Economy

Highlights Portfolio Strategy China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index.    Lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics, are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Recent Changes Trim the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index to underweight, today. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 fell for a second straight week and has now given back almost all of the year-to-date gains. While the coronavirus has served as an excuse to sell as we warned last week,1 we are nowhere near in unwinding the extreme overbought conditions in the broad equity market. We are no epidemiology experts, however, what concerns us most is when the news will eventually hit that coronavirus deaths are sprucing up outside of China’s borders. This will likely catalyze more equity selling and a capitulation point will subsequently ensue. Importantly, beneath the surface macro divergences remain wide. The yield curve peaked at the turn of the year. Similarly, the real 10-year Treasury yield crested around the same time and so did the hyper growth sensitive AUD/CHF cross rate all predating the coronavirus epidemic news (Chart 1). Our sense is that the bond market in particular is likely reflecting Bernie Sander’s rise in the polls along with persistently soft economic data.   Other indicators we track confirm that the handoff from liquidity-to-growth we have all been waiting for remains on hold. The oil-to-gold and copper-to-gold ratios have no pulse, warning that growth remains elusive (third & bottom panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Souring Macro Predates Coronavirus Chart 2Watch Gold Closely Moreover, in our January 13 report we highlighted that gold was sniffing out two or three fed cuts in 2020, leading the fed funds futures market, as it did in the spring of 2019.2 Since our last update, the fed funds discounter in the coming 12 months has sunk from negative 20bps to negative 42bps (year-on-year change in the fed funds rate shown inverted, second panel, Chart 2). It is disconcerting that despite the sloshing liquidity and de-escalation in the US/China trade war, CEOs remain on the sidelines. The Q4 GDP release showed that non-residential investment is now contracting on a year-over-year (yoy) basis (bottom panel, Chart 3) and has been subtracting from real output growth for three consecutive quarters. Hard data continues to warn that the manufacturing recession is not over as the 15% yoy contraction in non-defense durable goods orders revealed last week (third panel, Chart 3). Equity market internals also warn that the SPX is skating on thin ice. Worrisomely, the Philly semiconductors index (SOX) peaked versus the NASDAQ 100 last year and has been losing steam of late. The equally- versus market cap-weighted S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 ratios remain near multi-year lows, and small caps are still stalling versus large caps (Chart 4). The implication is that, at least, an indigestion period looms for the broad equity market. Chart 3Ongoing Manufacturing Recession Chart 4Weak Market Internals Netting it all out, there are high odds that the coronavirus epidemic may serve as a catalyst and short-circuit the already frail handoff from liquidity-to-growth, warning that equity market caution is warranted at this juncture. This week we are trimming a key tech subgroup to underweight, and updating a heavyweight basic materials sub-index. To Infinity And Beyond? While we have been neutral the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index and thus participating in the monster rally over the past year, the time is ripe to downgrade exposure to below benchmark. Undoubtedly, relative share prices are extremely extended. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative share price ratio is at the highest level as a percentage of its 200-day moving average since the late-1990s. Shown as a z-score, this technical indicator is stretched to the tune of two standard deviations above the historical mean (third panel, Chart 5). The last three times technical conditions were so overbought, it marked a multi-year peak in relative performance (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, the forward multiple explains all of the return in this tech sub-group’s stellar relative performance since the 2018 Christmas Eve lows (Chart 6). In fact, stagnant-to-lower relative profit growth subtracted from relative returns over the same time period (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Up, Up And Away? Moreover, the parabolic move in the forward P/E ratio that climbed from a 25% discount to the SPX to a 15% premium (i.e. a 53% multiple jump), was because the 10-year US Treasury yield plunged by 175 basis points from peak to trough (10-year US Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 7). Chart 6EPS Have To Do The Heavy Lifting Chart 7Multiple Expansion Phase Has Run Its Course Such enormous easing in financial conditions is unlikely to repeat in the coming twelve months in order to push the forward multiple even higher and sustain the “goldilocks” conditions for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. In contrast, BCA’s higher interest rate view is a harbinger of a multiple contraction phase and compels us to trim exposure on this high-flying tech sub group to underweight. Another market narrative substantiating the multiple expansion phase is that heavyweight AAPL is now a services oriented company and rightly so commands a sky-high multiple similar to the cloud and software stocks. While there is some truth to the push into services, the iphone and other hardware still dominates AAPL’s sales and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future especially on the eve of a 5G smartphone rollout. Turning over to the macro backdrop, this still mostly manufacturing-based industry moves with the ebbs and flows of the ISM manufacturing survey. Overall business investment is contracting and so is industry capex. Worrisomely, most of the ISM manufacturing subcomponents remain below the boom/bust line warning that investment will remain soft in the coming months, despite the Sino-American trade détente (middle panel, Chart 8). CEO confidence in capital spending remains downbeat and corroborates that at least a wait and see attitude toward greenfield expansion plans is a high probability outcome (bottom panel, Chart 8). Moreover, global export expectations continue to plumb cyclical lows. Similarly, the Emerging Asian (a key tech manufacturing hub) leading economic indicator broke below the GFC lows warning that industry exports are at risk of a further collapse (second & third panels, Chart 9). Chart 8Something’s Gotta Give Chart 9Weak Operating Metrics Chart 10Soft Pricing Power… Chart 11…Will Continue To Weigh On Margins Beyond soft exports, industry new orders are also contracting (bottom panel, Chart 9). This deficient demand backdrop will continue to weigh on industry sales, owing to the recent drubbing in pricing power (third panel, Chart 10).\ Deflating selling prices are also negative for profit margins. The wide gap between industry and SPX margins is clearly unsustainable (Chart 11). Already there is tentative evidence that S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals margins have peaked and will remain under downward pressure, especially given our expectation of underwhelming profit growth in the coming months. In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Nevertheless, there is one risk that is worth monitoring: the US consumer. A tight labor market should continue to bid up the price of labor and sustains wage gains which means more money in consumers’ wallets. As a result, brisk consumer outlays on computers & peripherals could reverse the ongoing industry sales deceleration (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, WDC, HPE, STX, NTAP, XRX. Chart 12Risk To Bearish View Hazardous Chemicals The S&P chemicals bear market has entered its third year and we remain underweight this capital intensive basic materials subgroup. Relative share prices have broken below the GFC lows and it would not surprise us if they would retest the 2006 lows (Chart 13). Now that the chemicals M&A activity dust has settled for good, China dominates the direction of chemical equities. Chinese authorities are still easing monetary policy and are injecting liquidity in the banking system by slashing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The recent coronavirus epidemic almost guarantees further easing via the RRR channel. Such a monetary setting should eventually stabilize the economy. However, until a turnaround is evident, US chemical stocks will continue to follow down the path of the Chinese RRR (top panel, Chart 13). The Australian currency, which is hyper-sensitive to China’s growth, corroborates that Chinese economic activity remains soft (second panel, Chart 13). Broad-based US dollar strength also confirms that global growth has yet to stage a durable comeback. The implication is that US chemical exports will continue to lose market share, weighing on industry profits (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 13China Leads The Way In fact, sell-side analysts are expecting a relative profit growth acceleration phase, but a decline in relative revenue prospects. This suggests that already uncharacteristically high chemical profit margins will continue to outpace the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our indicators suggest that it pays to lean against such relative EPS and profit margin euphoria. Importantly, our chemicals profit margin proxy is sinking, warning that a profit margin squeeze looms. Not only are selling prices deflating, but also the industry’s wage bill is gaining steam (bottom panel, Chart 14). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Moreover, chemical railcar loads are contracting at a time when the ISM manufacturing survey remains squarely below the boom/bust line (middle panel, Chart 14). This deficient chemical demand backdrop is deflationary (second panel, Chart 15) and will eat into industry profit margins. Chart 14Downbeat Demand Backdrop Chart 15Deflation Getting Entrenched On the operating front, our chemicals industry productivity proxy (industrial production/employment) is also in negative territory, underscoring that profits will likely surprise to the downside (third panel, Chart 15). Chemical industrial production is contracting at an accelerating pace and industry shipments are in retreat, warnings that the risk is high of an inventory liquidation phase (bottom panel, Chart 15). While we remain bearish on chemical stocks on a cyclical horizon, there are two key risks we are closely monitoring that would push our view offside. The global reflation handoff to actual growth is the key risk. If the global economy enters a V-shaped recovery, global bond yields will immediately reflect such a growth backdrop and push interest rates higher. This would put downward pressure on the greenback and significantly reflate chemical earnings (middle panel, Chart 16). Finally, chemical stocks are cheap and trade at a steep discount to the broad market. When our relative valuation indicator has plunged to such depressed levels in the past fifteen years, bottom-fishing buyers have come back in the market and added chemical stock exposure to their portfolios (bottom panel, Chart 16). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P chemicals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CHEM – LIN, APD, ECL, SHW, DD, DOW, PPG, CTVA, LYB, IFF, CE, FMC, EMN, CF, ALB, MOS. Chart 16Two Risks To Monitor     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Music Stops...” dated January 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Special Report

Highlights Public opinion has a significant impact on labor-management outcomes: Organized labor cannot make any headway unless elected officials and the courts give it a fighting chance. They will only do so if the public desires it. The face of organized labor is changing: Manufacturing’s decline does not ensure the demise of organized labor. Unions have already pivoted to services, just like the overall economy. Elections have consequences: The power to pass legislation, staff departments and agencies, and exert control over judicial appointments can have a tremendous workplace impact. Organized labor isn’t dead: We do not expect a return to unions’ heyday, but we are convinced that labor’s potential to achieve significant incremental progress is much larger than most investors believe. The election could serve as a catalyst for tapping that potential. Feature We have read quite a bit about US labor relations over the last month and a half. Several themes were apparent, but the most basic was a constant from the 1800s to today: For-profit employers will seek the most favorable terms they can get, to the extent that they are socially acceptable. This is not to say that management is out to get labor, or that Marx might have had a point; it simply acknowledges the pre-New Deal and post-Reagan empirical record. Before the legal and social buffers that sheltered labor were put in place, and after they began to be eroded, employees found themselves steadily losing ground. Capturing Hearts And Minds Public opinion has shaped the outcomes of labor-management contests throughout US labor relations history. Labor was continually outgunned before the New Deal, coming up against private security forces, local police and/or the National Guard when they struck. Employers were able to turn to hired muscle, or request the deployment of public resources on their behalf, because the public had few qualms about using force to break strikes. College athletes were even pressed into service as strikebreakers after the turn of the century for what was viewed at the time as good, clean fun.1 Public opinion is not immutable, however, and by the time of the Flint sit-down strike, it had begun to shift in the direction of labor. The widespread misery of the Depression went a long way to overcoming Americans’ deep-seated suspicion of the labor movement and the fringe elements associated with it. Some employers were slow to pick up on the change in the public mood, however, and Ford’s security force thuggishly beat Walter Reuther and other UAW organizers while they oversaw the distribution of union leaflets outside a massive Ford plant just three months after Flint. Ford won the Battle of the Overpass, but its heavy-handed, retrograde tactics helped cost it the war. Reuther, who later led the UAW in its ‘50s and ‘60s golden age, was a master strategist with a knack for public relations. Writing the playbook later used to great effect by civil rights leaders, Reuther invited clergymen, Senate staffers and the press to accompany the largely female team of leafleteers. When the Ford heavies commenced beating the men, and roughly scattering the women, photographers were on hand to document it all.2 The photos helped unions capture public sympathy, just as televised images of dogs and fire hoses would later help secure passage of landmark civil rights legislation. Unions’ Fall From Grace Labor unions enjoyed their greatest public support in the mid-fifties, and largely maintained it well into the sixties (Chart 1), until rampant corruption and ties to organized crime undermined their public appeal. The shoddy quality of American autos further turned opinion against the UAW, the nation’s most prominent union, and a college football star named Brian Bosworth caused a mid-eighties furor by claiming that he had deliberately sought to prank new car buyers during his summer job on a Chevrolet assembly line. Bosworth later retracted the claim that GM workers had shown him how to insert stray bolts in inaccessible parts of car bodies to create a maddening mystery rattling, but the fact that so many Sports Illustrated readers found it credible eloquently testified to the UAW’s image problem. Chart 1Unions' Public Image Has Recovered Nicely Since The Crisis Figure 1Unions' 1980s Public Opinion Vortex President Reagan accelerated the trend when he successfully stood up to the striking air traffic controllers, but his administration could not have taken such a hard line if unions hadn’t already been weakened by declining public support. In the final analysis, it was PATCO’s disastrous misreading of public opinion – fed-up voters supported the White House, and other air travel unions refused to strike in sympathy with the controllers – that led it to spurn the administration’s generous initial offer and brought about its demise. Together, the public’s waning support for unions and the Reagan administration’s antipathy for them were powerfully self-reinforcing, and they fueled a vicious circle that powered four decades of union reversals (Figure 1). Companies will do whatever they perceive to be socially acceptable in conflicts with employees, but no more. As a prescient November 1981 Fortune report put it, “‘Managers are discovering that strikes can be broken, … and that strike-breaking (assuming it to be legal and nonviolent) doesn’t have to be a dirty word. In the long run, this new perception by business could turn out to be big news.’”3 Emboldened by the federal government’s replacement of the controllers, and the growing public perception that unions had devolved into an insular interest group driving the cost of living higher for everyone else, businesses began turning to permanent replacement workers to counter strikes.4 As an attorney that represented management in labor disputes told The New York Times in 1986, “If the President of the United States can replace [strikers], this must be socially acceptable, politically acceptable, and we can do it, also.”5 Labor’s New Face … Polling data indicate that unions have been recovering in the court of public opinion since the crisis, when the public presumably soured on them over the perception that the UAW was selfishly impeding the auto industry bailout. Their image got a boost in 2018 (Chart 2), as striking red-state teachers embodied the shift from unions’ factory past to their service-provider present. “The teachers, many of them women, are redefining attitudes about organized labor, replacing negative stereotypes of overpaid and underperforming blue-collar workers with a more sympathetic face: overworked and underappreciated nurturers who say they’re fighting for their students as much as they’re fighting for themselves.”6 Chart 2Feeling The Bern? Several commentators have heard organized labor’s death knell in US manufacturing’s irreversible decline. Unions gained critical mass on docks, factory floors, steel mills and coal mines, but few of today’s workers make their living there. Those who remain have little recourse other than to accept whatever terms management offers, as their jobs can easily be outsourced to lower-cost jurisdictions. The decline in private-sector union membership has traced the steady diminution of factory workers’ leverage (Chart 3). Chart 3Tracking Manufacturing's Slide Service workers represent unions’ future, and they have two important advantages over their manufacturing counterparts: many of their functions cannot be offshored, and a great deal of them are customer-facing. When MGM’s chairman was ousted from his job after clashing with Las Vegas’ potent UNITE-HERE local over the new MGM Grand Hotel’s nonunion policy, his successor explained why he immediately came to terms with the union. “‘The last thing you want is for people who are coming to enjoy themselves to see pickets and unhappy workers blocking driveways. … When you’re in the service business, the first contact our guests have is with the guest-room attendants or the food and beverage servers, and if that person’s [sic] unhappy, that comes across to the guests very quickly.’”7 … Management’s New Leaf … The Business Roundtable’s latest statement on corporate governance principles laid out a new stakeholder vision, displacing the Milton Friedman view that corporations are solely responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth. The statement itself is pretty bland, but the preamble in the press release accompanying it sounds as if it had been developed with labor advocates’ help (Box 1). It is a stretch to think that the ideals in the Roundtable’s communications will take precedence over investment returns, but they may signal that management fears the labor-management rubber band has been stretched too far.8 Box 1 Farewell, Milton Friedman America’s economic model, which is based on freedom, liberty and other enduring principles of our democracy, has raised standards of living for generations, while promoting competition, consumer choice and innovation. America’s businesses have been a critical engine to its success. Yet we know that many Americans are struggling. Too often hard work is not rewarded, and not enough is being done for workers to adjust to the rapid pace of change in the economy. If companies fail to recognize that the success of our system is dependent on inclusive long-term growth, many will raise legitimate questions about the role of large employers in our society. With these concerns in mind, Business Roundtable is modernizing its principles on the role of a corporation. Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance that include language on the purpose of a corporation. Each version of that document issued since 1997 has stated that corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders. It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable. We therefore provide the following Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, which supersedes previous Business Roundtable statements and more accurately reflects our commitment to a free market economy that serves all Americans. This statement represents only one element of Business Roundtable’s work to ensure more inclusive prosperity, and we are continuing to challenge ourselves to do more. Just as we are committed to doing our part as corporate CEOs, we call on others to do their part as well. In particular, we urge leading investors to support companies that build long-term value by investing in their employees and communities. The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) movement has the potential to improve rank-and-file workers’ wages and working conditions. ESG proponents have steadily groused about outsized executive pay packages, but if asset owners and institutional investors were to begin pushing for higher entry-level pay to narrow the income-inequality gap, unions could gain some powerful allies. … And The Public’s Left Turn Chart 4Help! As our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues have argued since the 2016 primaries, the median voter in the US has been moving to the left as the financial crisis, the hollowing out of the middle class and the widening wealth gap have dimmed the luster of Reagan-Thatcher free-market policies.9 Globalization has squeezed unskilled labor everywhere in the developed world, and white-collar workers are starting to look over their shoulders at artificial intelligence programs that may render them obsolete as surely as voice mail and word processing decimated secretaries and typists. Banding together hasn’t sounded so good since the Depression, and nearly half of all workers polled in 2017 said they would join a union if they could (Chart 4). Millennials are poised to become the single biggest voting bloc in the country. They were born between 1981 and 1996, and their lives have spanned two equity market crashes, the September 11th attacks, and the financial crisis, instilling them with a keen awareness of the way that remote events can upend the best-laid plans. Many of them emerged from college with sizable debt and dim earnings prospects. They would welcome more government involvement in the economy, and their enthusiastic embrace of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (Chart 5) indicates they’re on unions’ side. Chart 5No "Third Way" For Millennials Elections Have (Considerable Regulatory) Consequences Electoral outcomes influence the division of the economic pie between employers and employees. Labor-friendly presidents, governors and legislatures are more likely to expand employee protections, while more vigilantly enforcing the employment laws and regulations that are already on the books. The White House appoints top leadership at the Labor Department, the National Labor Review Board (NLRB), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), along with the attorney general, who dictates the effort devoted to anti-trust enforcement. It's no surprise that unions have started to look pretty good to workers after a decade of sluggish growth and widening inequality. The differences can be stark. Justice Scalia’s son would no more have led the Obama Department of Labor than Scott Pruitt (EPA), Wilbur Ross (Commerce) or Betsy Devos (Education) would have found employment anywhere in the Obama administration. McDonald’s has good reason to be happy with the outcome of the 2016 election; its business before the NLRB wound up being resolved much more favorably in 2019 than it would have been when it began in 2014 (Box 2). At the state level, Wisconsin public employees suffered a previously unimaginable setback when Scott Walker won the 2010 gubernatorial election, along with sizable legislative majorities (Box 3). Box 2 The Right Referee Makes All The Difference The Fight for $15 movement that began in 2012 aimed to nearly double the median fast-food worker’s wages. A raise of that magnitude would pose an existential threat to fast-food’s business model, and McDonald’s and its franchisees sought to stymie the movement’s momentum. The NLRB opened an investigation in 2014 following allegations that employees were fired for participating in organizing activities. McDonald’s vigorously contested the case in an effort to avoid the joint-employer designation that would open the door for franchise employees to bargain collectively with the parent company. (Absent a joint-employer ruling, a union would have to organize the McDonald’s work force one franchise at a time.) When the case was decided in McDonald’s favor in December, the headline and sub-header on the Bloomberg story reporting the outcome crystallized our elections-matter thesis: McDonald’s Gets Win Under Trump That Proved Elusive With Obama Board led by Trump appointees overrules judge in case that threatened business model Box 3 Wisconsin Guts Public-Sector Unions Soon after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took office in January 2011, backed by sizable Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, he sent a bill to legislators that would cripple the state’s public-sector unions. Protestors swarmed Madison and filled the capitol building every day for a month to contest the bill, and Democratic legislators fled the state to forestall a vote, but it eventually passed nonetheless. The bill struck at a rare union success story; nearly one-third of public-sector employees are union members and that ratio has remained fairly steady over the last 40 years (Chart 6). Wisconsin’s public-sector unions now do little more than advocate for their members in disciplinary and grievance proceedings, and overall union membership in the state has fallen by a whopping 43% since the end of 2009. Chart 6Public-Sector Union Membership Has Held Up Well Judicial appointments make a difference, too. The Supreme Court’s Janus decision in April 2018, banning any requirement that public employees pay dues to the unions that bargain for them on not-so-readily-apparent First Amendment grounds,10 was widely viewed as a body blow to public-sector unions. The 5-4 decision would certainly have gone the other way had President Obama’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Scalia been confirmed by the Senate. Final Takeaways Six weeks of reading about US labor history, considering the game theory underlying employment negotiations, and examining the current landscape for insight into the drivers of management and labor leverage have left us pretty much where we started. We do not anticipate that organized labor will regain the position it enjoyed in the fifties and sixties, when global competition was weak and shareholders and consumers were anything but vigilant about corporate operations. Even a more modest flexing of labor muscle that pushes wages higher across the entire economy has a probability of less than one half. Investors seem to think the probability is negligible, though, and therein lies an opportunity. We stated two major themes at the outset. One, employees have little chance of gaining ground if government is disposed to side with employers, and, two, successful strikes beget strikes. Public opinion is the tissue that connects the two themes. Elected officials deliver what their constituents want, as do the courts, albeit with a longer lag. Society’s view of striking/strikebreaking tactics heavily influences how they’re deployed and whether or not they’ll be successful. If the electorate has had enough of Reagan-Thatcher policies, elected officials will stop implementing them. We believe that public opinion is beginning to coalesce on employees’ side as labor puts on a more appealing face; as businesses increasingly fret about inequality’s consequences; and as millennials swoon over progressives, undeterred by labels that would have left their Cold War ancestors reaching for weapons. The median voter theory has importance beyond predicting future outcomes; it directly influences them. As the center of the electorate leans to the left, elected officials will have to deliver more liberal outcomes if they want to keep their jobs. If the electorate has given up on Reagan-Thatcher principles, organized labor is bound to get a break from the four-decade onslaught that has left it shrunken and feeble. There is one overriding market takeaway from our view that a labor recovery is more likely than investors realize: long-run inflation expectations are way too low. Although we do not expect wage growth to rise enough this year to give rise to sustainable upward inflation pressures that force the Fed to come off of the sidelines, we do think investors are overly complacent about inflation. We continue to advocate for below-benchmark duration positioning over a cyclical timeframe and for owning TIPS in place of longer-maturity Treasury bonds over all timeframes. Watch the election, as it may reveal that labor’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Students were excused from classes and exams and sometimes even received academic credit for their work. 2 King, Gilbert, “How The Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground,” Smithsonian.com, April 30, 2013. 3 Greenhouse, Steven, Beaten Down, Worked Up, Alfred A. Knopf: New York (2019), pp. 137-8. 4 High unemployment, in addition to declining respect for unions, helped erase the stigma of crossing picket lines. 5 Serrin, William, “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them,” New York Times, September 30, 1986, p. A18. 6 Emma, Caitlin, “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America,” Politico, April 12, 2018. 7 Greenhouse, p. 44. 8 Please see the January 20, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see the June 8, 2016 Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “Introducing The Median Voter Theory,” available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The Court found for the plaintiff in Janus, who bridled at the closed-shop law that forced him to join the union that bargained on his and his colleagues’ behalf, because the union’s espousal of views with which he disagreed constituted a violation of his free-speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Bibliography Aamidor, Abe and Evanoff, Ted. At The Crossroads: Middle America and the Battle to Save the Car Industry. Toronto: ECW Press (2010). Allegretto, S.A.; Doussard, M.; Graham-Squire, D.; Jacobs, K.; Thompson, D.; and Thompson, J. Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry. Berkeley, CA. UC-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, October 2013. Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1960). Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics. Brooklyn, NY: Verso (2019). Emma, Caitlin. “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America.” Politico, April 12, 2018, accessed January 20, 2020. Finnegan, William. “Dignity: Fast-Food Workers and a New Form of Labor Activism.” The New Yorker, September 15, 2014 Greenhouse, Steven. Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present and Future of American Labor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (2019). Greenhouse, Steven. “The Return of the Strike.” The American Prospect, Winter 2019 Ingrassia, Paul. Crash Course: The American Auto Industry’s Road from Glory to Disaster. New York: Random House (2010). King, Gilbert. “How the Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground.” smithsonianmag.com, April 30, 2013, accessed January 24, 2020. Loomis, Erik. A History of America in Ten Strikes. New York: The New Press (2018). Manchester, William. The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972. New York: Bantam (1974). Norwood, Stephen H. “The Student As Strikebreaker: College Youth and the Crisis of Masculinity in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of Social History Winter 1994: pp. 331-49. Sears, Stephen W. “Shut the Goddam Plant!” American Heritage Volume 33, Issue 3 (April/May 1982) Serrin, William. “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them.” The New York Times, September 30, 1986 Wolff, Leon. “Battle at Homestead.” American Heritage Volume 16, Issue 3 (April 1965) *Current newspaper and Bloomberg articles omitted.