Equities

Highlights We conservatively estimate lost output from shutdowns and social distancing will equal $10 trillion, and we expect the jobs market to be permanently scarred. Inflation, even at 2 percent, is a pipe dream, which leads to three investment conclusions on a 1-year horizon: Overweight US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs. Any high-quality bond yield that can decline will decline. Overweight CHF/USD. The tightening yield spread will structurally favour the CHF, while the haven status of the CHF should prevent it from underperforming in periods of market stress. Overweight defensive equities (technology and healthcare) versus cyclical equities (banks and energy). This implies underweight European equities versus other markets. Fractal trade: Short Germany versus the UK. The recent outperformance of German equities is technically extended. Feature Chart of the WeekCredit Impulses Are Large, But The Hole In Output Is Much Larger Big numbers befuddle us. Hardly a day passes without someone listing the unprecedented global stimulus unleashed to counter the coronavirus forced shutdowns – the trillions in government spending promises, tax relief, loan guarantees, money supply growth, and central bank asset-purchases. The most optimistic estimates quantify the total stimulus at $15 trillion. This includes $7 trillion of loan guarantees plus increases in central bank balance sheets which do not directly boost demand. So the direct stimulus is closer to $7 trillion.1 Yet the size of the stimulus is meaningless until we quantify the massive hole in economic output that needs to be filled. Assuming no further large-scale shutdowns, we conservatively estimate that the hole will amount to 12 percent of world output, or $10 trillion. A $10 Trillion Hole In Output Last week, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) helped us to estimate the hole in output, because unusually the ONS calculates UK GDP on a monthly basis. Between February and April, when the UK economy went from fully open to full shutdown, UK GDP collapsed by 25 percent. This despite the UK having an outsized number of jobs suitable for ‘working from home.’ For a more typical economy, we estimate that a full shutdown collapses output by 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Full Shutdown Collapses Output By 30 Percent The next question is: how long does the full shutdown last? Assuming it lasts for three months, output would suffer a hole amounting to 7.5 percent of annual GDP.2  But in practice, the economy will not fully re-open after three months. Social distancing will persist until people feel confident that the pandemic is under control. An effective vaccine against Covid-19 is unlikely to be available for a year. So, even without government policy to enforce social distancing, many people will choose to avoid crowds and congregations for fear of catching the virus. The size of the stimulus is meaningless until we quantify the massive hole in economic output. This means that the sectors that rely on crowds and congregations – leisure and hospitality and retail trade – will be operating at half-capacity, at best. Given that these sectors generate 9 percent of GDP, operating at half-capacity will create an additional hole amounting to 4.5 percent of output. More worryingly, these two sectors employ 21 percent of all workers, so operating at sub-par will leave the jobs market permanently scarred.3 Combining the 7.5 percent existing hole with the 4.5 percent future hole, the full hole in economic output will amount to around 12 percent of annual GDP. As global GDP is worth around $85 trillion, this equates to $10 trillion.  Crucially though, our estimate assumes that a second wave of the pandemic will not force a new cycle of shutdowns. If it does, the hole will become even bigger. Don’t Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth The recent growth in broad money supply seems a big number. Since the start of the year, the outstanding stock of bank loans has increased by around $0.7 trillion in the euro area, and by $1 trillion in both the US and China (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This has boosted the 6-month credit impulses in all three economies. Indeed, the US 6-month credit impulse recently hit its highest value of all time, and the combined 6-month impulse across all three blocs equals around $2 trillion (Chart of the Week). Chart I-3Don't Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth In The Euro Area And The US... Chart I-4...And In ##br##China This 6-month credit impulse quantifies the additional borrowing in the most recent six-month period compared to the previous period. Ordinarily, a $2 trillion impulse would create a huge boost to demand. After all, the private sector does not usually borrow just to hold the cash in a bank. Yet in the coronavirus crisis this is precisely what has happened. While the shutdowns lasted, firms drew on existing bank credit lines to build up emergency cash buffers. Therefore, much of the money growth will not generate new demand. While the shutdowns lasted, firms drew on existing bank credit lines to build up emergency cash buffers.  To the extent that this cash is sitting idly in a firm’s bank account, the monetary velocity will decline. Meaning there will be a much-reduced transmission from credit impulses to spending growth. Furthermore, when the economy re-opens, many firms will relinquish the precautionary credit lines. There is no point holding cash in the bank when there are few investment opportunities. Hence, credit impulses will fall back – as seems to be the case right now in the US. QE: The Great Misunderstanding To repeat, big numbers befuddle us. They must always be put into context. No truer is this than when it comes to central bank asset-purchases. The great misunderstanding is that the act of central banks buying assets, per se, drives up those asset prices. Central banks act as lenders of last resort to solvent but illiquid banks and sovereigns. If there is ample liquidity in these markets – as is the case now – then the primary function of central bank asset-purchases is to set the term-structure of interest rates. In turn, the term-structure of global interest rates establishes the prices of $500 trillion of global assets. The prices of these assets are inextricably inter-connected and inter-dependent4 (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Prices Of $500 Trillion Of Assets Are Inextricably Inter-Connected The great misunderstanding is that the act of central banks buying assets, per se, drives up those asset prices. Yet central banks set no price target for their asset-purchases. They leave that to the market. Moreover, in the context of the $500 trillion of inter-dependent asset prices, the $10-15 trillion or so of central bank asset-purchases to date constitutes chicken feed (Chart I-6). Hence, the mechanism by which asset-purchases work is through the signal they give to the $500 trillion market on the likely course of interest rate policy. This sets the term-structure of interest rates, which in turn sets the required return on all the $500 trillion of assets (Chart I-7). Chart I-6$10-15 Trillion Of QE Is Chicken Feed... Chart I-7...Compared To $500 Trillion Of Assets Priced By The Term-Structure Of Interest Rates As the ECB’s former Chief Economist, Peter Praet, explains: “There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound.)” The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too. But once bond yields have reached their lower bound the effectiveness of central bank asset-purchases becomes exhausted. Three Investment Conclusions The main purpose of this report was to put the $7 trillion of direct stimulus dollars unleashed into the economy into a proper context. With lost output estimated at $10 trillion and the jobs market permanently scarred, inflation – even at 2 percent – is a pipe dream. Moreover, a second wave of the pandemic and a new cycle of shutdowns would inject a further disinflationary impulse. This leads to three investment conclusions on a 1-year horizon: Any high-quality bond yield that can decline – because it is not already near the -1 percent lower bound to yields – will decline. An excellent relative value trade is to overweight US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs (Chart I-8). Long CHF/USD is a win-win. The tightening yield spread will structurally favour the CHF, while the haven status of the CHF should prevent it from underperforming in periods of market stress. Overweight defensive equities versus cyclical equities, with technology correctly defined as defensive, not cyclical. The performance of cyclicals (banks and energy) versus defensives (technology and healthcare) is now joined at the hip to the bond yield (Chart I-9). This implies underweight European equities versus other markets. Chart I-8Bond Yields That Can Decline Will Decline Chart I-9The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives Is Joined At The Hip To The Bond Yield Fractal Trading System* The recent outperformance of German equities is technically extended. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short Germany versus the UK, expressed through the MSCI dollar indexes. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. In other trades, long euro area personal products versus healthcare achieved its 7 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Footnotes 1 Source: Reuters estimate. 2 A 30 percent loss in output for a quarter of a year (3 months) amounts to a 30*0.25 = 7.5 percent loss in annual output. 3 Using the weights of leisure and hospitality and retail trade in the US economy as a proxy for the global weights. 4 The $500 trillion of assets comprises: real estate $300 trillion, public and private equity $100 trillion, corporate bonds and EM debt $50 trillion, and high-quality government bonds $50 trillion.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

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

Overweight (Downgrade Alert) In mid-April we boosted the S&P consumer discretionary index to overweight via assigning an above benchmark allocation to both internet and home improvement retailers (HIR). Our thesis to overweight consumer discretionary stocks during the recession remains intact, however, weakness in our HIR macro model (see chart), a hook down in existing home sales and tick up in inventories compelled us to institute an HIR stop at the 10% relative return mark. Bottom Line: While we remain overweight the S&P HIR index it is now on downgrade alert. We also set a stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect profits for our portfolio. Stay tuned. For additional details please refer to our June 15 Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI – HD, LOW.  

The ongoing COVID-19 catalyzed recession that the NBER last week confirmed commenced in February, the “second wave” risk, a flare up in the US/Sino trade war and more recently, civil unrest have dominated the news flow. However, in all this chaos, the November election has slowly moved into the background, especially the SPX return implications during the 4th year of a Presidency. The chart below shows the profile of the S&P 500 during Presidential Election calendar years, going back to the 1950s. The solid green line shows the historical mean, and shaded areas denote the 10th and 90th percentiles of SPX performance. If history rhymes, the average profile of these 17 iterations suggests that more cyclical gains are in store for the S&P 500. Nevertheless, before getting carried away, a word of caution is in order. According to our analysis if the 90th percentile proves accurate instead, then the SPX could trace this lower bound and fall 640 points or 20% from the recent peak (see chart). Bottom Line: While we remain constructive on the prospects of the broad equity market on the cyclical 9-12 months time horizon, the Presidential Election outcome is a key tail risk to our cyclically sanguine equity market view. Please refer to yesterday’s Weekly Report for additional details.