Economy

Highlights Nominal Yields: Nominal Treasury yields will move modestly higher during the next 6-12 months with the increase concentrated at the long-end of the curve. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and enter duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Inflation Compensation: Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for now, but we anticipate getting an opportunity to tactically reverse this position near the end of the year. Investors should also position in flatteners across the inflation compensation curve, as both a near-term and long-term trade. Real Yields: The outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, particularly at the long-end of the curve. However, as long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. US Economy: Another stimulus bill is required in order to extend the economic recovery and prolong the reflation trade in financial markets. The President’s executive orders are not sufficient. The pressure on Congress to reach a compromise deal is high, and we expect one to be announced in the coming days. Feature Chart 1Reflation Pushes Real Yields Lower Market movements during the past couple of months are consistent with an environment of economic reflation. Equities and commodity prices are up, the US dollar is down, spread product has outperformed Treasuries and TIPS breakeven inflation rates have widened. This “reflation trade” is the result of global economic recovery and highly accommodative Fed policy, the latter being particularly important. In fact, Fed policy has been so accommodative that bonds are the one asset class that has so far bucked the broader reflationary trend. Nominal Treasury yields dipped during the past few weeks, as rising inflation expectations were more than offset by plunging real yields (Chart 1). Our base case expectation is that, broadly speaking, the reflation trade will continue. Global economic growth will improve during the next 6-12 months and Fed policy will remain highly accommodative. In this week’s report we consider how to position for that outcome in US rates markets. In the process, we provide trade recommendations for the nominal, real and inflation compensation curves. We also consider the main risk to our reflationary view: The possibility that further US fiscal stimulus is too little or arrives too late. Positioning For Reflation Chart 2More Downside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Back in April, we explained how the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy can lead to unusual movements in bond markets, particularly in how real bond yields respond to broader market trends.1  The importance of the zero lower bound is easily seen through the lens of the Fisher Equation – the equation that connects nominal yields, real yields and inflation expectations. Real Yield = Nominal Yield – Inflation Expectations If the Fed is expected to hold the nominal short rate steady for a long period of time, then nominal bond yields won’t move around very much in response to the economy. Necessarily, this means that increases in inflation expectations must be matched by falling real yields. Chart 1 shows how this has played out for 10-year yields, but the dynamic is even more pronounced at the short-end of the curve where the Fed has greater control over nominal rate expectations (Chart 2). With these relationships in mind, we consider the outlooks for the nominal, inflation compensation and real yield curves. Nominal Treasury Curve Chart 3Fed Guidance Has Crushed Nominal Rate Vol As is alluded to above, fed funds rate expectations drive nominal Treasury yields. Treasury yields rise when the market revises its rate expectations up and fall when the market revises its expectations down. But what happens when the Fed signals that the funds rate will stay pinned at its current level, even as inflationary pressures mount? What happens is that nominal bond yields become increasingly insensitive to fluctuations in economic data and rate volatility plunges (Chart 3). Not surprisingly, this decline in rate volatility has been more pronounced at the front-end of the curve than at the long-end (Chart 3, bottom panel). This is because the Fed’s rate guidance exerts more influence over short maturities. The market might be very confident that the fed funds rate will stay at its current level for the next year or two, but it will be less confident about rate expectations five or ten years down the road. The conclusion we draw is that the Fed’s dovish rate guidance will prevent a large increase in nominal bond yields, even as the reflation trade rolls on. But at some point, rising inflation expectations will cause the market to price-in policy firming at the long-end of the curve and long-maturity nominal Treasury yields will move somewhat higher. Historically, nominal bond yields usually move in the same direction as TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 4). Chart 4Nominal Yields And Inflation Expectations Are Positively Correlated While this base case outlook calls for flat-to-slightly higher Treasury yields, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The reason for this caution is that significant downside risks to our base case economic scenario remain (see section “Avoiding Deflation” below). Chart 5Bullets Trade Expensive When Rates Are Pinned At Zero Instead, we recommend positioning for the continuation of the reflation trade via duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The nominal yield curve will respond to global economic recovery by steepening because the market will price-in eventual policy tightening at the long-end of the curve before it prices-in near-term policy tightening at the front-end of the curve. Specifically, we suggest buying the 5-year bullet and shorting a duration-neutral barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade is designed to profit from steepening of the 2/10 yield curve.2 The one problem with our proposed trade is that it is not cheap. The 5-year bullet yield is below the 2/10 barbell yield and the 5-year bullet trades as expensive on our yield curve model (Chart 5). However, we note that the 5-year looked much more expensive at the height of the last zero-lower-bound episode in 2012. In today’s similar environment, we anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. Bottom Line: Nominal Treasury yields will move modestly higher during the next 6-12 months with the increase concentrated at the long-end of the curve. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and enter duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Inflation Compensation Curve Chart 6Adaptive Expectations Model Almost by definition, the continuation of the reflation trade means that the cost of inflation compensation will rise (i.e. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher), and we remain positioned for that outcome. However, at least according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, the inflation component of bond yields could have a more difficult time rising going forward. Our model, which is based on several different measures of realized inflation, shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less at its fair value (Chart 6). In other words, further upside from here is contingent upon rising inflation. Fortunately, rising inflation seems likely during the next few months. Month-over-month headline CPI bottomed in April (Chart 7), the oil price is trending up (Chart 7, panel 2) and core inflation has undershot relative to the trimmed mean (Chart 7, panel 3). All of this suggests that our model’s fair value will move higher during the next few months. Chart 7Inflation Has Bottomed But beyond the near-term snapback that we anticipate, a wide output gap in the United States will prevent inflation from entering a sustainable uptrend as we head into 2021. After all, our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains deep in deflationary territory (Chart 7, bottom panel).  At some point near the end of this year, we anticipate getting an opportunity to move tactically underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, once breakevens start to look expensive on our model. Our Adaptive Expectations Model shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less at its fair value. A higher conviction long-run trade relates to the slope of the inflation curve. At present, the 10-year CPI swap rate remains somewhat above the 2-year rate, but we eventually expect this slope to invert (Chart 8). With the Fed explicitly targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, it would make sense for the cost of short-maturity inflation protection to trade above the cost of long-maturity inflation protection. This would mark a significant break from historical trends, but this is also true of the Fed’s new policy approach. Chart 8Inflation Curve Will Invert Bottom Line: Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for now, but we anticipate getting an opportunity to tactically reverse this position near the end of the year. Investors should also position in flatteners across the inflation compensation curve, as both a near-term and long-term trade. Real Yield Curve Chart 9Buy Real Yield Curve Steepeners At the beginning of this report we noted that the combination of stable nominal rate expectations and rising inflation expectations has led to a steep decline in real Treasury yields. This decline has been more severe at the short-end of the curve, which has resulted in real yield curve steepening (Chart 9). At the long-end of the curve, the outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, even under the assumption that the reflation trade continues. If 10-year nominal rate expectations hold steady, then continued reflation will lead to a further decline in the 10-year real yield. However, as discussed above, long-dated nominal rate expectations will eventually follow inflation expectations higher. If that adjustment to long-dated rate expectations outpaces the increase in expected inflation compensation, then the 10-year real yield will move up as well. The outlook for the short-end of the curve is more certain. Two-year nominal rate expectations are unlikely to budge anytime soon. This means that the continuation of the reflation trade will send the cost of 2-year inflation protection higher and the 2-year real yield lower. For this reason, we would rather take a position in real yield curve steepeners than an outright position on the level of real yields. In fact, as long as the reflation trade continues, the real yield curve should steepen whether the absolute level of real yields is rising or falling. It is only in a renewed deflation scare where we would expect the real yield curve to flatten, as occurred back in March. As long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. Bottom Line: The outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, particularly at the long-end of the curve. However, as long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. Avoiding Deflation The first part of this report talked about how to position in rates markets assuming that the global economic recovery remains on track and that the so-called reflation trade continues. While this is our base case scenario, it is by no means a certainty. In fact, this view is contingent upon continued US fiscal stimulus that is sufficient to sustain household income and prevent a snowballing of foreclosures and bankruptcies. March’s CARES act did a more-than-admirable job supporting household income. In fact, disposable household income rose 7.2% in the four month period between March and June compared to the four months that preceded the COVID recession (Chart 10). This is a far greater increase than what was seen in the first four months of the 2008 recession (dashed line in Chart 10, panel 2), despite the fact that the hit to wage compensation has been worse (dashed line in Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 11A confirms that, without the CARES act, the hit to disposable income would have been substantial. Chart 10Income Well Supported... So Far Chart 11ADisposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers I The problem is that the main income supporting provisions of the CARES act have either been paid out or have expired. Chart 11B shows the impact on disposable income of the CARES act’s different provisions. The two most important were: The Economic Impact Payments: The one-time $1200 stimulus checks. The Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Payments: The extra $600 per week that was added to unemployment benefits. Chart 11BDisposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers II The Economic Impact Payments have all been delivered, and the Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Payments expired at the end of July. Based on the information that has been released about the ongoing negotiations over a follow-up stimulus bill, we expect that a compromise deal will be large enough to keep disposable income at or above pre-recession levels.3 However, a compromise is proving difficult. Congress’ foot dragging prompted President Trump to announce several executive orders of questionable legality in an attempt to deliver some stimulus. However, even if the executive orders are followed, the boost to household income will be meager without another bill. The President’s executive order to extend the extra unemployment benefits appropriates only $44 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund and asks states to contribute the rest. Many states will be unable to contribute anything, and an extra $44 billion amounts to only 8% of the income support provided by the CARES act. State & local government aid must be addressed in the new stimulus bill. The other urgent area that must be addressed in a follow-up stimulus bill is aid for state & local governments. State & local government spending fell 5.6% (annualized) in the second quarter, as governments have been forced to impose harsh austerity in the face of collapsing tax revenues (Chart 12). This is one area where the Democrats and Republicans are still far apart. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that states need $555 billion to close COVID-related budget shortfalls.4 The Democrats’ initial proposal contained $1.13 trillion for states, the Republicans’ initial offer left out state & local government aid altogether. Chart 12State & Local Governments Need A Bailout Bottom Line: Another stimulus bill is required in order to extend the economic recovery and prolong the reflation trade in financial markets. The President’s executive orders are not sufficient. The pressure on Congress to reach a compromise deal is high, and we expect one to be announced in the coming days. Based on the numbers that have been floated, that deal will contain sufficient income support to keep households afloat and the recovery on track. 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 1Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 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 2 To understand why this trade profits in an environment of yield curve steepening please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 In their initial proposals, House Democrats offered $435 billion in Economic Impact Payments and $437 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. The Senate Republicans offered $300 billion for Economic Impact Payments and $110 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. For context, the CARES act authorized $293 billion for Economic Impact Payments and $268 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. For more details on the ongoing budget negotiations please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “A Tech Bubble Amid A Tech War”, dated July 31, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-continue-to-face-large-shortfalls-due-to-covid-19-effects   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Ultimately the US Congress will pass a major stimulus bill, but short-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. President Trump’s executive actions are not sufficient stimulus in the absence of an act of Congress. Trump’s opinion polling is starting to recover. A sustainable comeback requires Trump to sign a bill, the stock market to avoid a correction, COVID-19 new cases to continue subsiding, and crime to rise such that “law and order” resonates with voters. Depending on the data, we will upgrade Trump’s odds of victory from 35%. A major Trump comeback would increase global economic policy uncertainty relative to the United States. This would support the USD and US equity outperformance relative to global in the near term, though the opposite is still likely over the long term. Feature Over the weekend President Trump resorted to executive orders to bypass the gridlock in Congress over the next round of fiscal support for the pandemic-stricken economy. He issued four decrees that would provide $400 per week in new federal unemployment benefits; defer the 6.2% payroll tax on US workers making less than $100,000 through December 31; assist renters and homeowners with monthly payments; and delay student debt repayments. These actions are politically popular and Democrats will have trouble criticizing them. But they are not ultimately sufficient for the US economy or stock market. They should be seen as part of a “stimulus hiccup” that fails to deliver the equity market from the elevated risk of a correction in the very near term. First, these measures are leaner than any compromise bill that would come from Capitol Hill. They will also be difficult to implement as US states are required to provide 25% of the unemployment benefits while individual companies are needed to manage the payroll tax. Uncertainty will be high and compliance low, especially initially.     Second, federal courts will add to uncertainty by raising legal questions about the president’s decrees, probably issuing injunctions. The president is partly redirecting funds already appropriated, which can be gotten away with (especially during emergencies and on a temporary basis), but he is flirting with making unilateral appropriations, which is unconstitutional. Legal questions will make it harder for states and firms to know whether and how to implement the orders, vitiating their effect. Thus if the president’s actions are not quickly superseded by a full relief bill from Congress, the market will be disappointed, along with business and consumer confidence and balance sheets. Fiscal policy is of utmost importance to financial markets because the major central banks are limited due to the zero lower bound. Any premature interruption in fiscal support could cause markets to go into a tailspin on the fear that household and business finances and confidence will relapse, with longer-term damage. Chart 1Volatility Rises Ahead Of Elections Volatility has not picked up much because the pandemic numbers are improving (see below) and these executive actions offer a bridge to a full stimulus bill later (Chart 1). But that means further delays will cause bigger swings – especially if Congress does not get a deal by the end of this week. With election risks and geopolitical risks also escalating, August could easily whipsaw bullish equity investors who have grown complacent with this year’s rapid rebound. Ultimately, we maintain that Congress will pass a bill. GOP senators will succumb to political pressure. Both Trump and the Republicans are looking extremely vulnerable in public opinion polling. A failure on pandemic relief would likely be the final straw for voters. Concessions to House Democrats will produce a bill of around $2.5 trillion for President Trump to sign (Table 1). Table 1Outline Of Fifth US COVID Stimulus Package (Estimate) Chart 2Republicans Will Forgive Senate Largesse If Re-Elected The opposing risk – that Republicans will lose votes for being fiscally profligate – is a far lower bar for them to cross. Republicans worry less about Big Government when their own party runs the government (Chart 2). Assuming GOP senators get with the program and a bill is passed, markets will turn to the 2020 election battle. This election is more significant than usual because it pits an anti-establishment candidate against a political establishment that is circling the wagons, thus portending structural consequences for the US economy, particularly on trade and immigration. President Trump is the underdog because of the pandemic and recession. High unemployment is deadly for sitting presidents. Voters clearly believe he has mishandled the pandemic; they also believe he has mishandled race relations amid an explosion of racially charged social unrest. But these factors are now baked in the cake. There are three factors that can sustain Trump’s comeback in the opinion polls: Stimulus passes: Passage of a new stimulus bill will buttress the households, businesses, and the stock market. By issuing executive orders, Trump has shown he has no patience for Congress’s dithering. This will resonate with voters, but only so far. A full stimulus bill needs to be signed and disbursed to sustain his rebound in popular opinion. COVID-19 abates: COVID-19 hospitalizations and new cases are rolling over, giving society (and markets) a reason to be optimistic (Chart 3). As long as stimulus is passed, people can continue distancing without reversing the economic recovery. If the virus abates, Trump’s net approval rating will also improve. “Law and order” resonates: Trump has taken a hard line on crime, violence, and vandalism amid this summer’s social unrest. If crime rises in the suburbs in swing states, then his message may resonate with critical voters. Alternately he could gain traction for tough foreign policy on China (as long as stocks do not collapse) or Iran. Chart 3COVID-19 Hospitalizations And New Cases Rolling Over Chart 4Trump’s Comeback Begins – Is It Sustainable? Trump’s polling head-to-head against his rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, suggests that he has hit the floor in the swing states but not national polling – and it is swing states that determine the Electoral College outcome (Chart 4). If these three trends fall together, Trump’s comeback in opinion polls will be sustainable and we would need to upgrade his odds of victory, which we set at 35% in March. Global policy uncertainty would rise relative to the United States, as Trump is disruptive on the global scene. The US dollar could bounce, or at least stay flat, as near-term geopolitical risk would vie with surging debt monetization, which will weaken the dollar over the long run. US equity performance relative to global stocks would get a boost due to higher odds of more significant protectionism and trade conflict in 2021-24. By contrast, if Congress fails on stimulus, the stock market corrects, COVID reaccelerates with the school year, and the “law and order” theme flops, then Trump’s polling will see a dead-cat bounce. US policy uncertainty would rise relative to global, as Biden and the Democrats would raise regulation and taxes at home yet act with greater predictability abroad (Chart 5). Chart 5A Trump Comeback Would Boost US Equity Outperformance Until the three trends above confirm the basis for Trump to have a sustainable comeback, we maintain that his odds of victory are 35%. Our quantitative model reveals upside risk by indicating he has a 42% chance (Chart 6). Chart 6Geopolitical Strategy Quant Model: Trump Has 42% Chance Of Victory​​​​​​​ Bottom Line: Investors should be prepared for a risk-off episode in the near term in case Congress fails to compromise on a major new fiscal stimulus. Assuming they agree, President Trump will have a comeback in opinion polls that could be sustainable and justify an upgrade of his election chances. That in turn would raise the risk of significant escalation in the trade war for China (and Europe) and eliminate the risk of higher taxes and regulation in the United States in 2021. Investors who are aggressively short the dollar, or heavily invested into cyclical stocks and regions, would get blindsided in the short run by such a turn of events, even though this positioning makes sense over the long run. After all, over the long run for the dollar, the whole dynamic outlined in this report underscores that austerity is dead: if Trump wins he was rewarded for using populist spending by executive fiat; if Democrats win then their mega-spending proposition paid off. Matt Gertken  Vice President Geopolitical Strategy  mattg@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights Even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, likely within 18 months, many behavioral changes that were forced on society by social distancing will remain. Individuals who have gotten used to working from home, shopping online, and using the internet for socializing and entertainment will continue to do so. Amid any large structural shift, it is easier to spot losers than winners. The biggest losers are likely to be: (1) Parts of the real estate industry, as companies shed expensive city-center office space and office workers move away from big cities; and (2) the travel industry, since business travel will decline. The winners will include: Health care (as governments spend to strengthen medical services); capital-goods producers (with US manufacturers increasingly reshoring production but automating more); and the broadly-defined IT sector which, while expensively valued, is nowhere near its 2000 level and has several years of strong growth ahead.   “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” –  Bill Gates “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” –  Lenin Introduction The world has been turned upside down since February by the coronavirus pandemic. Households all around the globe have been forced to stay indoors; companies have been forced to drastically change working practices; some industries, such as online shopping or videoconferencing software, have seen a surge in demand. But once the pandemic is over, how many of these changes will stick? What will be the long-term impact on society, the workplace, consumer attitudes, and companies’ strategic planning? How should investors position themselves to take advantage of secular changes in the sectors that will be most affected, ranging from health care and technology, to real estate, retailing, and travel? In this Special Report (which should be read in conjunction with two other recent BCA Research Special Reports on the macro-economic and geopolitical consequences, respectively, of COVID-191), we look at the social and industry implications of the coronavirus pandemic. We assume that, within the next 12-to-18 months, the pandemic will be a thing of the past, either because a vaccine has been developed, or because enough people have caught it for herd immunity to develop. This does not mean that people will be unconcerned about a reoccurrence, or about a new virus triggering another epidemic. Pandemics are not rare, even in modern history (Table 1). And COVID-19 may return as an annual mild seasonal flu (as the 1968 Asian flu did), but which is not serious enough to alter behavior. But the assumption in this report is that, within a couple of years, people will feel comfortable again about being in crowded spaces and traveling, without a need for social distancing or periodic lockdowns. Table 1Estimated Mortality And Infection Rates Of Pandemics During The Past Century But that doesn’t mean that everything will return to the status quo ante. At least some individuals who have gotten used to working from home, video conferencing, and shopping online will continue these practices. Companies will, therefore, need to rethink their employment policies, as well as how they manage their office space, global supply chains, and just-in-time inventories. Government policies towards health care and education will need to be rethought. None of these changes are new. Indeed, the result of an exogenous shock is often simply to accelerate trends that were already in place. E-commerce, telecommuting, and “reshoring” have already been growing steadily for years. COVID-19 is, however, likely to accelerate these shifts. Not every individual or company will change their behavior, but even small changes at the margin can have a significant impact. Ultimately, what these changes amount to is a liberalization of space and time. Employees do not need to be in the same physical space to work together. Students can choose when to listen to a lecture. Music lovers based in a small city can have the same access to a live (streamed) concert as those in London or New York. This Special Report is divided into two sections. In the first section, we examine the meta-changes in consumer and corporate behavior that could result from the pandemic. How widely will the shift from office-based work to “working from home” stick? How much will shopping, entertainment, and education stay online? Will companies really bring back a large chunk of manufacturing from overseas? In the second section, we analyze the impact on specific industries, such as real estate, health care, technology, and retailing, and make some suggestions as to how investors should tilt their portfolios over the longer term to take advantage of these trends. In summary, we identify the winners as health care, technology, and capital-goods producers. The clear losers are in real estate and travel. Retailing and consumer goods will see a significant shakeout, with both winners and losers, but the overall impact on these industries will be neutral. Social Impacts Working From Home Teleworking, or working from home, is hardly new. Craftsmen before the industrial revolution did so as a matter of course. But the development of computers and telecommunications in the 1980s made it feasible for white-collar workers to work from home too. As Peter Drucker wrote as long ago as 1993: "...commuting to office work is obsolete. It is now infinitely easier, cheaper and faster to do what the nineteenth century could not do: move information, and with it office work, to where the people are."2  Until now, however, teleworking has been rare. But the requirements imposed by the pandemic could cause that to change. Technically, it is possible for workers in many job categories to telework effectively. A recent study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman3 estimated, based on job characteristics, that it is feasible for 37% of all jobs in the US to be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). The vast majority of jobs in sectors such as education, professional services, and company management could be done from home (Table 2). Extending the analysis to other countries, they find that more than 35% of jobs in most developing countries can be done from home, but less than 25% in manufacturing-heavy emerging economies such as Turkey and Mexico (Chart 1). Table 2Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Industry Chart 1Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Country But, in practice, before the coronavirus pandemic, many fewer people than this worked from home. Partly this was simply because many companies did not allow it. A survey by OWL Labs in 2018 found that 44% of companies around the world required employees to work from an office, with no option to work remotely.4 The percentage was even higher, 53%, in both Asia and Latin America. By contrast, OWL did find that 52% of employees globally worked from home at least occasionally, and that as many as 18% of respondents reported working from home always. The pandemic forced many white-collar workers to telework for the first time. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of US adults – and as many as 62% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree – worked from home during the crisis.5  How white-collar workers found the experience, and whether they plan to continue to work from home some of the time even if not required to do so, vary widely. Employers are generally positive about the idea. A survey of hiring managers by Upwork found that 56% believed that remote working functioned better than expected during the crisis (Chart 2). They cited reduced meetings, fewer distractions, increased productivity, and greater autonomy as reasons for this. The major drawbacks were technological issues, reduced team cohesion, and communication difficulties. Another survey, by realtor Redfin, found that 76% of US office workers had worked from home during the crisis (compared to only 36% who worked from home at least some of the time beforehand) and that 33% of respondents who had not worked remotely pre-shutdown expect to work remotely after shutdowns end (with another 39% unsure) (Chart 3). Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well Chart 3Many Employees Expect To Continue Working Remotely After The Pandemic Ends But there are problems too. Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that, while teleworking has some clear advantages, such as improved work-family interface, greater job satisfaction, and enhanced autonomy, it also has drawbacks. Most notably, if workers aren’t in the office at least half the week, relationships with fellow workers suffer, as does collaboration.6 There are also developed countries where backward technology has made the experience of working from home difficult. This is particularly the case in Japan. A survey by the Japan Productivity Center found that 66% of office workers said their productivity fell when working from home; 43% were dissatisfied with the experience. The reasons cited for the dissatisfaction were “lack of access to documents when not in the office” (49%), “a poor telecommunications environment” (44%), and a difficult working environment, such as lack of desk space (44%). Japanese companies remain rather paper-based, and household living space tends to be small. Research carried out on employees at Chinese online travel company Ctrip before the pandemic concluded that home working led to a 13% performance increase but, crucially, there were four requirements for working from home to succeed: Children must be in school or daycare; employees must have a home office that is not a bedroom; complete privacy in that room is essential; and employees must have a choice of whether to work from home.7  After the pandemic, a significant shift in the pattern of office work is likely. Many workers will work remotely part or most of the time. But they will also benefit from coming to an office a certain number of days a month to work together, bond with co-workers, exchange ideas, etc. Online Shopping E-commerce has been growing steadily for years. In the US, it increased by 15% year-on-year in 2019, to reach $602 bn, or 16% of total retail sales (Charts 4 and 5). The share is even higher in some other countries: For example, 25% in China and 22% in the UK. The pandemic caused a big acceleration in e-commerce the first few months of this year, as consumers in most countries around the world were either not allowed to go outside, or felt unsafe doing so. Chart 4The Share Of E-commerce Has Been Steadily Expanding For Years… Data from Mastercard show that, in the worst period of lockdowns in April, e-commerce grew by 63% in the US, and 64% in the UK year-on-year, compared to a decline of 15% and 8%, respectively, in overall retail sales (Chart 6). The growth was particularly apparent in products such as home improvement, footwear, and apparel (Chart 7). Chart 5…With Growth Of Around 15% A Year Chart 6In April, Online Sales Soared…   Chart 7…Especially In Certain Categories Moreover, many consumers in advanced economies bought goods such as clothing, medicine, and books online for the first time, and used services such as online grocery delivery, and apps to order food from restaurants (Chart 8). Note, however, that few consumers bought financial services, magazines, music, and videos online for the first time. Presumably these are products that the vast majority of households had already been consuming online. Chart 8Consumers Shifted Purchases Of Many Items Online It is hard to know how sticky these trends will be. Once shops permanently reopen without restrictions, will consumers simply return to their old habits of going to supermarkets, restaurants, and clothing stores? Perhaps many enjoy the experience of browsing. It seems likely, however, that the newly acquired habit of shopping online will at least accelerate the trend towards e-commerce. Many of those who ordered, for example, supermarket deliveries online for the first time will continue to do so at least occasionally in the future. Other changes are likely too: Many smaller retailers were forced to close their physical stores during the pandemic and so had no choice but to set up an online delivery service. Some struggled with this, but others were aided by companies such as Shopify, which simplify the process of setting up a website, processing payments, and arranging delivery. Shopify now works with over a million merchants. These smaller retailers are now better able to compete with giants such as Amazon. During the lockdown, US consumers notably diversified their online product searches away from Amazon and Google to smaller retailers (Chart 9). Chart 9Search Diversified Away From Amazon And Google We might see a trend towards smaller-scale, local shops benefiting as consumers stick to shopping in smaller stores closer to their homes. Many stores during the pandemic refused to accept cash; this might accelerate the shift towards contactless payments. Consumers may be less focused in future on conspicuous consumption. The trend towards wellness, home-cooking, gardening, crafts, and self-investment might continue. Other Uses Of Technology It is not only work and shopping habits that changed during lockdowns. Individuals also got used to a range of technologies for socializing, entertainment, education, and medical consultation. Consumer surveys by the Pew Research Center show that a third of American adults have socialized online using services such as Zoom, and a quarter have used online systems for work or conferences (Chart 10). But these percentages are much higher for certain demographics. For example, 48% of 18-to-29 year-olds have socialized online, and 30% of this age group have taken online fitness classes. The percentage using video systems for work is as high as 48% for people with a college degree. And, unsurprisingly, with many university courses moving online since the spring, 38% of 18-to-29 year-olds say they have taken an online class. Chart 10Individuals Have Been Socializing And Communicating More Online How sticky these trends will be once the pandemic is over is not easy to forecast. But further research by Pew showed that 27% of US adults believed that online and telephone contacts are “just as good as in-person contact,” and only 8% thought of them as not much help at all, although a rather larger 64% answered that online socializing is “useful but will not be a replacement for in-person contact.” The responses differed little between gender, race, and political views, although fewer people under the age of 30 thought online contacts were as good as in-person ones (Table 3). Table 3How Do Online Interactions Compare To In-Person Ones? Another survey in Japan by Ipsos suggests that people’s values have changed as a result of the pandemic and quarantines, with a greater focus on wellbeing, home-based activities such as cooking, and self-improvement. When questioned, a large percentage of people believe they will persist with these habits even when lockdowns end. For example, 51% of Japanese respondents believe they will continue to enjoy themselves as much as possible at home in their spare time, compared to only 20% who favored entertainment at home before the pandemic (Chart 11).  Chart 11Pandemic Brought A Greater Focus On Wellbeing And Home-Based Activities Other areas that have moved online en masse include education, health care, the judiciary, concerts, and sports (e-sports, and popular sports such as soccer and baseball that are now being played in empty venues). Education at the tertiary level in advanced economies was already partly online before the pandemic. In the US, out of 19.7 million tertiary students in 2017, 2.2 million (13.3%) were enrolled in exclusively online/distance learning courses, and another 3.2 million (19.5%) took at least one course online.8 Of course, everything changed during the pandemic, with 98% of US institutions moving the majority of in-person courses online, and many planning to continue this through the Fall 2020 semester. At the elementary and secondary school level, online education was much more limited pre-pandemic. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 21% of US schools offered some courses entirely online in 2016 but, of this 21%, only 6% offered all their courses online and only another 6% the majority of courses. Many of these schools were forced to shift entirely online during lockdowns: According to UNESCO data, at the peak of the pandemic 1.6 billion children (90% of the total in school) in 191 countries attended schools that had closed physically. It seems likely that, while in-person teaching will remain the central method of education, distance and online learning solutions, even at the high school level, will become more prevalent in the future. The health care sector has lagged in technology, in terms of using AI for diagnosis, digitalizing patient records, and offering online doctor-patient consultation. But the use of digital tools had started to increase in recent years, particularly in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 12). At the peak of the pandemic in April, the number of telehealth visits in the US rose by 14% year-on-year, compared to a 69% decline in in-person visits to a doctor.9 It seems likely that this trend will continue, as medical practitioners find viritual consultations more efficient and effective for many simple initial diagnoses, and as sick or elderly patients prefer to avoid a physical visit to a surgery.10 Chart 12The Transition To A Digital-Driven Health Care Model Travel Travelers have been very reluctant to get back on airplanes and stay in hotels again, even in countries and regions where the pandemic has eased over the past couple of months (Chart 13). Based on our assumption that the pandemic will be completely over within 18 months, it seems likely that people will eventually resume travelling, at least for leisure and to see family and friends. After previous disruptions to global travel, such as 9/11 and SARS, it took only two-to-three years for air travel to resumed its pre-crisis trend (Chart 14). Chart 13Travelers Remained Reluctant Even When Pandemic Eased Business travel might be very different, however. Salespeople who have become used to making sales calls over Zoom may not feel the need to travel to see clients so much. Conferences, exhibitions, and other events will be increasingly (at least partly) online. Travel budgets are a large expense for many companies. According to estimates by Certify, a travel software provider, spending on business trips in 2019 totalled $1.5 trillion (including $315 billion by US businesses). The availability of a technological alternative to at least some business trips will provide a good excuse for many companies to meaningfully reduce the number of trips and their travel budget. In the future, business travel may become more of a privilege than a necessity. It is easy to imagine a significant decline in overall business travel. Manufacturing Supply Chains Corporate behavior could also change as a result of the disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Companies in the US and Europe realized how vulnerable their complex supply chains are. Popular and political pressure is pushing firms to reshore at least some of their overseas production. Firms will need to build in more “operational resilience,” with higher levels of inventory, less debt, and greater redundancy in their systems. Developed economies such as the US have been deindustrializing for 40 years – since reforms in China in the late 1970s, followed by Mexico and central Europe in the 1990s,  made these countries appealing locations for cheap manufacturing. US manufacturing employment has almost halved since 1980, falling to only 27% of the workforce (Chart 15). Manufacturing output, especially outside of the computer sector, has substantially lagged that of the overall private sector (Chart 16). The US has also fallen behind in automation, with a much lower number of robots per manufacturing worker than in countries such as Germany and Japan (Chart 17). Chart 15US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980   Chart 16Manufacturing Output Outside The Computer Sector Has Lagged Chart 17The US Has Relatively Few Robots The pandemic highlighted how vulnerable widely distributed supply chains are. This was clearest in the health care sector. The US is far away the biggest spender on health care research and development (Chart 18). And yet it was unable to provide critical medical equipment such as face masks, testing kits, and ventilators to its population at an adequate rate, mainly because almost 70% of the facilities which manufacture essential medicines are based abroad (Chart 19). During the pandemic, countries such as China and India prioritized their own citizens, forcing the US government to strike emergency deals to avoid drug shortages. Chart 18The US Spends A Lot On R&D In Health Care… Chart 19…But Drug Production Is Mostly Done Overseas Once the crisis subsides, CEOs of American companies (as well as the US government) will have to decide if they are comfortable with the fact that, while they possess a vast store of intellectual capital, the manufacturing of their products happens halfway around the world. What happens if there is another pandemic? What about a global disaster caused by climate change? Finally, and perhaps more worryingly, what happens if tensions between the US and China escalate seriously? This shift will not happen overnight: China still has much cheaper labor, an enormous manufacturing base of factories and parts suppliers, and formidable transportation infrastructure. Many aspects of supply chains are too deep-rooted and the economics too compelling for them to be unwound quickly. Some production will shift from China to other emerging economies. A Biden administration might be less confrontational with China, and could lower some of the Trump tariffs. But, at the margin, companies will choose to build new factories in the US (and in western Europe and Japan), with highly automated systems. Government policy (via both subsidies and tariffs) will encourage these trends. Manufacturers which have lived “on the edge” in recent years, with dispersed supply chains, just-in-time processes, minimal inventories, the fewest possible workers, and the maximum amount of debt compatible with their targeted credit rating (often BBB) now understand the need to build redundancy into their systems. Corporate debt levels are high by historical standards in many countries (Chart 20). Companies may want to build up a buffer of net cash in the future, as Japanese companies did for decades after the bubble there burst in 1990. Inventories have risen a little relative to sales since the Global Financial Crisis but will probably rise further (Chart 21). These trends are likely to be negative for profit margins. Chart 20In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... Chart 21...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? Implications For Industries In light of the social changes described above, how will various industries be reshaped over the coming years? Which sectors should investors tilt towards because they are likely to emerge as winners from post-COVID structural shifts? And which are the sectors that investors should avoid since they will suffer from the creative destruction? In the midst of major social and technological change, it is often easier to spot losers than winners. Think of the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. How many investors would have correctly picked Google, Amazon, Apple, and only a handful of others as the winners? It would have been easier to correctly identify industries that were likely to lose out to disruption, such as book retailers, travel agents, newspaper publishers, and TV broadcasters. We start, therefore, with the industries likely to lose out from post-COVID changes. The Losers Real Estate Over the next few years, prime real estate seems the most likely loser. It is not clear how many white-collar workers will choose to work from home in the future, or how many days a month they will want to come into an office to meet with fellow workers. But it seems likely there will be a strong continued trend in the direction of remote working. As a result, demand for prime central-business-district property will fall, given that it is very expensive. In Manhattan, for example, the average workspace for each of the 1.5 million office workers is around 310 square feet. At pre-COVID rental costs, that amounts to an average of $20,000 per employee – and more than $30,000 for A+ grade buildings. And rent is only part of what a company pays: There are also costs for cleaning, utilities, technology, security, coffee machines, and cafeterias on top of that. Employees working at home pay for their own space, utilities, food (and often even computer equipment). The size, location, and layout of offices will need to be rethought. Maybe companies will choose to build a campus in the suburbs, with a range of different working spaces (for meetings, quiet work, or collaboration). They may prefer to rent shared co-working spaces by the day or week. Some real estate developers and builders would be beneficiaries of this. Companies would save money in real estate costs. But they may need to pay a stipend to employees who work at home to cover the extra space they will require, and to upgrade their technology (computer equipment, internet speed, and so on). On the other hand, companies may pay lower salaries for workers who move out of high-cost locations such as Manhattan or London to places where it is cheaper to live. Many office spaces are leased on a long-term basis, so some companies will not be able to move out of big cities immediately. But residential property is more liquid. The trends in work practices might accelerate a shift to the suburbs which has already been emerging over the past few years (Chart 22). Workers will not need to live so close to the company’s office if they will visit it for only a few days a month. Small towns with a lively community and pleasant environment (and decent transportation links to a big city) could grow in popularity. This would be bad news for developers which are specialized in developing residential property in cities such as London, Sydney, Toronto, and Vancouver, and for the owners of those properties. But it might be positive for builders who will develop the new houses and out-of-town office campuses. Chart 22The Shift To The Suburbs Was Already Taking Place This does not mean that cities will wither away. After previous epidemics and crises in history (think the Great Plague of London in the 17th century, or 9/11), they have always bounced back. “Casual collisions” – chance meetings with interesting people which lead to collaborative relationships – are crucial in creative industries, and happen online only with difficulty. Buildings will be repurposed: Retail space will be turned into warehouses or apartments, for example. A fall in rents would allow cities to “degentrify” and attract back young people, making the city more dynamic again. But the period of transition could be painful for some segments of the real estate industry. Travel A permanent decline in business travel would be a significant blow to airlines and hotel chains. Business travelers account for only about 12% of the number of air tickets purchased, but they generate 70%-75% of airlines’ profits. Even discount leisure airlines such as Southwest have in recent years started to target business travelers. And it will not just be airlines that are affected. Data from the US Travel Association show that 26% of the $2.5 trillion in travel-related revenues in the US in 2018 came from business travelers. Of that, 17% goes to air travel, 13% to accommodation, and 5% to car rental. An even larger portion goes to food (21%). Around 40% of hotel rooms are occupied by business travelers. Conference organizers and venues could also suffer: 62% of US business trips are to attend conferences. “Sharing economy” companies would be affected too. In 2018, 700,000 business travelers booked accommodation through AirBnB, and 78% of business travelers use Uber and other ride-sharing services. Furthermore, a slowdown in business travel would have knock-on effects on the leisure travel sector. Surveys suggest that almost 40% of business trips in the US are extended to include leisure activities (“bleisure” in the travel industry parlance). The Winners Health Care A recent report by BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service argued in detail that the macro environment for global health care equities will remain very positive in the coming years.11 An aging population in the world, and a growing middle class in emerging countries will steadily raise demand for health care services (Charts 23 and 24). China, in particular, has underinvested in health care: It spends only 5% of GDP, barely higher than it did 20 years ago, and well behind other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa (Chart 25). Chart 23Positives For Health Care Include An Aging Population… Chart 24…And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments everywhere will need to spend more money on health care (or, in the case of the US, perhaps spend it more effectively). In the US, before the pandemic, intensive-care beds were sufficient to cope only with the peak of a normal seasonal influenza breakout. The World Health Organization warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks of infectious diseases are becoming more common (Chart 26). More money will need to be spent, in particular, on developing health care technology (online consultations, digitalized patient records, track-and-trace systems), on improving senior care homes (80% of COVID-19 deaths in the Canadian province of Quebec were in such facilities), and on biotech (such as gene-related therapies). Chart 25Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Chart 26Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease   The health care equity sector is not expensive, trading in line with its long-run average valuation (Chart 27). Within the sector, biotech and health care technology look more attractive than pharmaceuticals, which are expensive and vulnerable to the price caps proposed by Joe Biden if he is elected US president this November. Chart 27Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Technology In a plethora of ways, the pandemic has propelled the use of technology: For working at home, communication, online shopping, entertainment, etc. Companies such as Zoom have moved from niche players to mainstream business providers: Zoom’s peak daily users rose from 10 million in December 2019 to 300 million in April. Chart 28Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Assuming that at least some of these developments remain in place once the pandemic is over, it is easy to see how technology stocks (broadly defined to include any company that uses information technology as a central part of its business) will continue to prosper. These stocks will not be just in the IT sector, but also in communications and consumer discretionary. Picking the individual winners will be hard: Will Microsoft overtake Amazon in cloud computing? Will Zoom’s much-discussed privacy issues undermine it? Will competitors emerge to Shopify in merchant services? Can Spotify compete with Apple in online music streaming? But the broadly-defined sector seems likely to have improving fundamentals for some years to come. The only question is whether the good news is already priced in, after the huge run-up in stock prices over the past few years. We do not believe it is fully. The valuations of these sectors are still nowhere close to the level they reached at the peak of the TMT Bubble in 1999-2000 (Chart 28), they have strong balance-sheets, and considerable earnings power. For their outperformance to end, it will take one of two things. The first trigger could be a significant shift down in growth. Over the past three years, Amazon has grown EPS at a compound rate of 47%, and Netflix at 76% (Chart 29). Over the next three years (2020-2023), analysts forecast compound EPS growth of 32% for Netflix, 30% for Amazon, 15% for Facebook (compared to 24% in 2016-2019), and 12% for Microsoft (compared to 16%). Those are still impressive growth numbers, and should be achievable as long as these companies can continue to grow market share. Chart 29Can The Big Tech Stocks Keep Growing Earnings At This Rate? The second set of risks would be regulatory: A move to break up companies such as Google and Amazon, the US introducing data privacy legislation similar to that in the European Union, or a move to a digital tax or minimum global taxation. None of these seems likely in the immediate future. Automation/Robotics/Capital Goods The return, at the margin, of some manufacturing to the United States (and other developed economies) will bring about economic changes. Unable to tap into the pool of cheap international labor as easily as before, companies will have to invest significantly in this sector. This will result in the following: A resurgence of manufacturing productivity, thanks to increased investment. An intensification of automation. The US will need to boost the number of robots per capita to compete with Korea, Germany, and Japan. This will further improve productivity. The development of a high-tech manufacturing sector. Analogous to the FAANG stocks during the 2010s, a new group of innovative manufacturing companies could emerge. New infrastructure, roads, factories, and machinery will be needed to replace what is now an outdated capital stock in the US (Chart 30). These trends should all be positive for the capital-goods sector. Such a project would also need large amounts of raw materials. This might push up the prices of commodities such as industrial metals, and benefit materials producers. As mentioned above, it could boost the price of real estate outside of the major cities, where the new manufacturers would be likely to set up. Chart 30The US Capital Stock Is Becoming Outdated Mixed Retailing / Consumer Goods Retailing is likely to see a significant shakeout over the next few years. The cracks have been apparent for some years: Decreasing footfall, and empty units on many high streets and shopping malls, amid the shift to online shopping. A shift to the suburbs and further growth in online shopping will change retailing further. Rents in the highest end Manhattan shopping districts have already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, especially Lower Fifth Avenue (between 42nd and 49th Streets) which is dominated by large chain stores (Chart 31). Shopping malls, particularly undistinguished ones in poorer areas, will continue to suffer. Overall, the US in particular has an excess of retailing space, almost five times as much per capita as the major European economies (Chart 32). Chart 31Manhattan Retail Store Rents Already Falling Sharply Chart 32The US Has Far Too Much Retail Space But it is hard to predict the winners from this shake-out. Overall spending by consumers is unlikely to be significantly affected, so it is a matter of forecasting which companies and formats will emerge victorious. Will Walmart and Target and other large retail chains improve their online offering to fight back against Amazon? Facebook, Shopify, and others have set up new services to compete with Amazon on price – will they be successful? Will small stores start to win back market share? Will supermarkets figure out how to make profits from their order-online-and-deliver services (which are now very costly because most often a human has to run around the store picking out the items ordered), or will new, fully automated competitors emerge? Will new technologies materialize to make it easier to buy clothes online (for example, digitized body measuring systems)? These changes will also affect producers of consumer products. They will have to understand the new channels, and adapt their offerings and positioning strategies accordingly. These changes will make the sector a tricky one. A skilled fund manager might be able to predict which companies’ strategies will be successful. But it could be a problematic area for investors owning individual stocks within the sector who do not have detailed expertise. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beyond The Virus," dated May 22, 2020 and Geopolitical Strategy, "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," dated June 26, 2020. 2 Peter E. Drucker, "The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition," 1993, p.340. 3 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020. 4 OWL Labs, “The State of Remote Work Report,” available at www.owllabs.com. 5 Pew Research Center survey conducted March 19-24 2020. Please see https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/03/30/most-americans-say-coronavirus-outbreak-has-impacted-their-lives/psdt_03-30-20_covid-impact-00-4/ 6 Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A., “The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown about Telecommuting”,  Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6), 2007. 7 Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015), 165-218. 8 Please see educationdata.org. 9 Ateev Mehrotra, Michael Chernew, David Linetsky, Hilary Hatch, and David Cutler, "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, dated May 19, 2020.  10For more on the long-term outlook for the health care sector, Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight," dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight,"dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.