration and mapping. Companies with large resources devoted to cyber security may have that investment negated if they have affiliations with other companies with lax cyber security which can allow for hostile intrusions into the connected network. Chart II-5Unlike Nuclear Doctrine, Cyber Lacks A Framework To Control Escalation Unfortunately, public and open attribution for cyber attacks has lagged. As an example, although the attack on the Democratic National Committee email servers was noted in 2016, it was not until 2018 that specific Russian individuals were charged with the crime. Factors that cause lags in public and open attribution include the difficulty of tracing specific computer code through cyberspace; the disjointed nature of the internet; the lack of an easy and accepted mechanism for involvement of US intelligence agencies in providing assistance to private sector parties; and the reticence of individuals and organizations negatively affected by cyber attacks to publicly disclose their injuries. Doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons developed over a period of years in the US and the West and in the Soviet bloc. The Soviets developed a coherent doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that was understandable to the West. Arms control agreements between nuclear powers established mechanisms for controlling escalation of tensions (Chart II-5). The Soviet doctrine was adopted by the Russians after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia and Western nations continue to have a common understanding of the role of nuclear weapons in military affairs that allows for discussion of escalation and de-escalation. In contrast to nuclear doctrine, there is no commonly accepted framework for cyber warfare between Russia and other nations that provides understandable signals for escalation, de-escalation, appropriate targets, or goals. This is reflected in the Russian information security doctrine of 2016 which notes “The absence of international legal norms regulating inter-State relations in the information space…” The US Director of National Intelligence also noted this lack of agreement in his annual threat assessment testimony of 2017. Chart II-6Rapid Growth Of Internet Raises Vulnerability To Harmful Actions The rapid growth of the internet, and reliance on it by government and private sectors reflects its founding as an open system, vulnerable to negative actors and actions (Chart II-6). The intermingling of hardware and software, the information infrastructure used both by individuals and states, by the private sector and by government, makes separating doctrine and practice for cyberwar from legitimate use very difficult. Since non-cyber military capabilities, both conventional, and nuclear, rely upon the use of commercial information technology infrastructure, the use of offensive cyber is subject to the problem of blowback. As the NotPetya incident of 2018 indicated, damage from malware installed on one computer can rapidly spread across networks, industries, and international boundaries. The code for StuxNet and the code released by the more recent hack of CIA cyber tools have been noted in other cases of cyber attacks. The view of the international cyber environment by Russia is very similar to views in the US and the West. The Russian national security doctrine of 2015 notes “... An entire spectrum of political, financial-economic, and informational instruments have been set in motion in the struggle for influence in the international arena. Increasingly active use is being made of special services' potential … The intensifying confrontation in the global information arena caused by some countries' aspiration to utilize informational and communication technologies to achieve their geopolitical objectives, including by manipulating public awareness and falsifying history, is exerting an increasing influence on the nature of the international situation.” Although much of the Russian information security doctrine of 2016 is concerned with noting threats to Russia’s information space, what might be called counterintelligence in other documents, there are key comments that note the suitability of using attacks in the information space as an effective means of projecting Russian power, such as “… improving information support activities to implement the State policy of the Russian Federation …” As per usual Soviet and Russian state doctrinal documents, the 2016 doctrine notes all the negative activity of other actors in this field. This practice is consistent with historical Soviet and Russian open press documents which ascribe to other states the activities in which Russia engages or plans to engage. Chart II-7Cyber Attacks Are On The Rise Unlike other forms of national security alliances, such as for intelligence, there is little public literature on cyber alliances, especially for offensive action. For example, the US and Israel have never publicly acknowledged a government alliance to emplace the StuxNet virus into the Iranian nuclear development program. Should there be offensive cyber alliances in the West, it is likely they fall along traditional intelligence and defense lines. There is no public reporting on any sort of offensive cyber alliances that involve Russia. There are public efforts at common standards for information technology security, but these efforts are foundering on citizen and government concerns over privacy, as well as commercial proprietary advantage. It is an open question as to whether cyber alliances among friendly nations would deter would-be cyber attackers or hackers. Certainly the growth of complaints to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center would indicate that statements of deterrence and even prosecutions are failing to reduce cyber attacks (Chart II-7). Both the US national intelligence community and private sector cybersecurity companies agree Russia has a sophisticated state sponsored effort to acquire intelligence via hacking and insert favorable themes into cyberspace via the use of social media. There is also agreement that Russia state elements have a close relationship with criminal elements which can provide a plausibly deniable means of engaging in cyber warfare activities favorable to Russia, as well as engaging in activities for illegal economic advantage. For example, see this quote from the CYBEREASON Intel team: “The crossing of official state sponsored hacking with cybercriminal outfits has created a specter of Russian state hacking that is far larger than their actual program. This hybridization of tools, actors, and missions has created one of the most potent and ill-defined advanced threats that the cybersecurity community faces. It has also created the most technically advanced and bold cybercriminal community in the world. When, as a criminal, your patronage is the internal security service that is charged with tracking and arresting cybercrime, your only concern becomes staying within their defined bounds of acceptable risk and not what global norms, laws, or even domestic Russian law states.” The US Department of Justice in June 2020 noted a Russian national was sentenced to prison for malicious cyber activities. Key points of his illegal activity were the operation of websites open only to Russian speakers, and the vetting or recommendation of other criminals before allowing entry to the websites. One analysis of this situation notes the ties to Russian state security organs and personnel which likely held up the Russian national’s extradition for trial in the US. Government leaders in the US have noted the potential for major cyber attacks in the US affecting physical infrastructure and causing significant economic and social damage, including further attacks on the political election process. However, they have been reticent to state any explicit sort of retaliation. The US Cyber Command notes it is actively combatting hostile cyber actors. Therefore, the question remains open as to what level of cyber attacks would be considered serious enough to be treated as an act of war by the US. There has been public speculation of both Russian and Chinese implants of malware into the US information technology infrastructure that might be activated in the case of open hostilities. US efforts to conduct military operations against Russia or China would likely be countered by Russian or Chinese cyber operations before any physical military operations could be initiated, especially since US based forces would have to transit oceans, taking many days, when cyber operations could happen in seconds. China, Russia, and Iran will also increasingly become victims of cyber attacks. Russian “gray zone” tactics, that is, actions short of large scale conventional war, many of which involve cyber attacks, active measures, and maskirovka, are the subject of much Department of Defense planning and action. To combat such gray zone activity analysis from the RAND Corporation notes the need for a spectrum of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic actions, which would involve commercial partners and allied nations. The difficulty of coordinating such counter action is one reason the Russians continue their gray zone efforts. Russia’s unique characteristics, some of which are weaknesses compared to the US and the West, are indicative of why Russia engages in state sponsored as well as criminal cyber activities (Chart II-8). Russian scientific history, the intertwining of state and criminal elements, and continent-spanning location are factors which promote the use of cyber. Russia’s economic position vis-à-vis the US, Russia’s relative lack of military power projection capability beyond the states on its borders (the Near Abroad), except for its nuclear forces, and Russia’s declining demographic situation are negative factors which push Russia to use cyber as a cost effective means of advancing national security and economic policy (Chart II-9). Despite US and Western imposed sanctions on Russia for past misdeeds, none of the factors noted above will be changed in the near future. Therefore, those factors, and published Russian doctrine should indicate to Western governments and businesses that Russia will continue to use cyber as a means to advance Russian national security objectives, as well as a means to siphoning off wealth from the West via criminal activities. Chart II-8Russia's Relative Weakness Drives Engagement In Cyber Activities Chart II-9Deteriorating Demographics Also Drive Russia’s Cyber Activities US preparedness for Russian cyber activity in the upcoming months should be greater given several factors. First, there is clearly awareness of a Russian cyber threat to US interests across government and in the private sector. Second, the US has established new organizations, shifted resources of money and people, and had practice defending against cyber attacks since the 2016 US election cycle. However, the US information technology infrastructure is vast and porous, making it hard to protect against every threat. Russian cyber actors, both state sponsored and criminal, are smart and persistent. Investment Takeaways Cyber security companies offer a way for investors to capitalize on major themes arising from the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath. These themes include not only changes in worker behavior, e-commerce, corporate culture, and network security, but also our major geopolitical themes like nationalism and the retreat from globalization. Reports as we go to press that Russian hackers have targeted vaccine developers in the US, UK, and Canada underscore the point. The trend is not limited to Russia or COVID-19 vaccines. It is all too apparent from the actions of Russia and China – as well as the increasing efforts by the US and its allies to patrol their own cyber realms, IT systems, and ideological discourse – that governments view the Internet as a frontier to be conquered and fortified rather than as a free space of human exchange in which globalization can operate unfettered (Map II-1). Map II-1Governments View The Internet As A Frontier To Be Conquered Formal measures of country risk are inadequate but provide some perspective as to which countries and companies are least prepared. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations body charged with monitoring information technology and communications. It ranks countries according to their commitment to cyber security and their exposure to cyber security risks (Chart II-10). Chart II-10Countries Have An Imperative To Strengthen Cyber Security We take these rankings with a grain of salt knowing that advanced countries like the US and UK rank near the top of the list, and yet are the prime targets of hackers and thus face enormous cyber security risks. What is clear is that no country is safe and every country has an economic and national security imperative to strengthen its cyber security. These indexes also suggest that several European countries are less well prepared than one would think and that emerging markets are grossly underprepared. China, Russia and Iran should not be thought of only as aggressors – they will increasingly become targets as the West seeks to counteract them. As Russia expands operations it becomes a target of cyber counter-strikes as well as economic sanctions. And as China accelerates its drive to become a high tech giant, it encourages economic decoupling from the West and retaliation for its use of cyber-theft and state-based hacking. There are two main cyber security equity indexes – the NASDAQ CTA Cybersecurity Index (NQCYBR) and NASDAQ ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR). These indexes trade in line with each other and have rallied extensively since the COVID-19 crisis (Chart II-11). Investors are aware that the surge in working from home and companies conducting operations off-site, as well as geopolitical great power struggle, have created extensive new vulnerabilities and capex requirements. On April 24, we recommended that investors go long the ISE index relative to the S&P 500 information technology sector. We are also going long the ISE index relative to the NASDAQ on a strategic horizon. Tech has been the prime beneficiary of the COVID-19 crisis while the necessary corollary of the tech companies’ continued success is the need for security of their information, property, and customers (Chart II-12). We also favor the ISE index because it has a slightly heavier cyclical component due to the fact that 13% of its companies are in the industrial sector, compared to 10% for the CTA index. The industrial side should benefit more as economies reopen and recover. Chart II-11Cyber Security Stocks Have Benefited From COVID-19 ... Chart II-12... But Not So Much Relative To Broad Tech Sector These indexes are tracked by two ETFs. The First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) tracks the NASDAQ CTA index with an emphasis on larger companies, while the ETFMG Prime Cyber Security ETF (HACK) tracks the ISE index, companies with market capitalization lower than $250 million, and a slightly lower exposure to the communications sector as opposed to IT and software. The HACK ETF has lagged the CIBR this year so far and offers an opportunity for investors to invest in data protection and up-and-coming firms. Over the past ten years cyber security has proven to be a volatile investment space with rapidly increasing competition for market share. But the secular tailwinds are powerful and a diversified exposure to the sector will be rewarding for investors positioning for the post-COVID-19 world. Elmo Wright Consulting Editor Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Table II-1Major Cyber-Attacks Over The Past Decade Works Cited Coats, Dan. “Statement For The Record Worldwide Threat Assessment Of The Us Intelligence Community,” May 23, 2017. Coats, Dan. “Statement For The Record Worldwide Threat Assessment Of The Us Intelligence Community,” March 6, 2018. Coats, Dan. “Annual Threat Assessment Opening Statement,” January 29, 2019. CyberReason Intel Team, “Russia And Nation-State Hacking Tactics: A Report From Cybereason Intelligence Group,” cybereason.com, June 5, 2017. Department of Justice, “Russian National Sentenced To Prison For Operating Websites Devoted To Fraud And Malicious Cyber Activities”, June 26, 2020. Department of Justice, “U.S. Charges Russian FSB Officers And Their Criminal Conspirators For Hacking Yahoo And Millions Of Email Accounts, Fsb Officers Protected, Directed, Facilitated And Paid Criminal Hackers”, March 15, 2017. Gerasimov, Vasily. “The Value Of Science In Prediction,” Military Industrial Courier, Feb 27, 2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Internet Crime Complaint Center Marks 20 Years From Early Frauds to Sophisticated Schemes, IC3 Has Tracked the Evolution of Online Crime,” May 8, 2020. Fedorov, Yuriy Ye. “Arms Control In The Information Age” Symposium “Emerging Challenges In The Information Age,” 23 January 2002, Arlington, Virginia. Galeotti, Mark. “The ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ And Russian Non-Linear War,” In Moscow’s Shadows, July 6, 2014. Greenberg, Andy. “The Untold Story Of Notpetya, The Most Devastating Cyberattack In History,” Wired Magazine, August 22, 2018. Krebs, Brian. “Why Were the Russians So Set Against This Hacker Being Extradited?,” Krebs on Security, Nov 18, 2019. Lusthaus, Jonathan. “Cybercrime in Southeast Asia Combating a global threat locally,” May 20, 2020. Mattis, James. Department of Defense, “Summary Of The 2018 National Defense Strategy Of The United States Of America”. Meakins, Joss. “Living in (Digital) Denial: Russia’s Approach To Cyber Deterrence,” Russia Matters, July 2018. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. “Doctrine Of Information Security Of The Russian Federation,” Dec 5, 2016. Nakasone, Paul. “Cybercom Commander Briefs Reporters At White House,” Department of Defense video briefing, Aug 2, 2018. National Security Agency, “NSA/CSS Technical Cyber Threat Framework V2”, a report from: Cybersecurity Operations The Cybersecurity Products And Sharing Division, 29 November 2018. Pettijohn and Wasser. “Competing In The Gray Zone,” RAND Corporation, 2019. Putin, Vladimir. “Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation,” Office of the President of the Russian Federation, Dec 31, 2015. Russian National Security Strategy 31 Dec 2015, Russia Matters. Snegovaya, Maria. “Putin’s Information Warfare In Ukraine: Soviet Origins Of Russia's Hybrid Warfare,” Institute for the Study of War, Sep 22, 2015. Tsygichko, V. N. “About Categories of “Correlation Of Forces” for Potential Military Conflicts in the New Era,” Symposium “Emerging Challenges In The Information Age,” 23 January 2002, Arlington, Virginia. Wiener, Norbert, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, (1948). III. Indicators And Reference Charts We continue to favor stocks at the expense of bonds, but the risk of a tech-led correction has only grown. Moreover, the number of new COVID-19 cases in the US remains elevated and similarly disturbing trends are beginning to take shape in Europe. The recovery could hit a temporary pothole. Finally, as the November election approaches, political and geopolitical risks will come back on investors’ radar screens. Nonetheless, global monetary conditions remain highly accommodative and the risk of inflation in the short-term is minimal. Also, fiscal policy is extremely loose, and despite some procrastination, Congress will pass another large package by August 10, which will protect the economy against a violent relapse. Hence, the worst outcome over the coming three to five months is for the S&P 500 to retest of the 2800-2900 zone. On a cyclical basis, the same indicators that made us willing buyers of stocks since late March remain broadly in place. Stocks are expensive, but monetary conditions are extremely accommodative. Our Speculation Indicator continues to send a benign signal, which indicates that from a cyclical perspective, the market is not especially vulnerable. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a strong buy signal. Tactical indicators suggest that equities must digest the gains made since March 23. Both our Tactical Strength Indicator and the share of NYSE stocks trading above their 10-week moving average are elevated. Additionally, positioning in the derivatives market indicates some degree of vulnerability. Nonetheless, these risks must be put into perspective. Our Composite Sentiment Indicator is not flagging a top in the market and the AAII survey shows a predominance of bears over bulls. As a result, any correction should be limited to 10%. According to our Bond Valuation Index, Treasurys remain extremely expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator continues to lose momentum. Guided by the FOMC’s communications, the market has decided that the recovery will lift inflation but that the Fed will stand pat. Consequently, yields are not moving up, but real rates are declining as inflation expectations inch higher. This trend is likely to be at a late stage, and the passage of additional fiscal support as well as a weak dollar will put a floor under real yields. In this context, Treasury yields should begin to rise in the closing months of 2020. The dollar breakdown has now fully taken shape. The greenback is expensive and its counter-cyclicality is a major handicap during a global economic recovery. Additionally, the US twin deficits are increasingly problematic. Fiscal deficits remain exceptionally wide and the household savings rate will not remain as elevated as it is today. The current account deficit is therefore bound to widen. The continued low level of real interest rates will complicate financing this deficit and to equilibrate the funding of US liabilities, the dollar will depreciate. Technically, our Composite Technical Indicator for the dollar has also broken down, which warns that a period of cyclical weakness has begun for the greenback. Nonetheless, our Dollar Capitulation Index is now in oversold territory, and a countertrend bounce is very likely in the coming weeks. Commodities are gaining traction. The Advance / Decline line for the Continuous Commodity Index has broken out to the upside, which suggests that the CCI could punch above its pre-COVID levels by yearend. A weak dollar, low real yields and a global industrial recovery are highly positive for natural resource prices. Within that asset class, gold has made new all-time highs. Gold is especially sensitive to lower real rates and a weak dollar. Sentiment and positioning for the yellow metal are stretched. Any rebound in economic sentiment could push real rates higher, which would cause gold to correct meaningfully in the near future, even if it remains in a cyclical uptrend. A dollar rebound is another tactical risk for gold. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks," dated July 16, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “US Dollar Bear Market: What To Buy & What To Sell," dated June 22, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report “January 2020," dated December 20, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "What Is The Risk Of A Contested US Election?," dated July 27, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Insight Report "S&P 5 Versus S&P 495," dated July 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "July 2020," dated June 25, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com
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
Bob Farrell famously remarked “Markets are strongest when they are broad and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue-chip names.” This could not be truer than today’s market, especially the NASDAQ. Not only are the top five SPX stocks comprising roughly 23% of the index, but the same five tech titans carry a 40% weight in the NASDAQ composite. This seems excessive and carries a lot of risk in case of even a mild disappointment. True, the collapse in interest rates has boosted the NASDAQ forward P/E to the stratosphere, but the longer these high flying stocks defy gravity the more painful the eventual snap will be (bottom panel). Already there are tentative signs of trouble brewing beneath the surface. NASDAQ breadth is sinking like a stone and this has proven a reliable leading indicator in the recent past, warning that a pullback is looming (top panel). Finally, the hypersensitive chip stocks are suffering from exhaustion, unable to outperform the tech titan led NASDAQ (middle panel). Any hiccups in the tech space will negatively reverberate in the SPX: currently the S&P tech sector plus the FANG (FB, AMZN, NFLX & GOOGL) comprise 40% of the S&P 500. Thus as tech goes so does the SPX. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the near-term prospects of the S&P 500 until the election uncertainty lifts in November.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the current pageant suggests the most attractive country in the world is Israel. The basis is valuation and the structural change we are witnessing in global economies. With the advent of COVID-19, “platform”…
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
China became the world’s number one source of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent applications last year. China is the world’s innovation leader in such areas as digital communications, computer technology, audio-visual technology and telecommunications.
Highlights Treasuries: Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon, but continue to hold tactical overlay positions that will profit from modestly higher bond yields: Overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold duration-neutral nominal curve steepeners, hold real yield curve steepeners. IG Tech: Given our positive outlook for investment grade corporate bond spreads, the Technology sector’s high credit rating and defensive characteristics make it decidedly un-compelling. However, Tech spreads are attractive compared to other A-rated corporate bonds. HY Tech: We want to focus our high-yield allocation on defensive sectors where a large proportion of issuers are able to benefit from Fed support. The high-yield Technology sector checks both of those boxes and offers attractive risk-adjusted compensation to boot. Feature Chart 1Three Treasury Trades As we have previously written, bond yields should move modestly higher over the course of the summer as the US economy re-opens.1 However, there are enough potential medium-term pitfalls related to US politics and COVID transmission that we aren’t yet comfortable with below-benchmark portfolio duration. Instead, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon, but add three tactical overlay positions that will profit from higher bond yields: Overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries Duration-neutral nominal Treasury curve steepeners Real yield curve steepeners All three of these positions have performed well during the past couple of months (Chart 1), and in the first section of this report we assess whether they have further to run. The remaining two sections of this week’s report consider the outlooks for investment grade and high-yield Technology bonds, respectively. Three Trades To Profit From Higher Yields 1) Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 2Adaptive Expectations Model TIPS breakeven inflation rates have moved up considerably since mid-March. Back then, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate troughed at 0.50%. It currently sits at 1.31%. Despite the large move, TIPS breakeven inflation rates still have a considerable amount of upside. One way to assess how much is through the lens of our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 2).2 This model considers several different measures of inflation expectations (based on realized CPI inflation and surveys) and uses the difference between those measures of inflation expectations and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to forecast the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven. At present, the model forecasts that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise 23 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it to 1.54%. It’s important to note that our model is biased towards measures of longer-run inflation expectations. As a result, it can be surprised from time to time by large fluctuations in drivers of short-term inflation expectations, like the oil price. This year’s massive drop in oil – and concurrent decline in headline inflation – were the main factors that caused the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to fall so far below our model’s fair value. However, as we discussed in last week’s report, the oil price looks to have troughed and there is preliminary evidence that we might also be past the lowest point for headline CPI.3 Profit from rising bond yields by entering a duration-neutral yield curve steepener. We see TIPS continuing to outperform nominal Treasuries over both short- and long-run horizons. 2) Duration-Neutral Yield Curve Steepeners Chart 3Stick With Steepeners Another way to profit from rising bond yields without taking a large duration bet is via a duration-neutral yield curve steepener. One example would be a long position in the 5-year note and a short position in a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Alternatively, you could use the 2-year note and 30-year bond as the two legs of the barbell. These sorts of duration-matched trades where you take a long position in a bullet maturity near the middle of the curve and go short the wings are designed to perform well in periods of yield curve steepening.4 In the current environment, where dovish Fed guidance has dampened volatility at the front-end of the yield curve, any bond sell-off will be felt disproportionately at the long-end, leading to a steeper curve. The only problem with this proposed trade is that it is no longer cheap. The spread between the 5-year bullet and 2/10 barbell is -6 bps and the spread relative to the 2/30 barbell is -3 bps (Chart 3). What’s more, the 5-year bullet trades expensive relative to the 2/10 and 2/30 barbells, according to our fair value models (Chart 3, bottom panel). However, for the time being we are inclined to overlook stretched valuations. The 5-year bullet does appear expensive but it has been more expensive in the past, most notably during the last zero-lower-bound episode from 2010 to 2013. Similar to then, the market is now priced for an extended period of a zero fed funds rate. We would not be surprised to see bullets become much more expensive in that sort of environment, and possibly even return to extended 2010-2013 valuations. We recommend holding onto duration-neutral yield curve steepeners, despite unattractive valuations. Specifically, we favor going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. 3) Real Yield Curve Steepeners Chart 4Higher Inflation Means Steeper Real Yield Curve The final position we recommend is a steepener along the real yield curve. We first recommended this trade on April 28 when a plunge in oil (and spike in deflationary sentiment) caused the real 2-year yield to jump to 0.28% compared to a real 10-year yield of -0.70%.5 Since then, the real 2-year yield has collapsed to -1% compared to a real 10-year yield of -0.87%. Although the real 2-year/10-year slope is once again positive, it has typically been higher during the past few years (Chart 4). We therefore expect further steepening as long as the oil price and headline inflation continue to recover from April’s lows. Much like during the 2008/09 financial crisis, the combination of the Fed’s zero-lower-bound forward guidance and a massive drop in both oil and headline inflation caused short-dated real yields to jump. Subsequently, this led to a massive steepening of the real yield curve, once the oil price and headline inflation started to recover. We believe that same dynamic is playing out today. Investors should continue to hold real yield curve steepeners, at least until rebounding oil and headline CPI return short-dated inflation expectations to more reasonable levels. Investment Grade Tech Risk Profile Technology accounts for 9% of the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade corporate index, which makes it the second biggest industry group, after Banking. Its large index weight is due to the presence of three tech giants: Microsoft (Aaa-rated), Apple (Aa-rated) and Oracle (A-rated) which, combined, constitute 38% of the Tech sector. Investment grade Technology is a highly defensive corporate bond sector. In sharp contrast with the equity market, Technology is a highly defensive corporate bond sector. That is, it tends to outperform the overall corporate bond index during periods of spread widening and underperform during periods of spread tightening. This largely comes down to the fact that Tech has a higher credit rating than the overall corporate index. Twenty five percent of the Tech sector’s market cap carries a Aaa or Aa rating compared to just 9% for the overall index (Chart 5). Further, of the high-flying FAANG stocks that garner a lot of attention from equity analysts, only Apple is a significant presence in the Technology bond index.6 Chart 5Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 6IG Technology Risk ##br##Profile The Tech sector’s defensive nature is confirmed by looking at its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio and historical excess returns (Chart 6).7 The sector’s DTS ratio is consistently below 1.0, and its excess returns show a clear pattern of outperformance during periods of spread widening and underperformance during periods of spread tightening. Valuation In terms of valuation, although the Tech sector does not offer a spread advantage over the corporate index – which should be expected given its higher credit rating – we find that it trades cheap relative to its comparable credit tier (Table 1). Tech offers an option-adjusted spread of 115 bps versus 111 bps for the A-rated corporate index, and the sector still appears attractive after controlling for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. In absolute terms, Tech sector spreads are just above their median since 2010. The A-rated corporate index spread currently sits right on top of its post-2010 median. Table 1IG Technology Valuation Balance Sheet Health Chart 7IG Technology Debt Growth The Technology sector added a large amount of debt during the last recovery. The par value of the Tech index’s outstanding debt has grown 5.2 times since 2010 compared to 2.4 times for the benchmark. As a result, Tech’s weight in the corporate index has more than doubled, from 4% to 9% (Chart 7). However, earnings have done a pretty good job of keeping pace with the large increase in debt. The market cap-weighted net debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the investment grade Tech index is only 2.4, and the sector’s average credit rating has been stable since 2010. At the individual issuer level, there are 58 issuers in the Tech index and only 4 currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix B). What’s more, of the 16 Tech sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed this year, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook, 1 was assigned a positive outlook and only 3 were assigned negative outlooks. Macro Considerations Chart 8Technology Sector Macro Drivers The Tech sector can be split into three major segments that have distinct macro drivers: Software (26% of Tech index market cap, includes Microsoft and Oracle) Hardware (29% of Tech index market cap, includes Apple, IBM and Dell) Semiconductors (24% of Tech index market cap, includes Intel and Avago Technologies) Software investment has been in a structural bull market for many years, and should remain resilient during the COVID recession as demand for remote working solutions increases. While we only have data through the end of March, software investment did not see the same collapse as other sectors during the first quarter (Chart 8). The Hardware and Semiconductor segments are more cyclical and geared toward manufacturing. As such, their macro outlooks were already challenged pre-COVID, due to the US/China trade war and manufacturing downturn of 2019. Both US computer exports and global semiconductor sales were showing signs of life near the end of last year, but were decimated when the pandemic struck in 2020 (Chart 8, panels 3 & 4). A revival in this space is contingent upon continued gradual re-opening and a return to economic growth. More optimistically, US consumer spending on personal computers and peripheral equipment has not fallen as much as broad consumer spending during the past few months (Chart 8, bottom panel). In the long-run, the 5G smartphone rollout is a significant structural tailwind for both semiconductor issuers and Apple. Meanwhile, the threat of significant regulatory crackdown on Tech firms remains a long-run risk. Our sense is that any push toward stricter regulations won’t have that much impact on Technology bond returns. This is because the subjects of most lawmaker scrutiny – Facebook, Amazon and Google – are largely absent from the Bloomberg Barclays Tech index. Investment Conclusions We expect that investment grade corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 6-12 months. Against this positive back-drop, investors should focus exposure on cyclical (lower-rated) sectors that offer greater expected returns. With that in mind, the Tech sector’s high credit rating and defensive characteristics make it decidedly un-compelling. However, Tech does offer a slight spread advantage compared to other A-rated bonds and the macro back-drop is reasonably supportive. We would therefore recommend Tech bonds to investors looking for some A-rated corporate bond exposure. But in general, we prefer the greater spreads on offer from sectors that occupy the high-quality Baa space, such as subordinate bank debt.8 High-Yield Tech Risk Profile High-Yield Technology’s credit rating profile is similar to that of the overall benchmark, but with a slightly larger presence of low-rated (Caa & below) issuers (Chart 9). The largest issuers in the space are Dell (5.7% of Tech index market cap, Ba-rated), MSCI Inc. (5.1% of Tech index market cap, Ba-rated, see copyright declaration) and CommScope (8.1% of Tech index market cap, B-rated). High-yield Tech recently transitioned from being a cyclical sector to a defensive one. Interestingly, the high-yield Tech sector recently transitioned from being a cyclical sector to a defensive one. The sector behaved cyclically during the 2008 recession, underperforming the index when spreads widened and outperforming when they tightened. But Tech then outperformed the High-Yield index during the spread widening episodes of 2015 and 2020. Based on the sector’s low DTS ratio, this defensive behavior should persist for the next 12 months (Chart 10). Chart 9High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 10HY Technology Risk Profile Valuation The High-Yield Technology option-adjusted spread (OAS) is significantly lower than the average OAS for the benchmark High-Yield index. However, it offers a spread premium compared to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes high-yield Tech look significantly more attractive. The high-yield Tech spread would have to widen by 146 bps for the sector to underperform duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. This compares to 96 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 152 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Technology Valuation It is apparent that the Tech sector’s low average duration (Chart 10, bottom panel) is a major reason for its relatively tight OAS. On a risk-adjusted basis, high-yield Tech valuation actually appears quite compelling, with a 12-month breakeven spread only 6 bps below that of the overall index. Balance Sheet Health Chart 11HY Technology Debt Growth The amount of outstanding high-yield Technology debt has grown a bit more rapidly than overall junk index debt since 2010 (Chart 11). As a result, Technology’s weight in the index has increased from 5% in 2010 to 6% today. At the issuer level, the Tech sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers that will be able to take advantage of the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. To be eligible for the Main Street facilities, issuers must have less than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. Also, the issuers must be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. Of the 43 high-yield Tech issuers with available data, we estimate that 30 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix C). This even includes 11 out of the 16 B-rated issuers. Typically, we don’t expect that many B-rated issuers will be eligible for the Main Street facilities, which makes this result encouraging for Tech sector spreads. Investment Conclusions We recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield Technology bonds. As we wrote last week, high-yield spreads appear too tight if we ignore the impact of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities and consider only the fundamental credit back-drop.9 With that in mind, we want to focus our high-yield allocation on defensive sectors where a large proportion of issuers able to benefit from Fed support. The Technology sector checks both of those boxes and offers attractive risk-adjusted compensation to boot. 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 Technology Issuers Appendix C Table 5High-Yield Technology Issuers Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@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 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For an explanation of why this works please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 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 Of the other FAANG stocks: Google accounts for just 0.5% of Tech bond sector market cap, Facebook has close to no debt, Amazon is included in the Consumer Cyclical corporate bond index and Netflix is included in the Media: Entertainment sector of the High-Yield index. 7 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. 8 For more details on our recommendation to overweight subordinate bank bonds 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 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Overweight While we are neutral the S&P tech sector, we continue to employ a defensive over aggressive tech strategy and prefer software and services to hardware and equipment. The S&P software index in particular has proven its resilience during the COVID-19 sell-off and recovery and has now broken out to fresh all-time highs both in absolute and relative terms. Upbeat profit fundamentals underpin software buoyancy. Relative capex spending remains in a secular uptrend, spring-boarding the share price ratio. Our relative macro earnings growth model is also gaining steam highlighting that the earnings driven outperformance phase has staying power. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P software index.