Financial Markets

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s ultra-dovish stance is not the only reason for markets to cheer. The US is booming, China is unlikely to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy, and Europe remains a source of positive political surprises. Still, the cornerstone of this cycle’s wall of worry has been laid: Biden faces a series of foreign policy challenges, the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s stimulus is not large enough to qualify as a game changer for potential GDP growth. Stay the course by maintaining strategic pro-cyclical trades yet building up tactical hedges and safe-haven plays. Feature Chart 1US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups The US is turning to tax hikes, China is returning to structural reforms, and Europe is bungling its vaccine rollout. Yet synchronized global debt monetization is nothing to underrate. Especially not in the context of a Great Power struggle that features a green energy race as well as a high-tech race. Governments are generating a cyclical growth boom and it is conceivably that their simultaneous pump-priming combined with a new capex cycle and private innovation could generate a productivity breakthrough. This upside risk is keeping global equity markets bullish even as it becomes apparent that construction has begun on this cycle’s wall of worry. The US dollar bounce should be watched closely in this context (Chart 1). After passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, which consists largely but not entirely of short-term cash handouts (Chart 2), President Joe Biden’s policy agenda will now turn to tax hikes. Thus far the tax hike proposals are in line with Biden’s campaign literature (Table 1). It remains to be seen whether the market will “sell the news” that Biden is pivoting to tax hikes. After all, Biden was the most moderate of the Democratic candidates and his tax proposals only partially reverse President Trump’s tax cuts. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act Table 1Biden’s Tax Hike Proposals On The Campaign Trail Nevertheless higher taxes symbolize a regime change in the US – it is very unlikely tax rates will go down anytime soon but they could go easily higher than expected in the coming decade – and the drafting process will bring negative surprises, as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen highlighted by courting Europe to cooperate on a 12% minimum corporate tax and halt the global race to the bottom in taxes on multinational corporations. At the same time Biden’s foreign policy challenges are rising across the board: China is demanding a rollback of Trump’s policies: If Biden says yes, he will sacrifice hard-won American leverage on matters of national interest. If he says no, the Phase One trade deal will be null and void, as will sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and the new economic sanctions on Taiwan will expand beyond mere pineapples.1 Russia is recalling its US ambassador: Biden vowed to make Russia pay for alleged interference in the 2020 US election and sanctions are forthcoming.2 The real way to make Russia pay is to halt the construction of the Nordstream II natural gas pipeline, which reduces the leverage of eastern European democracies while increasing Germany’s energy dependence on Russia. But Germany is dead-set on that pipeline. If Biden levies sanctions the centerpiece of his diplomatic outreach to Europe will be further encouraged to chart an independent course from Washington (though the rest of Europe might cheer). North Korea is threatening to restart missile tests: North Korea is pouring scorn on the Biden administration for trying to restart negotiations.3 The North wants sanctions relief and it knows that Biden is willing to offer it but it may need to create an atmosphere of crisis first. China would be happy were that to happen as it could offer the US its good services on North Korea instead of concrete trade concessions. Iran is refusing to rejoin negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal: Biden has about five months to arrange for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Beyond that he will enter into another long negotiation with the master negotiators, the Persians. But unlike President Obama from 2009-15, he will not have support from Russia and China … unless he sacrifices his doctrine of “extreme competition” from the get-go. It is not clear which of these challenges will be relevant to financial markets, or when. However, with US and global equities skyrocketing, it must be said that the geopolitical backdrop is not nearly as reassuring as the Federal Reserve, which announced on Saint Patrick’s Day that it will not hike interest rates until 2024 even in the face of a 6.5% growth rate and the prospect of an additional, yet-to-be passed $2 trillion in US deficit spending. Herein lies Biden’s first victory. He has stressed that boosting the American economy and middle class is critical to his foreign policy. He envisions the US regaining its global standing by defeating the virus, super-charging the economy, and then orchestrating a grand alliance of European and Asian democracies to write new global rules that will put pressure on China to reform its economy. “I say it to foreign leaders and domestic alike. It's never, ever a good bet to bet against the American people. America is coming back. The development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines in record time is a true miracle of science.”4 The pandemic and economic part of this agenda are effectively done and now comes the hard part: creating a grand alliance while China and Russia demonstrate to their neighbors the hard consequences of joining any new US crusade. The contradiction of Biden’s foreign policy is his desire to act multilaterally and yet also get a great deal done. The Europeans are averse to conflict with China and Russia. The Russians and Chinese are not inclined to do any great favors on Iran or North Korea. Nobody is opening up their economy – Biden himself is coopting Trump’s protectionism, if less brashly. Cooperation with Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin on nuclear proliferation is possible – as long as Biden aborts his democracy agenda and his trade agenda. We continue with our pro-cyclical investment stance but have started building up hedges as we are convinced that geopolitical risk will deliver a rude awakening. This awakening will be a buying opportunity given the ultra-stimulating backdrop … unless it portends war in continental Europe or the Taiwan Strait. In the remainder of this report we highlight the takeaways from China’s National People’s Congress as well as recent developments in Germany. Our key views remain the same: China will not overtighten monetary/fiscal policy; Biden will be hawkish on China; Germany’s election may see an upset but that would be market-positive. China: No Overtightening So Far China concluded its National People’s Congress – the “Two Sessions” of legislation every year – and issued its 2021 Government Work Report. It also officially released the fourteenth five-year plan covering economic development for 2021-25. Table 2 shows the new plan’s targets as compared to the just expired thirteenth five-year plan that covered 2016-20. Table 2China’s Fourteenth Five Year Plan (2021-25) For a full run-down of the National People’s Congress we recommend clients peruse BCA’s latest China Investment Strategy report. From a geopolitical point of view we would highlight the following takeaways: The Tech Race: China added a new target for strategic emerging industry value added as percent of GDP – it wants this number to reach 17% by 2025 but there is nothing solid to benchmark this against. The point is that by including such a target China is putting more emphasis on emerging industries, including: information technology, robotics, green energy, electric vehicles, 5G networks, new materials, power equipment, aerospace and aviation equipment, and others. China’s technological “Great Leap Forward” continues, with a focus on domestic production and upgrading the manufacturing sector that is bound to stiffen the competition with the United States. China’s removal of a target for service industry growth suggests that Beijing does not want de-industrialization to occur any faster – another reason for global trade tensions to stay high. Research and Development: For R&D spending, previous five-year plans set targets for the desired level. For example, over the last five years China vowed to increase annual R&D spending to 2.5% of GDP. A reasonable expectation for the coming five years would have been a 3% target of GDP. However, this time the government set a target of an annual growth rate of no less than 7% during 2021-2025. The point is that China is continuing to ascend the ranks in R&D spending relative to the US and West in coordination with the overarching goal of forging an innovative and high-tech economy. Unemployment: China has restored an unemployment rate target. In its twelfth five-year plan Beijing aimed to keep the urban surveyed unemployment rate below 5% but over the past five years this target vanished. Now China restored the target and bumped it up slightly to 5.5%. This target should not be hard to meet given the reported sharp decline in urban unemployment to 5.2% already. However, China’s unemployment statistics are notoriously unreliable. The real takeaway is that unemployment will be higher as trend growth slows, while social stability remains the Communist Party’s ultimate prize – and any reform or deleveraging process will occur within that context. The Green Energy Race: China re-emphasized its pledge to tackle climate change, aiming for peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. However, no detailed action plans were mentioned. Presumably China will not loosen its enforcement of existing environmental targets. Most of these were kept the same as over the past five years, except for pollution (PM2.5 concentration). Previously the government sought to reduce PM2.5 concentration by 18%. Now the target is set at 10% aggregate reduction, which is lower, though further reduction will be difficult after a 43% drop since 2014. Overall, China has not loosened up its environmental targets – if anything, enforcement will strengthen, resulting in an ongoing regulatory headwind to “Old China” industries. Military Power: Last week we noted that the government’s goals for the military have changed in a way that reinforces themes of persistently high geopolitical tensions. The info-tech upgrades to the People’s Liberation Army were supposed to be met by 2020, with full “modernization” achieved by 2035. However, last October the government created a new deadline, the one-hundredth anniversary of the PLA in 2027 (“military centenary goal”). No specific measures or targets are given but the point is that there is a new deadline of serious importance – an importance that matches the party’s much-ballyhooed centennial on July 1 of 2021 and the People’s Republic’s centennial in 2049. The fact that this deadline is only six years away suggests that a rapid program of military reform and upgrade is beginning. The official defense spending growth target of 6.8% is only slightly bigger than last year’s 6.6% but these targets mask the significance of the announcement. The takeaway is that the Chinese military is preparing for an earlier-than-expected contingency with the United States and its allies. What about China’s all-important monetary, fiscal, and quasi-fiscal credit targets? There is no doubt that China is tightening policy, as we highlight in our updated China Policy Tightening Checklist (Table 3). But will China overtighten? Probably not, at least not judging by the Two Sessions, but the risk is not negligible. Table 3A Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening The government reiterated that money and credit growth should remain in a reasonable range in 2021, with “reasonable range” referring to nominal economic growth. Chinese economists estimate that the nominal growth rate will be around 8%-9% in 2021. The IMF projection is 8.1%, while latest OECD forecast is at 7.8%.5 Because China’s total private credit (total social financing) growth is inherently higher than M2 growth, we would use pre-pandemic levels as our benchmark for whether the government will tighten policy excessively: If total social financing growth plunges below 12%, then our view is disproved and Beijing is over-tightening (Chart 3). If M2 growth plunges below 8%, we can call it over-tightening. Anything above these benchmarks should be seen as reasonable and expected tightening, anything below as excessive. However, the Chinese and global financial markets could grow jittery at any time over the perennial risk of a policy mistake whenever governments try to prevent excessive leverage and bubbles. As for fiscal policy, the new quotas for local government net new bond issuance point to expected rather than excessive tightening. New bonds can be used to finance capital investment projects. The quota for total new bond issuance is 4.47 trillion CNY, down by 5.5% from last year. Though local governments may not use up all of the quota, the reduction is small. In fact, total local government bond issuance will be a whisker higher in 2021 than in 2020. The quota for net new bonds is only slightly below the 2020 level and much higher than the 2019 level. Therefore the chance of fiscal overtightening is small – and smaller than monetary overtightening. Chart 3China Policy Overtightening Benchmark Chart 4China’s Real Budget Deficit Is Huge China’s official budget balance is a fiction so we look at the IMF’s augmented net lending and borrowing, which reached a whopping -18.2 % of GDP in 2020. It is expected to decrease gradually to -13.8% by 2025. That level will be slightly higher than the pre-pandemic level from 2017-2019 (Chart 4).6 By contrast, China’s total augmented debt is expected to keep rising in the coming years and reach double the 2015 level by 2025. Efforts to constrain debt could lead to a larger debt-to-GDP ratio if growth suffers as a consequence, as our Global Investment Strategy points out. So China will tighten cautiously – especially given falling productivity, higher unemployment, and the threat of sustained pressure from the US and its allies. US-China: Biden As Trump-Lite Chinese and US officials will convene in Alaska on March 18-19. This is the first major US-China meeting under the Biden administration and global investors will watch closely to see whether tensions will drop. So far tensions have not fallen, highlighting a persistent and once again underrated risk to the global equity rally. Biden’s foreign policy team has not completed its review of China policy and Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are trying to schedule a bilateral summit in April – so nothing concrete will be decided before then. Chart 5US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer The Biden administration is setting up a pragmatic policy, offering areas to engage with China while warning that it will not compromise on democratic values or national interests. China would welcome the opportunity to work with the Americans on nuclear non-proliferation, namely North Korea and Iran, as this would expend US leverage on an area of shared interest while leaving China a free hand over its economic and technological policies. China at least partially enforced sanctions on these countries in response to President Trump’s demands during the trade war and official statistics suggest it continues to do so. Oil imports from Iran remain extremely low while Chinese business with North Korea is, on paper, nil (Chart 5). If this data is accurate then North Korea’s economy has not benefited from China’s stimulus and snapback. If true, then Pyongyang will offer partial concessions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. At the moment, instead of staging any major provocations to object to US-Korean military drills, the North is using fiery language and threatening to restart missile tests. This suggests a diplomatic opening. But investors should be prepared for Pyongyang to stage much bigger provocations than missile tests. In March 2010, while the world focused on the financial crisis, the North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean corvette, the Chonan, and shelled some islands, at the risk of a war. The problem under the Trump administration was that Trump wanted a verifiable and durable deal of economic opening for denuclearization whereas the North Koreans wanted to play for time, reduce sanctions, study the data from their flurry of missile tests during the Obama and early Trump years, and see if Trump would get reelected before offering any concrete concessions. Trump’s stance was not really different from Bill Clinton’s but he tried to accelerate the timeline and go for a big win. By Trump’s losing the election North Korea bought four more years on the clock. Chart 6US-China: Biden Lukewarm On China The Biden administration is willing to play for time if it gets concrete results in phases. This would keep North Korea at bay and retain a line of pragmatic engagement with Beijing. But if North Korea stages a giant provocation Biden will not hesitate to use threats of destruction like Clinton and Trump did. The American public is not much concerned about North Korea (or Iran) but is increasingly concerned about China, with a recent Gallup opinion poll showing that nearly 50% view China as America’s greatest enemy and Americans consistently overrate China’s economic power (Chart 6). Biden will not let grassroots nationalism run his policy. But it is true that he has little to gain politically from appearing to appease China. With progress at hand on the pandemic and economic recovery, Biden will devote more attention to courting the allies and attempting to construct his alliance of democracies to meet global challenges and to “stand up” to China and Russia. The allies, however, are risk-averse when it comes to confronting China. This is as true for the Europeans as it is for China’s Asian neighbors, who stand directly in its firing line. In fact, Europe’s total trade with China is equivalent to that of the US (Chart 7). The Europeans have said that they will pursue tougher trade enforcement through the World Trade Organization, which would tie the Biden administration’s hands. Biden and his cabinet officials insist that they will use the “full array” of tools at their disposal (e.g. tariffs and sanctions) to punish China for mercantilist trade policies. Chinese negotiators are said to be asking explicitly for Biden to roll back Trump’s policies. Some of these policies relate to trade and tech acquisition, others to strategic disputes. We doubt that Biden will compromise on the trade issues to get cooperation on North Korea and Iran. But he will have to offer major concessions if he wants durable denuclearization agreements on these rogue states. Otherwise it will be clear that his administration is mostly focused on competition with China itself and willing to sideline the minor nuclear aspirants. Our expectation is that Americans care about the China threat and the smaller threats will be used as pretexts with which to increase pressure and sanctions on China. Asian equities have corrected after going vertical, as expected. But contrary to our expectations geopolitics was not the cause (Chart 8). This selloff could eventually create a buying opportunity if the Biden administration is revealed to take a more dovish line on China, trade, and tech in exchange for progress on strategic disputes like North Korea. Any discount due to North Korean provocations in particular would be a buy. On Taiwan, however, China’s new 2027 military target underscores our oft-recited red flag. Chart 7EU Risk Averse On China Chart 8Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Bottom Line: Investors should stay focused on the US-China relationship. What matters is Biden’s first actions on tariffs and high-tech exports. So far Biden is hawkish as we anticipated. Investors should fade rumors of big new US-China cooperation prior to the first Biden-Xi summit. Any major North Korean aggression will create a buy-on-the-dips opportunity. Unless it triggers a war, that is – and the threshold for war is high given the Chonan incident in 2010. Germany: Markets Wake Up To Election Risk – And Smile This week’s election in the Netherlands delivered a fully expected victory to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s liberal coalition. The German leadership ranks next to the Dutch in terms of governments that received an increase in popular support as a result of the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 9). However, in Germany’s case the election outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Chart 9German Leadership Saw Popularity Bounce As we highlighted in our annual forecast, an upset in which a left-wing bloc forms the government for the first time since 2005 is likelier than the market expects. This scenario presents an upside risk for equities and bund yields since Germany would become even more pro-Europe, pro-integration, and proactive in its fiscal spending. In the current context that would be greeted warmly by financial markets as it would reinforce the cyclical rotation into the euro, industrials, and European peripheral debt. Incidentally, it would also reduce tensions with Russia and China – even as the Biden administration is courting Germany. Recent state elections confirm that the electorate is moving to the left rather than the right. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the third largest state by population and economic output, and a southern state, the Christian Democrats slipped from the last election (-2.9%), the Social Democrats slipped by less (-1.7%), the Free Democrats gained (2.2%), the Greens gained (2.3%), and the far-right Alternative for Germany saw a big drop (-5.4%). In the smaller state of Rhineland-Palatinate the results were largely the same although the Greens did even better (Tables 4A & 4B).7 In both cases the Christian Democrats saw the worst result since prior to the financial crisis while the Greens tripled their support in Baden and doubled their support in the Palatinate over the same time frame. Table 4AGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Table 4BGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues To put this into perspective: Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel and her coalition have seen a net 6% increase in popular support since COVID-19. The coalition, led by the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, still leads national opinion polling. What we are highlighting are chinks in the armor. The gap with the combined left-leaning bloc is less than 10% points (Chart 10). Chart 10German Party Polling Merkel is a lame duck whose party has been in power for 17 years. She is struggling to find an adequate successor. Her current frontrunner for chancellor-candidate, Armin Laschet, is suffering in public opinion, especially after the state election defeats, while her previous successor was ousted last year. Other chancellor-candidates, like Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, and Norbert Röttgen may find themselves to the right of the median voter, which has been shifting to the left. Merkel’s party’s handling of COVID-19 first received praise and now, in the year of the vote, is falling under pressure due to difficulties rolling out the vaccine. Even as conditions improve over the course of the year her party may struggle to recover from the damage, since the underlying reality is that Germany has suffered a recession and is beset by global challenges. While the Christian Democrats performed relatively well in the 2009 election, in the teeth of the global financial crisis, times have changed. Today the Social Democrats are no longer in free fall – ever since their Finance Minister Olaf Scholz led the charge for fiscal stimulus in 2019 – while third parties like the Free Democrats, Greens, and Die Linke all gained in 2009 and look to gain this year (Table 5). In today’s context it is even more likely that other parties will rise at the ruling party’s expense. Still, the Christian Democrats have stout support in polls and do not have to split votes with the far-right, which is in collapse. Table 5German Federal Election Results Show 2021 Could Throw Curveball For Ruling Party Therein lies the real market takeaway: right-wing populism has flopped in Germany. The risk to the consensus view that Merkel will hand off the baton seamlessly to a successor and secure her party another term in leadership is that the establishment left will take power (the Greens in Germany are essentially an establishment party). Chart 11German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections Near-term pandemic and economic problems have caused bund yields to fall and the yield curve to flatten so far this year (Chart 11). But that trend is unlikely to continue given the global and national outlook. Election uncertainty should work against this trend since the only possible uncertainty gives more upside to the fiscal outlook and bond yields. If the consensus view indeed comes to pass and the Christian Democrats remain in power, the election holds out policy continuity – at least on economic policy. Fiscal tightening would happen sooner under the Christian Democrats but it would not be aggressive or premature, at least not in the 2021-22 period. It is the current coalition that first loosened Germany’s belt – and it did so in 2019, prior to COVID-19. Germany’s and the EU’s proactive fiscal turn will have a major positive impact on growth prospects, at least cyclically, though it is probably too small thus far to create a structural improvement in potential growth. Fiscal thrust is negative over next two years even with the EU’s Next Generation Recovery Fund being distributed. A structural increase in growth is possible given that all of the major countries are simultaneously pursuing monetary and fiscal stimulus as well as big investments in technology and renewable energy that will help engender a new private capex cycle. But productivity has been on a long, multi-decade decline so it remains to be seen if this can be reversed. Geopolitically speaking, Germany’s and the EU’s policy shift arrived in the nick of time to deepen European integration before divisions revive. Integration is broadly driven by European states’ need to compete on a grand scale with the US, Russia, and China. But Putin, Brexit, and Mario Draghi demonstrate the more tactical pressures: Brexit discourages states from exiting, especially with ongoing trade disputes and the risk of a new Scottish independence referendum; Putin’s aggressive foreign policy drives eastern Europeans into the arms of the West; and the formation of a unity government in Italy encourages European solidarity and improves Italian growth prospects. The outlook for structural reforms is not hopeless. Prime Minister Draghi’s government has a good chance of succeeding at some structural reforms where his predecessors have failed. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron is still favored to win the French election in 2022, which is good for French structural reform. The fact that the EU tied its recovery fund to reform is positive. Most importantly the green energy agenda is replacing budget cutting for the time being, which, again, is positive for capex and could create positive long-term productivity surprises. Of course, structural reform intensity slowed just prior to COVID, in Spain, France, and Italy. Once the recovery funds are spent the desire to persist with reform will wane. This is clear in Spain, which has rolled back some reforms and has a weak government that could dissolve any time, and Italy, where the Draghi coalition may not last long after funds are spent. If the global upswing persists and Chinese/EM growth improves, then Europe will benefit from a macro backdrop that enables it to persist with some structural reforms and crawl out of its liquidity trap. But if China/EM growth relapses then Europe will fall back into a slump. Thus it is a very good thing for Europe, the euro, and European equities that the US is engaged in an epic fiscal blowout and that China’s Two Sessions dampened the risk of overtightening. Incidentally, if the German government does shift, relations with Russia would improve on the margin. While US-Russia tensions will remain hot, German mediation could reduce Russia’s insecurity and lower geopolitical risks for both Russia and emerging Europe, which are very cheaply valued at present in part because they face a persistent geopolitical risk premium. Bottom Line: German politics will drive further EU integration whether the Christian Democrats stay in power or whether the left-wing parties manage a surprise victory. Europe will have to provide more fiscal stimulus but otherwise the global context is favorable for Europe. Investors should not be too pessimistic about short-term hiccups with the vaccine rollout. Investment Takeaways The US is stimulating, China is not overtightening, and German’s election risk is actually an upside risk for European and global risk assets. These points reaffirm a bullish cyclical outlook on global stocks and commodities and a bearish outlook on government bonds. It is especially positive for global beneficiaries of US stimulus excluding China, such as Canada and Mexico. It is also beneficial for industrial metals and emerging markets exposed to China over the medium term, after frenzied buying suffers a healthy correction. Any premium in European equities should be snapped up. However, the cornerstone has been laid for the wall of worry in this global economic cycle: the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s fiscal stimulus will probably fall short. Moreover a consensus outcome from the German election would be a harbinger of earlier-than-expected fiscal normalization. There is not yet a clear green light in US-China relations – on the contrary, our view that Biden would be hawkish is coming to pass. Biden faces foreign policy tests across the board and now is a good time to hedge against the inevitable return of downside risks given the remorseless increase in tensions between the Great Powers. Housekeeping A number of clients have written to ask follow-up questions about our contrarian report last week taking a positive view on cybersecurity stocks despite the tech selloff and a positive view on global defense stocks, especially in relation to cybersecurity. The main request is, Which companies offer the best value? So we teamed up with BCA’s new Equity Analyzer to highlight the companies that receive the best BCA scores utilizing a range of factors including value, safety, payout, quality, technicals, sentiment, and macro context – all relative to a universe of global stocks with a minimum market cap of $1 billion. The results are shown in the Appendix, which we hope will come in handy. Separately our tactical hedge, long US health care equipment versus the broad market, has stopped out at -5%. This makes sense in light of the pro-cyclical rotation. Health care equipment is still likely to outperform the rest of the US health care sector amid a policy onslaught of higher taxes, government-provided insurance, and pharmaceutical price caps.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix Table ABCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Appendix Table BBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Appendix Table CBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Footnotes 1 China is asking for export controls that have hamstrung Huawei and SMIC to be removed as well as for sanctions and travel bans on Communist Party members and students to be lifted. See Lingling Wei and Bob Davis, "China Plans To Ask U.S. To Roll Back Trump Policies In Alaska Meeting," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2021, wsj.com; Helen Davidson, "Taiwanese urged to eat ‘freedom pineapples’ after China import ban," The Guardian, March 2, 2021, theguardian.com. 2 "Putin on Biden: Russian President Reacts To US Leader’s Criticism," BBC, March 18, 2021, bbc.com. 3 Pyongyang is likely to test a new, longer range intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since its self-imposed missile test moratorium began in 2018 after President Trump’s summit with leader Kim Jong Un. See Lara Seligman and Natasha Bertrand, "U.S. ‘On Watch’ For New North Korean Missile Tests," Politico, March 16, 2021, politico.com. 4 See ABC News, "Transcript: Joe Biden delivers remarks on 1-year anniversary of pandemic", ABC News, Mar. 11, 2021, abcnews.com. 5 Please see IMF Staff, "World Economic Outlook Reports", IMF, Jan. 2021, imf.org and OECD Staff, "OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2021", OECD, March 9, 2021, oecd.org. 6 Please see IMF Asia and Pacific Dept, "People’s Republic of China : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the People's Republic of China", IMF, Jan. 8, 2021, imf.org. 7 The other state elections coming up this year will coincide with the federal election on September 26, with one minor exception (Saxony-Anhalt). Opinion polls show the Christian Democrats slipping below the Greens in Berlin and the Social Democrats in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Alternative for Germany is falling in all regions.

Highlights Stimulus checks will not be inflationary. Most households will regard them as additional wealth, and the propensity to spend additional wealth is very low. The bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The bond market’s expectations for inflation are positively correlated with commodity prices, whereas actual prospective inflation is negatively correlated with commodity prices. When, as now, the crude oil price is above $50, long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The real bond yield is much higher than the bond market is pricing, which means that equities and other risk-assets are more expensive than they appear. Fractal trades shortlist: stocks versus bonds, 30-year T-bond, NOK/PLN. Feature Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Above $50 Results In Prospective Deflation Major anomalies should not exist in the financial markets, and least of all in the government bond market which is supposed to be the most efficient market of all. But a major anomaly does exist. The anomaly is in the way that the bond market prices inflation. More about that in a moment, but let’s first discuss whether the current surge in inflation expectations is warranted. The Inflationary Impact Of Stimulus Checks Is Exaggerated Inflation expectations have risen. And they have risen especially in the US, for two reasons. First, compared with Europe, the US vaccination roll-out appears to be going relatively smoothly. Second, the US government has been more pro-active in stimulating the economy, especially in the form of issuing stimulus checks to households, as well as other so-called ‘personal current transfer payments.’ Given that this has boosted incomes while spending has been constrained, the US household sector has amassed a war chest of savings. The argument goes that as social restrictions and voluntary social distancing are eased, this war chest will get spent, unleashing a tsunami of pent-up demand which will drive up inflation. But is this argument correct? Even if social restrictions do fully ease – a big if – is it correct to assume that unspent income will get spent? A recent study by the Bank of England points out that whether unspent income gets spent depends on whether households regard it as additional income or additional wealth.1 Whether unspent income gets spent depends on whether households regard it as additional income or additional wealth. The propensity to consume out of additional income is relatively high, with estimates ranging up to 50 percent. But the propensity to consume out of additional wealth is tiny, with international estimates centred around just 5 percent. This begs the question: will households regard the stimulus checks as additional income or additional wealth? The answer depends on whether the household has a low income or a high income. Lower income households, that have borne the brunt of job losses and furloughs, have suffered big drops in their income relative to consumption. Hence, they will regard the stimulus checks as additional income. But to the extent that the additional income is just (partly) replacing lost income, it will not boost their consumption versus what it would have been absent the lost income. On the other hand, higher income households and retirees have largely maintained their incomes while their consumption has fallen. This is where the surge in savings is concentrated. But not being ‘income or liquidity constrained’, these higher income households are more likely to deposit the stimulus checks into their savings accounts (or the stock market), regarding it as additional wealth. Hence, any boost to consumption will be modest and short-lived. In fact, this was precisely what happened after previous issues of stimulus checks, such as in 2008 and 2009. Stimulus checks had no meaningful impact on consumption or inflation trends (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Stimulus Checks Had No Meaningful Impact On Consumption Or Inflation Trends A Major Anomaly In The Bond Market The recent surge in inflation expectations has moved in perfect lockstep with higher prices for commodities, especially crude oil. At first glance, this relationship seems intuitive. After all, we associate higher commodity prices with higher inflation. But on further thought, the tight positive correlation between inflation expectations and commodity price levels is counterintuitive. The first issue is basic maths. Inflation is a change in a price, so it should not move in lockstep with the level of any price. But there is a much bigger issue. Whether the commodity price is driving inflation expectations or whether inflation expectations are driving the commodity price, a higher price today will feed back into lower prospective inflation. In fact, a crude oil price above $50 has consistently predicted prospective deflation in the oil price, leading to CPI inflation underperforming its 2 percent target (Chart of the Week). The bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The important takeaway is that the bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The bond market’s expectations for inflation are positively correlated with commodity prices, but actual prospective inflation is negatively correlated with commodity prices (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Bond Market's Expectations For Inflation Are Positively Correlated With Commodity Prices... Chart I-4...But Actual Prospective Inflation Is Negatively Correlated With Commodity Prices This major anomaly in the bond market creates a great opportunity for long-term bond investors. When the (Brent) crude oil price is above $50, long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). And vice-versa when crude falls below $50. With Brent now at $68, the appropriate long-term stance is to overweight T-bonds versus TIPS (Chart I-5). Chart I-5When The (Brent) Oil Price Is Above , Long-Term Investors Should Overweight T-bonds Versus TIPS There are also implications for other investors. Given that the bond market is useless at predicting inflation, it is also useless at assessing real interest rates. Specifically, when crude is above $50, the ex-post (realised) real bond yield will be higher than the ex-ante (assumed) real bond yield (Chart I-6). The important takeaway right now is that in any comparison with the real bond yield, equities and other risk-assets are even more expensive than they appear. Chart I-6When The (Brent) Oil Price Is Above , The Realised Real Bond Yield Will Be Higher Than Assumed Embrace The Fractal Market Hypothesis The Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) is a breakthrough in the understanding of financial markets, replacing the defunct Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). The breakthrough insight from the Fractal Market Hypothesis is that the market is not always efficient. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment time horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) is a breakthrough in the understanding of financial markets. The corollary is that when the fractal structure becomes extremely fragile, it tells us that the information and interpretation of long-term investors is missing from the recent price setting, and is likely to reappear. At which point, the most recent price trend, fuelled by short-term groupthink, will break down. As most investors are unaware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to the few investors that do embrace it. Through the past five years, our proprietary Fractal Trading System has identified countertrend trading opportunities with truly excellent results. After 207 trades, the ‘win ratio’ stands at 61 percent. Yet as we understand more about this breakthrough theory of finance, we believe we can do even better. Today, we are very pleased to upgrade the trading system with innovations to the calculations of fractal structure, the countertrend profit opportunity, and the optimal holding period, all detailed in Box I-1. Box 1: Fractal Trading System Principles Countertrend opportunities in an investment will be identified by a fragile composite fractal structure, based on 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day fractal dimensions approaching their lower bounds. The countertrend profit target will be based on a Fibonacci retracement. There will be a symmetrical stop-loss. The maximum holding period will be trade-specific and vary from 33 to 130 business days (broadly 6 weeks to 6 months). From today, we will also identify a larger number of fragile fractal structures and especially highlight those that are evident in mainstream investments. From this shortlist of candidates, we will choose the most compelling to add into our portfolio. In many cases, the alignment of a fundamental argument with a fragile fractal structure will reinforce the investment case. Among our most recent recommendations, underweight China versus New Zealand achieved its 9 percent target, short Korean won versus US dollar achieved its 2.5 percent target, and long Russian rouble versus South African rand expired at 1.5 percent profit. This week, we highlight that the composite fractal structures of stocks versus bonds and the 30-year T-bond are becoming extremely fragile (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). To be clear, this does not guarantee a countertrend move, but it does indicate an elevated susceptibility to a countertrend move. Hence, for the time being, we remain tactically neutral stocks versus bonds.  Chart I-7The Fractal Structure Of Stocks Versus Bonds Is Becoming Fragile Chart I-8The Fractal Structure Of The 30-Year T-Bond Is Becoming Fragile In the foreign exchange markets, we note that the strong advance in the Norwegian krone, fuelled by the rally in crude oil, is vulnerable to a pullback (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short NOK/PLN, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop at 2.6 percent. Chart I-9Short NOK/PLN   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Bank of England, An update on the economic outlook by Gertjan Vlieghe, 22 February 2021 Fractal Trading System Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II-7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations  

Highlights The breadth of EM equity outperformance versus DM in H2 last year was poor. This outperformance was largely driven by EM TMT stocks. These EM TMT share prices are now facing challenges and are unlikely to provide leadership for the EM equity index going forward. Meanwhile, the fundamental backdrop of EM ex-TMT equities remains poor. Hence, the EM equity index will for now be in limbo. Feature Over the past year, the EM stock index has done very well in absolute terms and has slightly outperformed the global equity index. Yet, its relative outperformance versus the global equity benchmark has been largely due to TMT (technology, internet and catalog retail, and media and entertainment) stocks.1 The top panel of Chart 1 reveals that EM non-TMT stocks have not really outperformed their global peers. In contrast, EM TMT share prices had considerably outpaced their global counterparts until mid-February (Chart 1, bottom panel). However, odds are that EM TMT share prices will weaken both in absolute terms and relative to global TMT stocks (more on this below). The market-cap weight of EM TMT stocks in the EM MSCI equity benchmark has surged and it presently stands at 41%. This number is 42% for the US, 16% for the euro area and 17% for Japan. Until January, relative outperformance of US and EM stocks versus the global benchmark had been largely due to the outperformance of TMT stocks and their overwhelming weights in the US and EM equity indexes. Further, the EM equal-weight and small-cap stock indexes have failed to outperform their global peers, confirming the lack of breadth in EM outperformance (Chart 2). In brief, the EM stock index has by and large been a one-trick pony. Chart 1EM Outperformance Versus Global Has Been Entirely Due To TMT Stocks Chart 2EM Equal-Weighted And Small Caps Have Not Outperformed   Can the EM equity index both rally in absolute terms and outperform DM stocks if its leaders – TMT companies – encounter challenges? We do not think so. The basis is that fundamentals outside TMT stocks remain lackluster. EM TMT Stocks There are a few reasons why EM TMT stocks will stay under selling pressure: Chart 3TMT Stocks Are Over-Extended The overwhelming headwind for EM TMT stocks is the regulatory crackdown on platform companies in China. Alibaba and Tencent together make up 30% and 11.5% of the MSCI Chinese Investable and MSCI EM equity benchmarks, respectively. Regulatory pressures on them has been growing since October. The recent speech by President Xi implies that the regulatory clampdown is not over. We wrote about how antitrust regulation can affect share prices of these Chinese conglomerates in our November 26 report. US FAANGM stocks as well as Tencent have surged by more than 20-fold since early 2010. That is as much as the Nasdaq100 index during the 1990s (Chart 3). Alibaba and Meituan were listed in 2014 and 2018 respectively so they do not have a ten-year history. We are not suggesting that the share prices of Chinese platform companies will drop by 70% - as much as the Nasdaq 100 index did post its 2000 crest. Our point is that valuation excesses and overbought conditions in Chinese TMT stocks present material downside risk to their share prices when faced with the regulatory clampdown. In addition, rising US bond yields will continue to hurt high-multiples stocks around the world, which include EM TMT stocks, as we discussed in the February 25 Special Report. Technology companies TSMC and Samsung make up 6.6% and 4.3% of the MSCI EM benchmark, respectively. Their valuations are also lofty. Besides, local retail investors played a large role in rallies in both markets last year (Chart 4). It is hard to predict retail investor behavior, but last year’s stampede into stocks could give way to a period of retrenchment. There is another sign of a top for the EM technology and consumer discretionary stocks (Alibaba and Meituan together make 40% of the EM consumer discretionary market cap). Both EM technology (primarily semiconductors) and EM consumer discretionary (internet and catalog retail as well as autos) each make up 20% of the EM benchmark market cap – a threshold that often marks a major peak in their share prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Retail Investors Have Been Driving Korean And Taiwanese Share Prices Chart 5EM Sectors Peak When They Reach 20% Of EM Benchmark   Historically, when the market cap of an EM equity sector reached 20% of the EM MSCI equity benchmark, that marked an apex of its absolute and relative outperformance. This was the case with EM banks in 2013, energy stocks in 2008, and technology in 2000. Within TMT stocks, dedicated EM equity portfolios should favor semiconductor producers versus platform companies. Semiconductor stocks are less expensive and their booming revenues will limit downside in their share prices (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The poor risk-reward profile of TMT stocks implies that the emerging Asian equity benchmark has for now passed the zenith of its relative outperformance against global stocks (Chart 7). Chart 6Asian Semiconductor Companies' Revenues Are Still Booming Chart 7Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Global: A Period Of Underperformance Ahead   Beyond TMT The poor performance of non-TMT stocks has not been limited to the Latin America and EMEA bourses. Emerging Asian non-TMT stocks have also not outperformed their global peers. Chart 8No Bull Market In EM And China ex-TMT Stocks Notably, in absolute terms EM ex-TMT share prices remain below their peak in 2018 (Chart 8, top panel). Besides, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have not broken out of the trading range that has been in place since 2011 (Chart 8, bottom panel). The following will continue weighing on EM non-TMT stocks: The recovery in many EM economies outside North Asia has been lackluster. Household consumption and capital spending in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) have been much more subdued than those in the US. These countries are substantially lagging DM economies in vaccinations, delaying the economic normalization and warranting continued economic underperformance. Many EM economies outside North Asia are facing a negative fiscal thrust this year. Their banking systems remain saddled with NPLs and are reluctant to lend. The underperformance of EM (ex-China, Korea, Taiwan) bank stocks versus their global peers corroborates the notion that the monetary transmission mechanism is broken in many of these economies. Without recovery in bank credit, domestic demand will remain lackluster. Rising US bond yields have caused EM (ex-North Asia) local bond yields to spike and currencies to weaken (Chart 9). We expect more upside in US Treasury yields and a  relapse in EM exchange rates. This is bad for their stock markets. Critically, the Chinese economy is now facing triple tightening and its growth will weaken in H2 2021: 1. Monetary and fiscal tightening: The credit and broad money (M3) impulses have already rolled over (Chart 10, top panel). Fiscal policy will also tighten relative to the unprecedented stimulus of last year. This represents a major risk to industrial metals that are very overbought (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 9EM (ex-China, Korea And Taiwan): Currencies, Rates And Stocks Chart 10Peak Stimulus In China   The relapse in Taiwanese new orders of basic materials PMI heralds weakness in Chinese material stocks (Chart 11). 2. Regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial institutions: Authorities are planning to reinforce asset management regulation by the end of this year. This will limit how much these financial institutions can expand their balance sheets reinforcing a credit slowdown. 3. Property market tightening: Restrictions on both property purchases and property developers’ leverage will lead to a notable slump in real estate construction. Property stocks have formed a tapering wedge and a breakdown is likely (Chart 12, top panel). Besides, their off-shore corporate bond prices are gapping down (Chart 12, middle panel). Chart 11An Apex In Chinese Material Stocks Chart 12Chinese Property Sector Is At Risk   Overall, Beijing’s ongoing policy tightening and resulting economic slowdown will weigh on China ex-TMT stocks that are dominated by banks and old-economy companies. Crucially, onshore small cap stocks have already relapsed suggesting that economic weakness might be broad-based (Chart 12, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Even though EM ex-TMT stocks offer reasonable multiples, their fundamentals remain unexciting. A Review Of Some Of Our Equity Recommendations Chart 13EM Versus Global: Relative Equity Performance 1. We recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM stocks in a global equity portfolio. EM relative performance will fluctuate but is likely to stay within a trading range between last May’s low and the recent highs (Chart 13). In regard to other regions, Europe and Japan should outperform the US as global value continues to outperform global growth in next 6-12 months. 2. Long global value / short Chinese investable value stocks. Global value will benefit from the reopening of economies in the US and Europe. Financials, which hold a large weight in the global value index, will be supported by rising global bond yields. Given that multiples on the value stocks are lower than growth stocks, rising bond yields will cause less damage to value stocks. Chinese investable value stocks are heavy in banks. The latter will suffer the consequences of  the credit boom and capital misallocation in China. In a recent special report on China, we estimated that mainland banks have disposed – written-off and sold – RMB 9.4 trillion in loans since 2012, which is equivalent to 6.6% of all loans originated since January 2009 (when the credit boom commenced). In addition, banks’ NPL provisions remain very low at 3.4% of their loan book. In short, Chinese banks have dealt with only 10% of all loans originated since 2009, which is a small number given the magnitude and duration of this credit boom. Hence, we reckon that banks remain saddled with a large amount of NPLs that have not been provisioned for. Outside banks, Chinese investable value stocks will be at risk of ongoing triple policy tightening in China, as discussed above. Chart 14Long Chinese A Shares / Short Chinese Investable Index 3. Long Chinese A shares / short Chinese investable equity index (Chart 14). We recommended this strategy in a March 4 report discussing China’s structural strengths and weaknesses. The primary reason for this recommendation is that the A-share index2  is heavy in value stocks while the MSCI China investable index has a large weight in expensive new economy stocks. The global investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus global growth stocks due to strong US growth and rising US bond yields. Hence, this strategy is consistent with our preference for global value over global growth stocks. Finally, this strategy will benefit from regulatory tightening on platform companies that have a large weight in the Investable index. Chart 15Favor Global Industrials Over Global Materials 4. We have strong conviction that global growth stocks will underperform global value but less conviction that EM growth will underperform EM value. The reasons are as follows: EM value is dominated by EM banks. Not only will Chinese banks suffer from the problems discussed above but also EM ex-China banks are facing many cyclical and structural challenges. Hence, they will benefit less than DM banks from rising bond yields. The EM value index has also considerable weight in energy and material stocks and is light on industrial equities compared to the DM value index. China’s tightening and the ensuing growth slowdown in H2 2021 will weigh more on global materials than on global industrials. Materials are very exposed to China’s construction and infrastructure. China accounts for about 55% of the world’s industrial metals consumption while the US accounts for 7-9%. By contrast, global industrial share prices are more diversified and Chinese demand does not dominate industrial goods to the same extent that it does with industrial metals. Therefore, strong growth in US and European demand and the impending slowdown in China favors global industrial stocks versus global materials. Industrial companies have a larger weight in the DM value index than in the EM value index. By contrast, the materials equity sector has a larger market cap share in the EM value index than in the global value index. In short, investors should favor global industrials versus global materials (Chart 15) over the coming 6-to-12 months and that leads us to have high conviction on the DM value index’s outperformance versus the EM value index. Finally, rising US bond yields will pressure US growth stocks that are heavy in platform companies/new economy stocks. The EM growth index has a large weight in semiconductor producers in Korea and Taiwan that have a better long-term outlook than platform companies. The basis is that TSMC and Samsung have technological advantages over their global peers in producing new, high-performance chips. Such technological advantages give them pricing power in addition to a solid volume expansion. While these Asian semiconductor stocks are very overbought and will likely correct along with global growth stocks, their long-term outlook is positive, and is superior to EM value plays. That is why we have a high conviction view on the underperformance of DM growth stocks relative to DM value ones, but have low conviction on the performance of EM growth versus EM value. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 A TMT stock index refers to a market cap-weighted average of share prices of technology, internet and catalog retail, and media and entertainment. 2 Please note that this is a call for Shanghai- and Shenzhen-listed A shares not the CSI300 index which has a large weight in expensive growth stocks. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The American Rescue Plan Act confirms the shift to “Big Government” and proactive fiscal policy in US politics. This sea change in policy is durable for now, given that Democrats can pass one or two more budget reconciliation bills without a Republican vote. Details of forthcoming tax hikes are starting to leak from Washington. Investors should not assume that progressive proposals like a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, or a minimum corporate tax are dead on arrival. Taxing corporations and the rich is popular. The Republican Party is likely to choose a Trumpian agenda going forward and Trump has a good chance of being the presidential candidate in 2024. But cyclical and structural factors disfavor Republicans at this early stage. Industrials have rallied sharply in advance of Biden’s first law and are now overbought. But we would favor them over health care over a 12-month period, given the macro backdrop and relative policy risks. Feature Were there any surprises in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) signed by President Biden on March 11? Only that some of Biden’s health care and infrastructure agenda slipped into the bill, alongside a provision holding that if states cut taxes and lose revenue, they will lose an equivalent amount in state and local aid. The plan illustrates that the budget reconciliation process is an effective tool for the ruling party to get most of what it wants. The Biden administration will be able to pass one or two more reconciliation bills for FY2022 and FY2023. While the next bills will be harder to pass than the first, and moderate Democratic senators will limit Congress’s options somewhat, the point is that Democrats have just enough political capital to achieve their policy agenda without a single Republican vote. As always, our Political Capital Index is updated in the Appendix and highlights falling political polarization and improving business sentiment, which is positive for Biden’s political capital.  Investors will continue to bet on a cyclical recovery but will also become more concerned about tax hikes on one hand and excessive deficit spending on the other. The latter threatens eventually to overheat the economy and speed up the Fed’s rate hike cycle. In this report we conduct a quick recap of the ARPA now that it is official law, we review the tax hike proposals swirling out of the Washington rumor mill, and we update the status of the civil war in the Republican Party. We conclude with a look at industrial stocks, which have rallied tremendously on the back of the cyclical economic upturn (Chart 1) but may still offer some value relative to sectors like health care that face policy risks. Chart 1Cyclical Indicators High On Stimulus ARPA Symbolizes The ‘Big Government’ Shift The well-known provisions of the ARPA include: Treasury checks of $1,400 sent directly to individuals who earn less than $80,000 per year; extended unemployment benefits and a renewed federal top-up of $300 per week through September 6, 2021; $65 billion in business aid; and generous funding for various welfare programs such as the expanded Child Tax Credit and larger subsidies for enrollees in the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces (Chart 2).1 Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act In total the US fiscal stimulus amounts to $5 trillion or 23% of GDP since COVID-19 emerged, with $2.8 trillion or 13% of GDP passed since December. It is a gargantuan fiscal stimulus that will supercharge the economy today but lead to a rocky descent once it is exhausted in the coming years (Chart 3). Expiring provisions will occasion political showdowns over whether to make them permanent and how to address waste, corruption, and the long-term budget deficit. Chart 3The COVID-19 Fiscal Blowout The provisions are so far flung that educated American citizens living abroad are reportedly receiving stimulus checks. Nevertheless the bulk of the impact will be felt by low-income people with high marginal propensities to consume. They are the prime beneficiaries of the $850 billion share of the law that funnels cash to individuals as opposed to businesses (Chart 4). This means that at least one-third of the money will be spent, while around two-thirds will be used to pay down debt, enabling consumers to spend more later, according to our Global Investment Strategy. The general effects are very supportive of the recovery. For example, the number of children living in poverty is estimated to fall by 40%, while about one in five renters are expected to catch up on their rent.2 Evictions, bankruptcies, and loan delinquencies will not revive in this context. The total amount of spending is almost twice the size of the output gap, which is now widely expected to be filled by the end of 2022.  Chart 4Cash Handouts To Families With High Propensity To Consume While ARPA mainly consists of short-term cash relief – with pro-productivity investments to come in the reconciliation bill for FY2022 focused on infrastructure and renewables – nevertheless it is not wholly devoid of long-term investment. Each of the 50 states will receive $500 million in aid (more depending on their unemployment rate). Since state and local government revenues are not as dire as expected, some of this money will go into infrastructure, including soft infrastructure like the rural broadband buildout. States will be discouraged from cutting taxes, as mentioned.3 The most important takeaway is that the ARPA will reinforce the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger government role in the economy. Democrats passed their “liberal wish list” and the result is that a range of constituencies – from those on food and housing programs to those working in the health and education systems – will receive a windfall of federal support. In this way a one-off and probably excessive relief bill will contribute to a sea change in American attitudes toward government. Conservatives and Republicans will still argue in favor of limited government but that is a relative concept and the goalposts just moved. Bottom Line: The ARPA secures the recovery, plugs the output gap, and likely reinforces the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger role of government in society and the economy. The amount of stimulus is likely excessive, assuming the economy avoids any other bad shocks in the coming years. Hence the law marks a historic shift from reactive to proactive fiscal policy and sets the stage for an inflation overshoot in the long run if not the short run.  Yellen Becomes Warren? Not Quite, But Expect Negative Tax Surprises The next budget reconciliation bill is expected to be a 10-year green infrastructure package that will be partially offset by tax hikes. Whether in the same bill, or prioritized above it, we expect Biden to push for his expansion of the Affordable Care Act (only a small part of his health agenda was included in the ARPA). The House will draft its version in April and Biden may sign the final bill into law as early as September or as late as December. We discussed the bill in our March 3 missive. Rumors about the tax proposals are starting to leak out of Washington. At present none of the rumors change the policy consensus, based on Biden’s campaign proposal shown in Table 1. However, they do tentatively support our view that tax hikes will deliver negative surprises to the equity market this year, given that investors have so far been unperturbed by the prospect of higher taxes. Table 1Taxman Cometh Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen raised some eyebrows when she indicated that a wealth tax is being considered by the Biden administration.4 Previously a tax on a person’s (or trust’s) net assets, as opposed to a tax on their income, was the domain of Biden’s progressive-left rivals such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s proposal would levy a 2% annual tax on those who possess more than $50 million in net wealth, rising to 3% on billionaires. During the Democratic primary election their proposals were estimated to raise anywhere from $1.4 trillion – if Warren’s proposal met with extreme tax avoidance – to $4.5 trillion, as estimated by Sanders.5  Yellen has also spoken to the finance ministers of France and Germany as part of a diplomatic initiative through the OECD to encourage global participation in a minimum corporate tax rate of around 12%. In exchange for enacting this tax floor, Yellen signaled to the Europeans that she would not insist on providing American Big Tech with a “safe harbor” from Europe’s planned digital tax.6 Whatever ends up happening internationally, the implication is that the Biden administration will push forward with its proposed 15% minimum tax on corporation’s book income. Yellen says that she expects tax hikes to be phased in the latter part of the 10-year budget window for FY2022 so as to make sure that the government’s interest burden is manageable over the long run. She is not concerned about excess deficits or debt in the short run, as they are related to the pandemic relief and economic recovery and interest rates are below the nominal growth rate of the economy. But she has endorsed passing tax hikes for later in the decade, as did both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.  Several of the more ambitious tax proposals face limitations in Congress. Moderate senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have raised objections to a large tax hike during trying times. He might be joined by other moderates like John Tester of Montana and the four narrowly elected senators from Arizona and Georgia. However, while these moderates will keep the tax agenda in check, it is important to understand their position. None of these senators are against tax hikes in principle – that would be a Republican stance. They are against tax hikes that increase the burden on the middle class or jeopardize the economic recovery. From that point of view Biden’s proposals are fairly palatable: the highest individual income tax bracket would go back to where it stood in 2016, the corporate rate would go halfway (at most) to its pre-Trump level, and the estate tax would be restored. These proposals focus on big corporations and the wealthy and are likely to be watered down in negotiation, so we would not rule out moderate Democratic support.  Investors should not rest easy about the tax agenda until more information is known. Negative surprises are likely. The consensus is that the Democrats will not pass a wealth tax, or a “Wall Street tax” on financial transactions, or other progressive proposals. But these taxes would be popular and politically defensible – some polls even show a majority of Republicans supporting a wealth tax.  Therefore these taxes cannot be ruled out in advance.7 Bottom Line: The tax debate is underway and our expectation of negative surprises is looking more, not less, likely. How Will Republicans Respond To The Big Government Onslaught?   Republicans have duly retreated to the political wilderness after their election loss and the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. The critical question is whether and how they will regroup to contest future elections – the deeper their divisions, the more certain Democratic policy becomes. At the center of this question is whether the Republican Party will adopt Trumpist policy and whether Trump himself will continue to be the flagbearer and presumptive nominee for the presidential election in 2024. Our answer is that the Republicans will adopt a Trumpist agenda of tough trade and immigration policies combined with fiscal largesse but they will struggle over Trump himself and how to broaden their base. Every election is unique. COVID-19 reinforces the point. There is a clear case to be made that Trump would have won the election if not for the pandemic and recession. We favor this view given how narrowly he lost in the midst of the crisis. But there is also a clear case to be made that he would have lost anyway.8 The problem for the Republicans going forward is that cyclical and structural trends work against them. Cyclically, the economy should be in full stride in 2022-24 and the Federal Reserve is highly likely to play a supportive role. This may or may not prevent the usual midterm opposition gains but it will make it very hard for an opposition presidential candidate to win. True, Democrats will not have a full incumbent advantage if President Biden passes the baton to Vice President Harris. Inflation and other problems will emerge. But given the timing of the pandemic, election, and vaccine, voters will probably be much better off in four years than they were last November, which is the most reliable prediction of whether the incumbent party will stay in power.      Structurally, demographic change in America diminishes Trump’s base. A generational shift is transforming the American electorate, as the Silent Generation, which is the most reliably Republican, passes on (Chart 5). Millennials favored the Democratic Party by 6% in the 2020 election (10% in Georgia and 21% in Pennsylvania). Chart 5Generational Shift A Risk To Unreconstructed Republicans Ethnic minorities also skew Democratic, generally speaking, and are taking a much larger share of the electorate, especially in critical swing states – as highlighted by Biden’s victories in Arizona and Georgia (Chart 6). Hispanics favored Biden by 33% (24% in Arizona). Chart 6US Demographics Drive Political Change Demographic extrapolations by the Center for American Progress show that even if post-Millennial generations grow more conservative over time, the Electoral College will shift inexorably against the Republicans as long as current trends continue (Chart 7). Chart 7Electoral Math Frowns On Republicans Even Without Generational Shift Demographics are not destiny: Trump would never have won in 2016 if projections based on age and race were so predictive. Yet Republicans cannot merely wait on cyclical or exogenous events to discredit the Democrats. The electoral math is devastating if they do not broaden their appeal. Their quandary is that generating enthusiasm among their base of white voters with less formal education may exclude the very groups to whom they need to appeal: suburban women, educated whites, and ethnic minorities. The immediate question is what to do about Trump, who has divided the party over the Capitol riot, culminating in seven Republican votes against him in his second impeachment. On the surface the Republican Party is a much older entity than any single member or leader and can therefore play a longer strategy. It could choose the correct electoral strategy of courting independents, women, and Hispanics even if it meant losing an election or two due to divisions with the Trumpists. The problem is that Trump’s personal following is uniquely threatening to the viability of the party. Trump alone could split the Republican Party and nullify its chances in 2022-24 and beyond. Trump has suggested starting his own party, the Patriot Party. Opinion polls show that 46% of Republicans would join it while only 27%would insist on sticking with the Republican Party (Chart 8). Even if a Trumpist party stole only 2-3% of Republican voters it would be enough to ensure a Democratic victory in any election given the very small margins of victory in swing states in recent decades. Trump would easily spoil the Republican bid, just as Ross Perot did in the 1990s, Robert La Follette did for the Democrats in the 1930s, and Theodore Roosevelt did in 1912 (Table 2). As Senator Lindsey Graham said of Trump and the Republican Party, after holding post-election negotiations with the former president: “He can make it bigger. He can make it stronger. He can make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”9 Chart 8Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy Table 2Major Third Party Breakaway Candidates Undercut Their Former Party So What Will Republicans Do? We conducted an exercise using game theory to determine the likeliest strategy that Trump and the party will take. We used the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” as our template because both sides have a lot to gain if they cooperate and a lot to lose if not.10 But they do not trust each other. And each side will lose the most if it stays true while the other betrays it, worsening the distrust. Diagram 1 shows the outcome. Republicans could win eight years in the Oval Office if they adopted Trump’s agenda yet put forward a young new candidate with Trump’s personal endorsement; or they could win four years if they chose Trump himself (the constitutional limitation). By contrast, if they chose an establishment Republican agenda, they could win eight years (reduced to four in Diagram 1 because less likely) or zero years if Trump opposed. Trump, for his part, would win zero years if he bowed out to support the Republicans regardless of whether they adopted his agenda, but he would have a chance of winning four more years if he ran at the head of a Trumpist Republican Party. The outcome is that the Republicans will adopt Trumpism while Trump himself could easily run for president again, given his sway over the party. Diagram 1Game Theory Says Republicans Will Court Trump The game works out the same way if we assign minimal positive payoffs (e.g. one point for a win, zero points for a loss), various other probability weighted payoffs (50% chance of winning), or negative payoffs for time spent out of power. In each variation a stable equilibrium emerges in which Republicans adopt Trump’s agenda and Trump runs again in 2024. Of course, if one changes the structure of the game or assigns subjective scores a different outcome can be produced. But the clearest and most logical games all produce the same outcome: Trump 2024.   This view fits with the consensus in online betting markets. According to the bookies, Trump has between a 20% and 35% chance of running as the Republican nominee in 2024. The same markets give Republicans a 44%-50% chance of winning the White House that year. At this early stage we would take the “over” on Trump and the “under” on a GOP victory given the above points about the cyclical and structural factors weighing against Republicans (Chart 9). Our quantitative US election model, which produced the correct result for all states except Arizona, Georgia and Michigan in 2020, gives the Republicans a 44% chance of winning in 2024 but that number will fall sharply as the economy improves. Chart 9Trump's Odds Of Winning The Republic Nomination In 2024 What might change this outcome, according to game theory? Republicans could offer a powerful sweetener to convince Trump to bow out of the race and support the party’s candidate, such as letting one of his children or his son-in-law Jared Kushner run in his place. Alternately Democrats could increase the danger to Trump of their winning again, perhaps by threatening to throw him in jail. Otherwise Trump may not be sufficiently convinced of his party’s loyalty, or frightened of Democratic rule, to bow out of the race.  We are never beholden to game theory and there are countless real-world ways in which the 2022-24 election outlook could change. But as things stand today, Republicans are highly likely to adopt Trump’s agenda. Trump may or may not do what is best for the party. He is unpredictable and at critical junctures over the past year he has not done so. He could start his own party just for the fun of it and in doing so break the party of Lincoln. This irrational factor creates an imbalance in the game that the Republican Party will be anxious to prevent, reinforcing its likely decision to adopt his agenda and let him seek the nomination freely. If the Republican Party does split, officially or unofficially, the Democrats will be guaranteed to expand their hold on Congress in 2022 and keep the White House in 2024. Note that Republicans would normally be heavily favored to retake the House of Representatives in 2022, though not the Senate, so such an outcome would be a political earthquake. A Democratic ascendancy could last for more than one election cycle: Republicans held the White House from 1980-92 and Democrats held it from 1932-52. Since we cannot reliably forecast Trump’s individual behavior, we cannot rule out a deep Republican rift. On the other hand, while the demographic trends point to Democratic rule out to 2036 and beyond, no Democratic ascendancy would last that long, given economic cycles, international threats, and the inevitable corruptions of single-party rule. But policy uncertainty would collapse over the 2022-24 cycle, pushing the timing of major policy change to 2026 or later. Investors would face a high probability that a sweeping Democratic agenda would be enacted, even assuming the persistence of checks and balances provided by moderate Democratic senators and the judicial branch. One clear implication is that financial markets may not evade the risk of negative regulatory and tax surprises over the long run even if they manage to do so in the FY2022 and FY2023 reconciliation bills – which we doubt. Bottom Line: Republicans cannot win the White House in 2024 without Trump’s popular base, even though they would prefer to have a fresh face capable of expanding that base. Trump cannot win without the Republican Party but he can unpredictably decide to do something other than win, i.e. endorse a Republican successor or start a third party. As a result a true Republican split cannot be ruled out. Meanwhile Republicans will have to court Trump rather than vice versa. Democratic policy is well ensconced for now, an underrated risk to the equity market. Investment Takeaways We know that Democrats are pushing forward on their legislative agenda and capable of passing one or two more budget reconciliation bills. We know that cyclical and especially structural factors will put Republicans at a disadvantage in the 2024 presidential race and possibly even the 2022 midterm. We also know that the Republican Party has a non-negligible risk of fracturing due to Trump’s personal following and unpredictability. These points suggest investors should not bet against the current policy setup. The macro backdrop favors cyclical sectors such as industrials, energy, materials, and financials. In our US Political Risk Matrix we have highlighted that the policy backdrop is especially beneficial to industrials (Appendix, Table A1). This is reinforced by ARPA and Biden’s forthcoming reconciliation bills on infrastructure and green projects, subsidies for domestic production, and simultaneous attempts to reduce trade tensions with US allies and partners – if not with China. Of course, industrials have rallied enthusiastically alongside a sharp rebound in core durable goods orders, a more gradual improvement in non-residential capital expenditures, and an environment in which capex intentions will respond to a general domestic and global upswing (Chart 10). A weak dollar, premised on a global recovery, excess liquidity, lower interest rates for longer, and large budget and trade deficits, also favors the industrial sector and reinforces the recovery in global trade and growth. Rising commodity prices are driven by supply constraints as much as global demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy has showed in depth, and help to restore pricing power to industrial firms  (Chart 11). Chart 10Industrials Outperform On Recovery And Stimulus Chart 11Commodity Boom Supports Industrials' Pricing Power Hence the good news is largely priced into industrials, which are tactically overvalued according to our BCA valuation indicator. The sector looks more or less expensive on all valuation metrics other than price-to-sales (Chart 12). Therefore the best value must be sought on a relative basis, where industrials are outperforming communications services and just beginning to outperform the superstars, tech and health care. From a policy point of view, health care is one of the biggest losers of the Biden administration, which aims to expand health insurance coverage and reduce drug prices. This may be for the benefit of society but it comes at the expense of old cash cows. Investors should stay guarded against a near-term correction in industrials due to looming tax hikes but strategically favor them over health care and tech (Chart 13), which are even more vulnerable to higher taxes. We will execute this trade by going long against health care over a strategic time frame. Chart 12Industrials Overvalued On Most Measures Chart 13Favor Industrials Over Health Care Industrials also have a favorable profile against consumer discretionary stocks but we maintain a positive outlook on the US consumer in an era of government largesse. Our Geopolitical Strategy has also highlighted that Great Power struggle will prevent the Biden administration from cutting defense spending – another boon for industrials. Instead it will have to increase spending for defense as well as supply chain resilience and research and development in the midst of a cold war with China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments         Footnotes 1     Garrett Watson and Erica York, “The American Rescue Plan Act Greatly Expands Benefits Through The Tax Code In 2021,” Tax Foundation, March 12, 2021, taxfoundation.org.              2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “American Rescue Plan Act Will Help Millions And Bolster The Economy,” March 15, 2021, cbpp.org. 3    See footnote 2 above. 4    Paul Kiernan and Catherine Lucey, “Yellen Says Biden Administration Undecided On Wealth Tax,” Wall Street Journal, wsj.com. 5    Kyle Pomerleau, “How Much Revenue Would A Wealth Tax Raise?” On The Margin, American Enterprise Institute, April 20, 2020, aei.org. 6    Jeff Stein, “Yellen pushes global minimum tax as White House eyes new spending plan,” Washington Post, March 15, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 7     Howard Schneider and Chris Kahn, “Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll,” Reuters, January 10, 2020, reuters.com; Matthew Sheffield, “New poll finds overwhelming support for an annual wealth tax,” The Hill, February 6, 2019, thehill.com. 8    A recession could have happened as a result of the cyclical slowdown from the trade war, which hurt the Midwestern swing states. The yield curve had inverted and the economy’s margin of safety was low. There would not have been any fiscal stimulus without the pandemic. 9    James Walker, “Lindsey Graham Warns Donald Trump Could ‘Destroy’ GOP After Combative CPAC Speech,” Newsweek, March 8, 2021, newsweek.com. 10   The Prisoner’s Dilemma involves two prisoners detained separately and pressured into confessing their crimes. If they both stay quiet, nothing can be proved and they only spend one year in jail. If they both confess, they are proven guilty and both spend five years in jail. If only one of them confesses while the other stays silent, the confessor goes scot free while the other spends 20 years in jail! The incentive is to confess. The equilibrium is for both to confess. The traditional game reveals the benefits of trust as well as the difficulty of maintaining it in isolation and doubt.   

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.

Special Report

Highlights The miserable performance of commodities as an asset class post-GFC (since 2010) has disincentivized investment in oil and metals, which means growth in supply will lag demand going forward (Chart of the Week). Energy: Bullish. OPEC 2.0’s massive spare capacity supports its production-management strategy, and will keep crude-oil forward curves in backwardation. Base Metals: Bullish. With supply growth flat to negative year-on-year (y/y), copper and aluminium will post physical deficits as demand ex-China recovers. This will keep their forward curves backwardated as well. Precious Metals: Bullish. We expect the Fed’s ultra-accommodative policy to keep US real rates low, and return the USD to a bear market. This will be bullish for gold. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Ag markets remain balanced, punctuated by periodic weather-related rallies. A weaker USD also will be bullish for grains. In line with our expectation for stronger prices, continued backwardation in industrial commodities and a weaker USD, we are getting long the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) at tonight’s close. This will broaden our exposure to commodities as an asset class. Risks due to COVID-19 persistence and a higher USD demand remain. The balance of risk, however, is to the upside. Feature Commodities as an asset class performed miserably post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC), as the Chart of the Week demonstrates. Partly this is due to the erratic-but-ultimately-accommodative monetary policies globally coming out of the GFC, which went into hyperdrive during the COVID-19 pandemic and supercharged demand for financial assets. During this period, industrial commodities suffered from periodic surpluses resulting from overproduction set off by high prices at the beginning of the 2000s when China set off a global commodity super-cycle. In the post-GFC world, producers brought commodities to market almost oblivious to the state of demand. This over-investment on the supply side led to market-share wars in oil and bulks like iron ore, which were ruinous to producers. Endogenous factors were not the only source of under-performance for commodities post-GFC. Stop-and-go fiscal stimulus in EM markets, which made base metals demand difficult to forecast; massive crop harvests and carry-over stocks year after year; highly erratic trade policy that distorted the flow of ags and manufactured products with out-of-the-blue tariffs, and a once-in-a-century pandemic that wiped out ~ 10% of global oil demand, all contributed to weak and volatile market conditions. Chart of the WeekCommodities As An Asset Class Performed Miserably Post-GFC Commodity producers, too, incentivized investors to seek greener pastures over this period, owing to their inability to earn returns in excess of their cost of capital, let alone anything even close to the returns available in the tech-heavy growth sector of equities markets. Producers’ difficulties have been compounded by the growing importance of ESG investing (Environmental, Social, and Governance), which, over time will increase the cost of producing commodities compliant with consumers’ and investors’ stated preferences for sustainable and equitable business practices. Investors, as is their wont, made it perfectly clear they have no interest investing in firms that cannot produce commodities profitably in line with ESG goals. There are too many opportunities elsewhere to invest in firms that can deliver goods and services profitably, regardless of how important commodities might be to the global economy. Industrial commodity markets, particularly oil and metals, now are under-resourced on the supply side, just as demand ex-China recovers in the wake of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus – with more on the way in the US. The Return Of Commodity-Index Investing For investors in long-only commodity-index instruments that provided a source of uncorrelated returns at the turn of the 21st century, the post-GFC period was long and painful. However, the balance of risks in these instruments – given the underlying fundamentals in the largest sectors of the asset class – is decidedly to the upside. Returns from long-only commodity indexes are derived from price appreciation of the index, so-called roll-yields, and the return on collateral used to post margin to support futures and exchange-cleared swaps comprising the index.1 In the industrial commodities, price gains have come from tightening markets – i.e., demand levels exceed supply levels, pushing prices higher. In oil, OPEC 2.0’s production-management strategy has been remarkably successful in reducing the supply overhang that has plagued markets on and off for the entire post-GFC period (Chart 2). Chart 2Oil Demand Will Exceed Supply Per OPEC 2.0 Strategy On the metals side, production growth has flattened in copper (Chart 3) and aluminum (Chart 4) as demand ex-China starts to recover. We expect physical deficits this year and next. Chart 3Copper's Physical Deficits Will Keep Futures Bacwardated Chart 4Flat To Backwardated Aluminum Forwards Expected In the case of copper, this will extend a two-year stretch of zero supply growth that has forced inventories to draw globally. Prices have rallied sharply on the back of these deficits, but will have to be sustained at these levels – and go higher – to spark investment in new supply necessary to support a revival of global economic growth; the buildout of renewable generation and new grids, and consumer-driven electric vehicles (EVs) demand. The only market that we are not bullish on due to tightening fundamentals is ags. While global grain and soybean inventories are falling (Chart 5), it’s a mixed picture. Global bean stocks are down (Chart 6), as are corn stocks (Chart 7). Wheat stocks are moving higher (Chart 8), while rice stocks remain roughly flat y/y (Chart 9). Chart 5Global Grain Balances Tightening Slightly Chart 6Global Bean Stocks Are Falling... Chart 7...As Are Corn's Fundamentals Chart 8Global Wheat Stocks Are Rising... Chart 9...While Rice Stocks Remain Balances Roll Yields From Industrial Commodities In addition to supply-demand fundamentals being supportive of industrial commodities’ price levels, we continue to expect a weakening of the USD, which will provide a strong tailwind to commodity price levels particularly gold, which we model primarily as a function of financial variables including the dollar and US real rates (Chart 10). A weaker USD also will be supportive of oil price levels, which have been in a long-term equilibrium with the dollar since 2000, when oil became a random-walking commodity (Chart 11).2 Metals also will get a lift from a weaker USD (Chart 12), as will ags (Chart 13), which remain balanced and well-supplied. This overall support to demand from the weaker dollar will, all else equal, put pressure on inventories and force them lower. Chart 10Weaker USD Will Boost Gold... Chart 11...Provide Oil A Tailwind... Chart 12...Lift Metals... Chart 13...And Ags This is particularly important for commodity-index investing, since falling inventories lead to backwardated forward curves, which are the principal source of roll yields in long-only index products.3 For long-only commodity index investors, the periods when commodities outperformed equities were characterized by backwardated forward curves, and, typically but not always, rising prices. Of the two factors driving commodity returns, backwardation is the most persistent and long-lived. Price increases (and decreases) often result from shocks. The market responds to a shock, finds a new level, and then oscillates randomly around it. Investment Implications We believe we are entering a period that will be characterized by tighter supply-demand balances for industrial commodities. The result of this will be lower inventories for oil and base metals, which will keep price levels well bid and forward curves flat to backwardated. A weaker USD will support industrial commodities, gold and ag prices. These are ideal conditions for long-only commodity-index investors. While there are numerous vehicles available to investors to express this view, we believe a dynamic portfolio approach – which chooses exposure for individual index components based on their backwardation – is best suited to current market conditions, given that we expect these markets to be in asynchronous bull markets over the next couple of years.4 At the close of business tonight, we will be getting long the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), in order to broaden our exposure to commodities as an asset class. This index is maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices.5 Separately, in a housekeeping note, we were stopped out of our tactical nickel position with a loss of 15.8%, following a sudden sell-off Friday. Based on reporting from forbes.com, China’s Tsingshan Holding Group took the market by surprise with its news release that it is producing “a battery-grade form of nickel from low-grade saprolite ore, a technical breakthrough which threatens to flood the nickel market.”6 We will continue to evaluate this development vis-à-vis re-entering our tactical nickel position in the near term.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Roll yield refers to the gain from a commodity spread trade. A useful way to understand this is to imagine a market in which the forward curve is flat, i.e., the prompt futures contract for delivery next month is trading at the same price as a deferred futures contract specifying delivery in the following month. Assume an investor buys the prompt contract and the holds this position until it has to be either liquidated or rolled forward and its price has gone up, while the deferred contract’s price is unchanged. The investor can sell the prompt contract and use those proceeds to buy the deferred contract, which is still trading unchanged. The investor can either buy more of the contract with the proceeds from this trade, or invest it elsewhere. The gain from this transaction is referred to as the “roll yield.” In a backwardated market – this process can be repeated (buying at a low price and selling at a higher price as the futures contract rolls up the curve and gets closer to delivery), which is an ongoing source of yield. Of course prompt prices can fall below where the deferred contract was purchased, resulting in a loss, but typically the roll yield in a backwardated market is persistent. The opposite holds for contango market, which results in negative returns for investors buying, holding, and rolling futures seeking to earn roll yields. These spread trades are the commodity markets’ analog to the curve-steepeners and curve-flatteners in fixed income markets (e.g., the 2s-10s spread in U.S. Treasuries). 2     Please see Helyette Geman, (2007), "Mean Reversion versus Random Walk in Oil and Natural Gas Prices,“ in Advances in Mathematical Finance, Birkhäuser, Boston. 3    Please see Commodities As An Asset Class V. 3.0, a Special Report we published 21 August 2014. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We develop this thesis in last week’s Special Report entitled Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll, particularly its Methodology, which was published by S&P Global in January 2021. 6    Please see Nickel Price Falls By 16% But That Might Not Help EV Makers published by forbec.com 8 March 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Closed Trades

Please note that we will be presenting a webcast on Thursday March 11 at 10:00 AM EST for the Americas and EMEA regions and on March 12 at 9:00 HKT/12:00 AEDT for APAC clients. We will be discussing macro themes and investment strategies. Highlights EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are better positioned to handle higher US bond yields today than they were in 2013. Yet better does not mean they will be unscathed. The combination of rising US bond yields and a firming US currency will suffocate EM risk assets in the near-term. A neutral allocation is warranted in EM stocks and credit markets within global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Feature Ever since the US elections concluded in January with a Blue Sweep, we have been warning that rising US bond yields could trigger a setback in global markets in general, and in EM markets in particular. EM equities, currencies and fixed-income markets have recently experienced a correction (Chart 1). The question now is: Is the market rout over? Or is there more to come? We are inclined to believe that the correction is not over. Rising US Treasury yields have been the culprit of the shakeout in global growth stocks, EM equities, as well as EM currencies. Therefore, taking a stance on US bond yields and on the US dollar is critical for assessing the outlook for EM financial markets. Odds are that the selloff in US long-term bonds and the rebound in the US dollar are not yet over because: Positioning and sentiment on US long-dated Treasuries is neutral, as illustrated in Chart 2. Chart 1Rising US Real Yields Have Caused A Shakeout In EM Chart 2Investor Sentiment And Positioning In US Treasurys Are Neutral   Typically, US bond yields do not reverse their ascent until investor sentiment becomes downbeat and bond portfolios are of materially short duration. These conditions for a top in bond yields are not yet present. US government bond yields would have been much higher if it were not for the Federal Reserve and US commercial banks’ massive bond-buying spree. The Fed has bought $2.8 trillion and US commercial banks have purchased about $300 billion of Treasurys in the past 12 months (Chart 3). One of the main motives for commercial banks to buy US Treasurys has been the SLR relief initiative which commenced on April 1, 2020.1 This SLR relief is due to terminate on March 31, 2021. Unless it is extended, commercial banks will drastically curtail their net government bond purchases. This will exert upward pressure on Treasury yields. Regarding the greenback, investor sentiment remains quite bearish (Chart 4). From a contrarian perspective, this heralds further strength in the US dollar. Chart 3Surging Purchases Of US Treasurys By The Fed And Commercial Banks Chart 4Investors Are Still Bearish On The US Dollar   From a cyclical perspective, US growth will be stronger relative to its potential, and vis-à-vis other DMs, EMs and China. Growth differentials moving in favor of the US foreshadows near-term strengthening of the dollar. Structurally, the bearish case for the US currency hinges on both the Federal Reserve falling behind the inflation curve and ballooning US twin deficits. In our view, this will ultimately be the case. Hence, the long-term outlook for the US dollar remains troublesome. That said, twin deficits alone are insufficient to produce a continuous currency depreciation. The twin deficits must also be accompanied with low/falling real interest rates – in order to generate sufficient conditions for currency depreciation. As long as US real rates continue rising, the dollar’s rebound will be extended. The USD/EUR exchange rate has been correlated with the 10-year real yield differential and this relationship will persist (Chart 5).  Bottom Line: US government bonds will continue selling off. Rising bond yields (including rising real yields) will support the dollar in the near-term. The combination of rising US bond yields and a firming US currency will cause global macro volatility to rise (Chart 6). This will suffocate EM risk assets and EM currencies. Chart 5US Real Yields (TIPS) Will Continue Driving The US Dollar Chart 6Aggregate Financial Market Volatility: Higher Lows   Impact On EM: 2013 Versus Now Are we entering another Taper Tantrum episode as in the spring of 2013 when many EMs were devastated? There are both similarities and differences between the current period of rising US bond yields and the 2013 episode. Similarities: Today, as in early 2013, investor sentiment on EM is very bullish and investors are long EM (Chart 7). Chart 7Investor Sentiment On EM Stocks Was At A Record High In January In early 2013, as is the case today, EM local currency bond yields were very low and EM credit spreads were too tight. When US Treasury yields spiked in the spring of 2013, EM assets tanked. Many commentators blamed it on the Fed. We disagree with that interpretation. Remarkably, the rise in US TIPS yields in 2013 had little impact on equity indices such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, or on US corporate spreads (Chart 8). The correction in the US equity market lasted about a week. Yet, EM equities, fixed income markets and currencies experienced a prolonged slump, and in many cases, a bear market. There is no basis to believe that the Fed’s policy and US bond yields are more important to EM than they are to US credit and equity markets. The core rationale for the EM bear market in 2013 was poor domestic fundamentals. The Fed’s tapering was the trigger, not the cause. Differences: The key difference between the current episode and the 2013 Taper Tantrum is EM macro fundamentals. Specifically: EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) entered 2013 with booming bank loans and strong domestic demand as well as high inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8US Markets Were Not Hit By The Taper Tantrum In 2013 Chart 9EM (ex-China, Korea And Taiwan): 2013 Vs Now Chart 10EM (ex-China, Korea And Taiwan): 2013 Vs Now Presently, EM bank credit is subdued, domestic demand is dismal, and inflation is tame. Besides, EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) had a very large trade deficits in 2013 and were financing them via foreign borrowing, which was roaring prior to 2013 (Chart 10). Presently, their trade balances are in surplus and foreign indebtedness has not increased in recent years. Bottom Line: In 2013, EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) were overheating and were addicted to foreign funding. These were the reasons why EM currencies and fixed income markets teetered when US bond yields spiked in 2013. Presently, the majority of EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) have different types of malaises: domestic bank loan origination is too timid, consumer spending and capital expenditures are moribund, inflation is low and fiscal policy is tight. Consequently, EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are better positioned to handle higher US bond yields today than they were back in 2013. Yet better does not mean they will be unscathed. Investment Strategy Equities: The key variable to watch to assess the vulnerability of both US and EM equity markets is their respective corporate bond yields. Historically, rising corporate bond yields (shown inverted in both panels of Chart 11) heralds lower share prices. Chart 11Rising Corporate Bond Yields Are Bad For Share Prices Given that both EM and US corporate credit spreads are too tight, they are unlikely to narrow further to offset rising US Treasury yields. Instead, EM and US corporate bond yields are likely to rise with US Treasury yields. This will trigger more weakness in share prices. Besides, rising EM local currency government bond yields also point towards more downside in EM equities (yields are shown inverted on the chart) (Chart 12). Chart 12Rising EM Local Currency Bond Yields Heralds Weaker Equity Prices Concerning equity style, global growth stocks have peaked versus global value stocks. In the EM equity space, we have less conviction on growth versus value. As to regional allocation in a global equity portfolio, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM, underweighting US and overweighting Europe and Japan. Commodities: Investors’ net long positions in commodities are very elevated (Chart 13). As US bond yields rise and the US dollar continues rebounding, there will be a de-risking in the commodities space resulting in a pullback in commodities prices. Currencies: We continue shorting a basket of EM currencies – including BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY and KRW versus the euro, CHF and JPY. Several EM currencies have failed to break above their technical resistance levels, suggesting that a pullback could be non-trivial (Chart 14). Chart 13Investors Are Record Long Commodities Chart 14Asian Currencies Hit Technical Resistances   In central Europe, we are closing the long CZK/short USD trade with a 3.8% gain. Continue holding the long CZK/short PLN and HUF position. Local fixed income markets: EM local bond yields have risen in response to rising US treasury real yields and the setback in EM currencies. This might persist in the near-term, but we continue to recommend receiving 10-year swap rates in selected countries where inflation risks are low and monetary and fiscal policies are tight. These countries include Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India and Malaysia. A further rise in their swap rates would represent an overshoot and hence, should not be chased. EM currencies are more vulnerable to a selloff than local rates are. We continue to wait for a better entry point in currencies to recommend buying cash domestic bonds instead of receiving swap rates. EM Credit: A neutral allocation to EM sovereign and corporate bonds is warranted in a global credit portfolio. Our sovereign credit overweights are Mexico, Russia, Malaysia, Peru, Colombia, the Philippines and Indonesia, while our sovereign credit underweights are Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) is equivalent to Basel III Tier-1 leverage ratio and varies from 3-5% for US banks. Under the relief program last April, the Fed allowed US banks to exclude holdings of US Treasury Bonds and cash kept in reserves at the Fed from their assets when calculating this ratio. The SLR relief is planned to end March 31, 2021. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The US has largely passed a “stress test” of its political system. Rule of law is intact. The US dollar and treasuries may fall further due to cyclical and macro developments but not due to a structural loss of confidence in US governance. The judicial system will become the key check on the Biden administration as it shifts from short-term economic relief to its longer-term agenda, especially on executive orders. The court becomes even more important as a check if the Democrats muster the votes to remove the filibuster. This is possible but not imminent. Packing the court is much harder. Major court cases only sometimes have a major impact on the stock market but key sectors can be given certainty through court verdicts after being disrupted by policy. The US dollar is bouncing on the basis of economic recovery and political stability which poses a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Feature US government bonds continued to sell off over the past week as the economic recovery gained steam and investors rotated into cyclical equities and commodities. The US Senate passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan – a massive and likely excessive infusion of fiscal relief – sending it to the House where it will be ratified shortly and passed over to President Joe Biden for signing. Across America shops and restaurants are opening up as immunization to COVID-19 advances and hospitalizations collapse. Meanwhile the Supreme Court announced its first set of rulings under the Biden administration: it dismissed former President Trump’s last challenge to the 2020 election and ruled on other issues such as free speech. The country has tentatively passed a political “stress test.” The rule of law remains intact. On the surface these two trends stand in opposition. US treasuries have been attractive to a savings-rich world not just because of the size of the US economy but also because of the country’s 245-year tradition of good governance – the balance of freedom and stability in its government and financial markets. The share of foreign holdings of US treasuries is declining but the reason is that the Federal Reserve is increasing its share (Chart 1). Foreigners are not liquidating their holdings just yet, although it is a risk given the US’s combination of extremely easy monetary and fiscal policy and populist politics. Chart 1Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries In this report we focus on governance in the wake of the Trump administration and COVID-19 pandemic. Is US governance eroding? If so, how will it impact the markets? How will the courts interact with the Biden administration? Should investors care about the rule of law? With a new business cycle beginning, any assurance of a basic level of US governance allows risk appetite to recover and enables investors to pursue higher-yielding cyclical assets with less inhibition. But it also suggests that US assets will remain safe havens. How Rule Of Law Matters To Investors Rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are critical aspects of good governance that make a market attractive to foreign investors and secure for domestic investors. Nowhere is this clearer than in the breakdown of global reserve currencies. The United States and its developed market allies hold pride of place (Chart 2). Nevertheless the US has lost some of its reserve status to other currencies over two decades of partisanship and repeated crises, from 9/11 through Trump’s trade war. Chart 2Rule Of Law: Bedrock For Reserve Currencies Government bond yields exhibit some degree of correlation, inversely, with rule of law: better governance implies lower yields and vice versa. As the global savings glut grew over the past few decades, investors sought to preserve capital in securities perceived to be the safest. This is apparent whether judging by a simple comparison of developed and emerging market bond yields or by the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators.1 The relationship between governance and bond yields is strongest with emerging markets but it loosely holds among developed markets like the US, as shown in Chart 3. Chart 3Bond Yields Lower Where Laws Rule It is the level of governance rather than any change matters, since bond yields have fallen for all developed markets regardless of changes in governance over the past decade. However, governments that take negative steps that harm governance attract fewer foreign purchases of their debt than those that improve governance (Chart 4). This is true of developed and emerging economies. The implication is that demand for US treasuries would have been even greater over the past decade if the US political system had remained stable like Canada’s. Chart 4Improved Rule Of Law Attracts Bond Investors Differences in developed economy governance only slightly (if at all) correlate with portfolio or direct investment flows (Charts 5 and 6). This is not surprising as governance does not translate into short-term corporate earnings growth and foreign countries invest directly in developed markets to access technology and consumer markets. By contrast, in emerging markets, better governance goes along with stronger equity demand and foreign direct investment. Chart 5Rule Of Law A Boon For Equity Flows? Chart 6Eroding Rule Of Law Discourages Direct Investment Still the global phenomenon suggests that an erosion of rule of law can shake up one’s faith in a government’s ability or willingness to make debt payments and its operating environment for private companies. Domestically focused investors have to be concerned about rule of law since its collapse would undermine political stability as well as property rights, the surety of contracts, and the redress of grievances. US Rule Of Law Post-Trump And Post-COVID The US has the world’s longest continuously running constitution and one of the highest standards of living. Other countries with similarly high standards of living have similar constitutions or even adopted theirs from the United States. At the same time US governance has deteriorated in recent years, raising the question of whether bond investors or private entrepreneurs face greater governance risk. The drop in rule of law is apparent in the World Bank’s index (Chart 7A). The turmoil of the 2020 election cycle proves beyond doubt that the US suffers from some serious governance problems. At the same time the independence of the US judiciary is rising in the ranks (Chart 7B). Looking ahead, this trend will likely continue as the judicial system managed to get through the disruptive Trump presidency and the 2020 pandemic and election with minimal damage to its independence. Chart 7AUS Rule Of Law Erosion Will Pause Chart 7BUS Judicial Independence Has Improved This is a remarkable feat as the underlying problem in the US system – political polarization – threatens to entangle the judiciary as much as any other institution. Today, with polarization subsiding yet still at a historically high level, the court’s integrity and credibility are critical to the overall maintenance of the rule of law (Chart 8). Chart 8US Polarization Set To Fall Chart 9Trust In Supreme Court Fairly SteadyPolarization creates gridlock in Congress, which forces other branches of government to fill the vacuum and deliver solutions, thus becoming more controversial. This process has ensnared the high court from time to time as well as the central bank and other institutions.2 Over the past ten years the courts have struggled to minimize the damage from polarization. Confidence in the high court has fallen, but not catastrophically, and most voters feel about the same as ever toward the court (Chart 9). Meanwhile disapproval of Congress is stuck around 80%. The Trump era featured a range of claims about the rule of law in America that can now be assessed with some distance. The Democratic Party was not able to remove President Trump through extra-electoral means, while President Trump was not able to ride roughshod over the courts via executive order. Several of Trump’s initiatives were upheld, such as his immigration ban, while others were shot down, such as his attempt to deport the so-called “Dreamers” or add a question about citizenship on the US census. The 2020 election irregularities were not enough to sway the outcome of the electoral vote while the insurrection at the Capitol stood no chance of overthrowing the system. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts refrained from presiding over Trump’s second impeachment – differentiating it from the impeachment of a sitting president – without intervening to tell the Senate whether it could impeach a previous president. Going forward, however, the courts will act as a check on the Biden administration and therefore new controversies will arise. One of the Trump administration’s lasting legacies was to appoint three justices to the high court, creating a six-to-three conservative ideological leaning on the court. Since the Democrats won control of both the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court becomes a critical check on the administration and will thus attract opposition (Chart 10). Speculation about a conservative ideological takeover of the court has proved overrated, based on the court’s neutrality amid the election. Antagonism will inevitably increase going forward as Biden moves away from COVID relief and economic welfare to his larger legislative agenda. Yet the second reconciliation bill, which features infrastructure and green energy investments, would have to include major surprises to create anything as controversial as the dispute over the individual mandate, which imposed a tax on citizens who did not purchase health insurance.3 In other words, a major clash over legislation is more likely only when the Senate Democratic majority removes the filibuster, the rule that effectively requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass regular legislation. This can happen but it does not appear imminent. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia opposes removing it, keeping the Democrats at least one vote shy of repealing it, though he has recently shown some flexibility by suggesting that the Senate return to the good old days when senators had to deliver a filibuster in person (and therefore the procedural hurdle was more burdensome to maintain). Chart 10Balance Of Power In The Three Branches Thus the main arena of friction between the Biden administration and the judiciary will boil down to executive action, as with the Trump administration. Not all of this friction will be partisan but certainly ideological leanings will matter in the most important cases. While the number of Trump’s judicial appointments is often exaggerated – President Obama appointed more (Chart 11) – it is still the case that conservatives possess an improved ideological advantage due to the past few decades of appointments (Chart 12). So far Biden has faced pushback on his 100-day deportation moratorium. Chart 11Trump's Judicial Impact Overstated Chart 12Federal Courts A Bulwark For Conservatives Table 1 highlights the most investment-relevant Supreme Court cases coming due in the current session. The court will determine, among other things, whether Facebook can be treated similar to a telephone company in some respects; whether the federal government or states oversee cases brought against oil and natural and gas companies over climate change; and to what extent tech company acquisitions include patents and copyrights. The use of executive authority to reallocate funds that Congress has appropriated for different reasons, and state exemptions for Medicaid requirements, are also on the docket. Table 1Major Cases Pending At Supreme Court In addition we would identify several policy areas that are likely to become relevant to investors due to contemporary political and geopolitical concerns combined with historical precedent: National Security: The Trump administration relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s historic deference to presidents on issues involving national security and foreign policy. This tendency will likely continue, giving President Biden a freer hand in cases where he claims a national security justification, particularly in dealing with export controls vis-à-vis China. The hack into Microsoft’s Exchange email system, allegedly committed by Chinese state-backed hackers, highlights our Geopolitical Strategy view that the Biden administration will not reduce the US-China power struggle. Industrial Policy: The Supreme Court famously rebuked President Harry Truman for trying to seize control of private steel production during the Korean war (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 1952). Similar cases could emerge in an era in which the president is attempting to assert US government control over critical supply chains in health, tech, and defense. Immigration: The Supreme Court rebuked the Trump administration on the question of the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, whom the Obama administration refused to deport under an initiative called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The court said the Trump administration failed to provide adequate procedural justification for revoking the DACA program. Now the Biden administration’s executive orders loosening immigration and border controls face challenges from lower courts that could ascend the ladder. Also, following from the logic of Trump’s defeat on this issue, it is possible that the Supreme Court could overturn some of Biden’s revocations of Trump’s orders if not adequately justified. Environment: The Biden administration has pledged to phase out the fossil fuel industry over time, yet legislative majorities will be lacking and much of the activity occurs on private land free from direct federal control. The result is that Biden administration will revive regulatory expansions from the Obama era to attempt to raise the cost of carbon emissions. These actions will likely provoke court rulings. Labor: One of the Clinton presidency’s biggest legal controversies, outside the impeachment, centered on executive orders aimed at stopping businesses from hiring replacements for workers who went on strike. The Biden administration explicitly aims to have a muscular policy on labor regulation and to promote union interests and these could run afoul of the courts. Big Tech and free speech: The court has just ruled with an eight-to-one majority in favor of a free speech case on campus. The only reason Chief Justice Roberts dissented was because the case was moot. Future cases may not be moot in an era in which first amendment quarrels are heating up as Big Business, Big Tech, and mainstream media ramp up censorship of disfavored speech. The Supreme Court is likely to enforce first amendment protections robustly which could result in breaking open the digital arena for alternative platforms and services with looser standards. Bottom Line: With Democratic control over the White House and Congress, the judicial branch will become a critical source of limitations on the Biden administration’s policies. While controversial cases could possibly arise from any ambitious proposals in Biden’s second reconciliation bill, the main source of friction will center on executive orders. This is the case at least until the filibuster is removed, which is possible down the road but not imminent. Could Democrats Pack The Court? Finally there is an ongoing concern over the risk of “court packing,” i.e. partisan enlargement of the Supreme Court, under the Biden administration. During the 2020 campaign several leading Democratic Party figures suggested the party could increase the size of the high court so as to reduce the six-to-three conservative leaning. The threat was partly intended to motivate the progressive voting base and deter the Republicans from going forward with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the election. However, the possibility of court packing remains as long as polarization is extreme and the ruling party has at least 51 votes needed to repeal the filibuster in the Senate. President Biden said he was “not a fan” of court packing but one of his first acts in office was to appoint a commission of experts to study the idea of Supreme Court reform. This can be interpreted as a way of sidelining the question or as a preliminary to packing the court should it become possible later. Packing the court is politically explosive so while Democrats could remove the filibuster if and when they get the votes, they are less likely to succeed at packing the vote due to public opinion (though it cannot be ruled out over the long run). The bar to altering the filibuster is much lower than that to changing the composition of the court. History suggests that it would be a market-relevant episode if court packing were attempted. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court after it ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, notably a wage hike mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935). Roosevelt narrowly fell short of expanding the court after the Senate majority leader, a key ally, passed away unexpectedly. The S&P rallied when higher wages were struck down but there are many reasons for these developments – industrial production was rallying at the time, and when industrial production recovered later, and court packing was ruled out, the market remained low. At minimum one cannot say the case was inconsequential to the market (Chart 13). Chart 13FDR Tried To Stack The Courts In a more recent example of a Supreme Court ruling having a substantial market impact, the court ruled with a narrow five-to-four vote to uphold the legality of most of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the signature legislative effort of Obama’s presidency (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). The market reaction at that time was positive, even in the health care sector, as the result removed uncertainty. Only later, in 2015, when the major provisions of the law took effect, did the sector start to feel the negative effects (Chart 14). It is reasonable to expect that any showdown over a major piece of legislation and the courts would have a similar impact today: the market would struggle with uncertainty but rally on the verdict. Chart 14Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Otherwise the Supreme Court’s ideological balance will likely be in place for a while. Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, is 82 years old while Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush, is 72 years old. The other justices are all younger than 66, meaning that conservatives would retain a five-to-four advantage even if Biden had the chance to replace both Breyer and Thomas. Bottom Line: As things stand, court packing is out of reach, more so than removing the filibuster, and therefore the current Supreme Court balance will remain an effective check on the Biden administration. Investment Takeaways The judicial system will become the major check on the Biden administration if its second reconciliation bill contains surprisingly ambitious and controversial provisions or if the Democrats ever get the votes to remove the filibuster. Otherwise the court is primarily a check on Biden’s executive orders. Climate policy is a likely area of friction given that the Biden administration will attempt to pioneer new areas of federal involvement in raising the cost of private industry when it comes to carbon emissions. At the same time the court could insist that the digital arena is a common forum where different voices must be heard, which could open the way to competitors to the tech giants. While the energy sector faces policy risks, it is favored by cyclical economic factors and will also benefit from checks and balances. Whereas the tech sector is not cyclically favored and could face some pushback from courts regarding competition (Chart 15). US rule of law is mostly intact. The selloff in the dollar and treasuries is driven by cyclical factors, not a structural loss of confidence in the rule of law or the American legal and political system. The Trump saga did not in itself trigger a collapse of the US dollar or government bonds – what did that was the Federal Reserve’s shift back to ultra-easy policy and the blowout fiscal spending stemming from the COVID-19 crisis. The US dollar is bouncing on the strong outlook for the economy as well as political stabilization. Chart 16 highlights that this is a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Assuming the dollar resumes its cyclical weakening path it will power the next leg of outperformance for these sectors. Chart 15Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Chart 16Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     The World Bank uses expert judgment and opinion polls to evaluate rule of law, defined as quality of contract enforcement, property rights, and functioning of the law and justice systems. Biases stem from the policy elite and non-governmental organizations of the western world. For instance, Hong Kong’s high rankings have all too predictably been undercut by Communist China’s power grab there.              2     Polarization escalated after Roe v. Wade and similar rulings that legalized abortion (1973), the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 election, the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling that approved the Affordable Care Act (2012), and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized gay marriage (2015).   3    The individual mandate is not expected to get shot down by the court this year, though it is conceivable. Even so, Biden’s second reconciliation bill would give the Democrats the chance to respond to any court ruling on health care reform. Biden’s health initiatives of automatic enrollment and government-provided insurance will be challenged but do not seem as controversial as the individual mandate in principle.       

Special Report

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Footnotes 1See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com  

Special Report

Highlights We use a correlation-hedge approach to manage emerging market (EM) currency exposure for global investors with nine different home currencies. For USD-based investors, EM debt volatility is driven by the EM spot exchange rate vs. USD. Hedged EM debt has better absolute and risk-adjusted returns than US Treasurys. Investing in EM equities, on the other hand, makes sense only when the expected absolute return is positive on a sustained basis. During these episodes, hedging is not necessary. If USD-based investors choose to manage EM currency exposure directly, then a 12-month momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy could add value in terms of risk-adjusted returns for both EM stocks and bonds. USD-based investors could also diversify the source of funding by selling closely correlated DM currencies using an overlay of currency forwards. For non-USD-based investors, EM currency volatility is low and there is no need to fully hedge EM exposure. Domestic bonds have very low volatility, therefore these investors should avoid EM debt if their objective is to maximize risk-adjusted returns. To enhance returns, unhedged EM equities are a much better choice than EM debt. Currency overlay, in line with our long-held view on the total portfolio approach, should be managed at the total fund level. Feature How to manage EM currency exposure when investing in EM local currency debt and equities has been a frequently asked question since our reports on managing developed market (DM) currency exposure when investing in DM equities 1,2 and government bonds.3 According to the BIS Triennial Central Bank Survey, EM currency exchange markets have evolved rapidly since 2001. The daily turnover reached 1.65 trillion dollars in April 2019, which is about 25% of the global currency daily turnover.4 While it is becoming increasingly easy to trade EM currencies, compared with DM currencies it is still more costly and operationally more challenging to hedge EM currency exposure, especially the currencies with non-deliverable forwards (NDFs) that require collateral management. In this report, we identify the return and volatility drivers of EM local currency government bonds (represented by JP Morgan’s GBI-EM Global Diversified Local Currency Index) and EM equities (represented by MSCI’s EM Net Return Index). We briefly touch on a momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy to hedge EM exposure directly for USD-based investors. Our main focus is to test a correlation-hedge approach, both static and dynamic, for nine home currencies: the US dollar (USD), the euro (EUR), the Japanese yen (JPY), the British pound (GBP), the Canadian dollar (CAD), the Australian dollar (AUD), the New Zealand dollar (NZD), the Swedish krona (SEK), and the Norwegian krone (NOK). We want to determine if a USD-based investor’s return/risk profile would be improved when investing in EM assets by using unfunded overlays of DM currency forwards. Finally, we present solutions for non-USD investors, which vary based on the correlations between the home currencies and the EM currency aggregates. Part 1: The USD Perspective 1.1 EM Asset Return Drivers In general, unhedged USD returns for US investors from investing in foreign assets can be decomposed into three parts as shown in the following equation (1): (1+Rd) = (1+Rh) (1+Rc) (1+Rs) ..…..(1) Where, Rd is the unhedged return in USD. Rh is the hedged return in USD using currency forwards. Rc is the carry return resulting from the short-term rate differential between a foreign country and the US. Rs is the spot exchange rate return of a foreign currency vs. the USD (quoted as how many USD per 1 unit of foreign currency). Chart 1A and Chart 1B show the return decompositions of JP Morgan’s (JPM) EM local currency government bonds and MSCI’s EM equities based on equation (1). Chart 1AEM Local Debt USD Return Decomposition Chart 1BEM Equities USD Return Decomposition Hedging reduces both the volatility and returns for both EM local currency bonds and equities; however, the return and volatility reductions are more significant in bonds than in stocks (panel 1 in Chart 1A and Chart 1B). EM currency aggregate indexes implied from JPM and MSCI are different because of the different country compositions. The currency component has been very volatile for both indexes and has generated negative returns during the 18 years from January 2003 to January 2021 (panel 3 in Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The carry component from JPM is sharply higher than that from MSCI, which is also the result of different country compositions (panel 2, Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The carry components from both indexes have very low volatility with positive returns over the 18-year period. Many EM countries had much higher interest rates than the US, therefore a US investor had to be exposed to EM currencies to capture this carry gain. Thus, from a return-enhancing perspective, an investor should hedge only if he/she expects the EM currency spot exchange rate to depreciate more than the implied carry (panel 3, Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The answer may be different from a volatility-reducing perspective, especially for EM debt where currency volatility dominates bond volatility. We plot the return-risk profiles of EM local currency bonds and equities (hedged and unhedged) in Charts 2A, 2B and 2C to show how they behave in different environments compared to US equities, US Treasurys and hedged non-US global government bonds. Table 1 further lists the detailed statistics of all the above-mentioned assets, in addition to the spot currency and carry components implied from JPM’s EM local currency bond index and MSCI’s EM index, ranked by risk-adjusted return. The entire 18-year period (Chart 2A) is also separated into the period with steadily rising EM currencies (1/2003 – 7/2008, Chart 2B) and the period with declining EM currencies (8/2008-1/2021, Chart 2C). Chart 2AUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile For The Entire Period (1/2003-1/2021) Chart 2BUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile When EM Currencies Were Strong (1/2003-7/2008) Chart 2CUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile When EM Currencies Were Weak (8/2008-1/2021) Both EM debt and equities had impressive unhedged returns in the period from January 2003 to July 2008 when the EM currency index rose steadily against the USD. Even on a hedged basis, EM bonds still delivered better absolute returns (5.1%) than US Treasurys (4.3%) with lower volatility. In terms of EM equities, although hedged return of 22.8% significantly outpaced US equities (9.7%), the volatility of EM equities (16.8%) was much higher than US equities (9.8%). Interestingly, in the period with declining EM FX from August 2008 to January 2021, hedged EM equities (5.6%) significantly underperformed US equities (11.5%) with comparable volatility, but hedged EM bonds (4.2%) outperformed US Treasurys (3.6%) with comparable volatility, despite the negative carry. It is easy to make the case for EM equities: US investors should not touch EM equities unless they are convinced that EM is entering a sustainably strong absolute return period. There is no need to hedge the currency exposure because the risk reduction is relatively small. In the case of EM local currency debt, the three components of total returns in USD based on equation (1) have distinct characteristics as follows: First, the carry component generated an annualized return of 3.4% with only 0.7% volatility in the entire period, making it the best performer among all the assets in terms of risk-adjusted return, as shown in Table 1. Table 1USD Asset Return-Risk Profile In Different Time Periods Chart 3What Drives The Hedged Return Of EM Local Debt? Second, the hedged return or the EM duration return (i.e. the compensation for a US investor to take on EM interest rate and term premia risks), had a better return/risk profile than US Treasurys in terms of both absolute return and risk-adjusted return, regardless of whether the EM currency index rose or fell against the USD. From January 2003 to January 2021, hedged EM debt returned 4.5% with a volatility of 4.1%, giving a 1.1 return per unit of risk, while US Treasurys returned 3.8% with a volatility of 4.3%, resulting in a 0.9 return per unit of risk. This component is mainly driven by the direction of government bonds in the developed markets as shown in Chart 3. Third, from January 2003 to January 2021, the JPM-implied EM currency had the worst return/risk profile with an annualized loss of 1.7% and annualized volatility of 9.1% (Table 1). However, this component was also the most regime-dependent. Between January 2003 and July 2008 it registered an annualized gain of 7.0% and an annualized volatility of 6.2%, in contrast with the annualized loss of 5.2% and annualized volatility of 9.9% from August 2008 to January 2021. Historically, the EM currency as an aggregate, no matter how the aggregate is calculated, closely correlates to commodities as shown in Chart 4. This is because many EM countries are either commodity producers or have significant trading exposure to China, the dominant player influencing commodity prices as shown in Chart 5. Chart 4EM FX Largely Driven By Commodities Chart 5The Commodities-China Link It is a challenge to build a systematic EM currency model due to the complex nature of EM economies. BCA’s FX Strategy team is working on EM currency models by applying the same approach they used for their DM models. BCA’s EMS Strategy team takes a more discretionary approach to forecasting currencies. Below we will explore two options: one for investors who choose to manage an EM FX hedging program directly and another for investors who cannot manage a direct EM currency hedging program but want to improve their return-risk profile in EM assets. 1.2 Momentum-Based Dynamic Hedging Of EM Currencies Price momentum is a useful tool for dynamic hedging as shown in our previous work on DM currency exposure management. A simple rule of hedging back to the home currency when the 12-month price momentum of a foreign currency turns negative adds value for investors with several DM home currencies. Given that the USD is a strong momentum currency, it makes sense to test if a simple 12-month price momentum rule for the EM FX aggregate vs. USD adds any value. The results are encouraging as shown in Chart 6A and Chart 6B and Chart 7A and Chart 7B. Chart 6AMomentum-Based Dynamic Hedging For EM Bonds Chart 6BMomentum-Based Dynamic Hedging For EM Stocks In the case of EM local debt, dynamic hedging reduced volatility to 8.4% from an unhedged volatility of 11.7%, while only trimming return slightly compared with the unhedged index (Charts 6A, 7A). For EM equities, dynamic hedging cut volatility to 18.6% from the unhedged volatility of 21.1%, while increasing the return by 25 bps, compared to the unhedged index. (Charts 6B, 7B). Chart 7AEM Local Debt Return-Risk Profiles: Static Hedging* Vs. Dynamic Hedging** Chart 7BEM Equities Return-Risk Profiles: Static Hedging* Vs. Dynamic Hedging** These results are directionally encouraging, but this method still requires hedging all EM currencies. The approach may operationally challenge investors who are not equipped to manage EM currency overlays. Bottom Line: Using only price momentum to hedge EM currency aggregates could improve the return-risk profile of both EM debt and equities, even though the improvements would be limited. This is encouraging for our eventual systematic approach for direct EM currency hedging. 1.3 Correlation Hedge Using DM Currencies EM FX is closely correlated with DM commodity currencies, such as the NOK, CAD, AUD, and NZD. As shown in Charts 8A and 8B, even the euro has an average correlation greater than 60% with EM currency aggregates. Only the JPY has an unstable correlation with the EM currencies of less than 25%, while the GBP also has a relative lower correlation. Chart 8AJPM-Implied EM FX* Correlation** With DM FX Chart 8BMSCI-Implied EM FX* Correlation** With DM FX Therefore, a USD-based investor, instead of hedging out EM currency exposure directly, should be able to eliminate part of EM currency volatility by selling lower-yielding DM currencies. This move would diversify his/her source of funding from USD to other DM currencies with high correlations with EM currencies. To test the effect on the return-risk profile, we use an unfunded overlay of 1-month DM currency forwards and rebalance monthly. To begin, we test a static correlation hedge where each of the eight DM currencies is sold individually. Then we test a dynamic correlation hedge where each one is dynamically sold based on the BCA Forex Strategy Team’s Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM), which uses the same indicators described in our DM currency hedging report. To avoid subjective selection bias among the currencies, we also test an equally- weighted basket of eight currencies (AUD, NZD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, NOK, and SEK) for dynamic hedging and an equally- weighted basket of five currencies (GBP, EUR, CAD, NOK, and SEK) for static hedging. The AUD, NZD, and JPY were excluded in the static hedging basket because in general, AUD and NZD had very high carries and JPY had an unstable correlation with EM currencies. The combined results are shown in Chart 9A and Chart 9B. Additionally, Table 2A and Table 2B list the return-risk profiles together with the fully hedged and unhedged EM indexes for equities and local debt. Chart 9AStatic Correlation Hedge For US Investors Chart 9BDynamic Correlation Hedge For US Investors Table 2AEM Debt Funding Source Diversification For USD-Based Investors (2/2003-1/2021) Table 2BEM Equity Funding Source Diversification For USD-Based Investors (2/2003-1/2021) For US investors investing in EM local currency bonds, the best risk-adjusted return of 1.08 would come from fully hedging all the EM currencies as shown in Table 2A. Fully-hedged EM debt has the lowest volatility (4.12%), but also the lowest return (4.45%). To achieve a comparable return of unhedged EM debt (6.18%) without incurring the same high volatility (11.71%), however, a USD-based investor could either statically sell the five DM currencies or dynamically sell the eight DM currencies. The resulting risk-adjusted return of 0.8 would still be comparable to US Treasurys as shown in Table 1. US investors investing in EM equities may improve their return-risk profile by funding their positions in DM currencies. If the aim is to maximize risk-adjusted returns, then the choice would be to fund the position by selling the basket of equally weighted five DM currencies using currency forwards (i.e. using a static correlation hedge). In this way, they would achieve a comparable volatility (16.25%) as if all the EM currencies were fully hedged to USD (16.29%), while also achieving a higher return (12.29%) than when all the EM currencies were not hedged (11.71%). The return per unit of risk of 0.76 would be the highest among all the cases as shown in Table 2B and be on par with US equities as shown in Table 1. If investors prefer even higher returns without significantly higher volatility, then dynamically selling an equally weighted basket of eight currencies would achieve an annualized return of 13.03% with a higher volatility of 18.71%, resulting in a risk-adjusted return of 0.7. Bottom Line: USD-based asset allocators should use the hedged EM debt index and the unhedged EM equities index as benchmarks to measure the performance of their asset-class managers. The EM currency exposure should be managed in a currency overlay at the total fund level by either statically or dynamically selling DM currencies using a correlation hedge, depending on the return-risk preferences. Part 2: Non-USD-Perspective Six out of the eight non-USD DM currencies have strong positive correlations with EM currencies as shown in Chart 8A and Chart 8B. Therefore, non-USD investors investing in EM assets should naturally experience less spot-currency volatility (Chart 10A and Chart 10B). Consequently, they do not need to hedge EM currency exposure from a volatility perspective. But what about return enhancement? Should they consider an allocation to EM assets in place of domestic assets? If they do, would the correlation-hedge approach used by USD-based investors benefit them too? Chart 10ADM Currency Per Unit Of EM Currency Chart 10BDM Currency Per Unit Of EM Currency To find answers to those questions, we compare the return-risk profiles of domestic assets, unhedged EM assets, and correlation-hedged EM assets in Table 3A and Table 3B. For the correlation-hedged results for non-USD investors, we simply use the results for the US investors converted into the non-USD home currencies at spot exchange rates. This way, the return enhancements from the correlation-hedged EM assets compared to the unhedged EM assets would be similar for all nine currencies. Chart 3AEM-Debt* For Non USD-Based Investors Table 3BEM-Stocks* For Non USD-Based Investors We find that non-USD investors would do better to avoid local-currency EM debt if their objective is to maximize risk-adjusted returns because domestic government bonds had unbeatably low volatility, resulting in the highest risk-adjusted returns, as shown in Table 3A. But domestic government bonds had lower returns than unhedged EM bonds for all but AUD- and NZD-based investors. To further enhance the return-risk profile, non-USD investors could follow their US counterparts by dynamically diversifying their funding sources, then converting their USD returns into their home currency at spot exchange rates (i.e. not hedging the USD exposure). GBP- and JPY-based investors would benefit the most from a dynamic correlation hedge with higher returns and lower volatility compared with the unhedged case. In the case of EM equities, other than SEK- and NZD-based investors, unhedged EM equities have higher returns on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis compared with domestic equities, with GBP-, JPY- and euro-based investors benefiting the most (Table 3B). Even though NOK-based investors increased their returns by only 1% by putting funds into unhedged EM equities, they enjoy lower volatility than in domestic equities. Unlike the case for EM debt where a static correlation hedge did not improve over an unhedged case, both static and dynamic correlation hedges improve the return/risk profiles relative to the unhedged case, and the dynamic hedge outperforms the static hedge in each country. While domestic equities underperform domestic government bonds in terms of risk-adjusted returns, EM equities outperform EM local currency debt when a dynamic correlation hedge is applied. Even in the unhedged case, EM equities are still a much better choice than EM debt (Chart 11). To evaluate how this could impact an asset allocation, we replace home equity with EM equities in a 60/40 home equity/Treasury portfolio. In this extreme exercise, six of the eight non-USD-based portfolios could generate better return/risk profiles, with only the NZD- and SEK-based portfolios worse off (Chart 12). Chart 11Risk-Adjusted Return: Stocks Minus Bonds Chart 12Asset Allocation Implications*     Bottom Line: Non-USD-based investors should avoid EM local debt if their objective is to maximize their risk-adjusted returns. For the purposes of return enhancement, EM equities are a much better choice than EM debt for all investors with the exception of those based in New Zealand and Sweden.   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1,2Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Reports, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated September 29, 2017; and "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors (Part II)," dated October 13, 2017. 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Reports, “Why Invest In Foreign Government Bonds?” dated March 12, 2018. 4 Please see "Triennial Central Bank Survey Foreign exchange turnover in April 2019," Bank for International Settlements, dated 16 September 2019.