Inflation/Deflation

Dear Client, We are sending you our Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for 2021 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, December 17 at 10:00 AM EST (3:00 PM GMT, 4:00 PM CET, 11:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Our publishing schedule will resume early next year. On behalf of the entire Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Healthy New Year! Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic outlook: The global economy will strengthen in 2021 as the pandemic winds down. Inflation will remain well contained for the next 2-to-3 years before moving sharply higher by the middle of the decade. Global asset allocation: Stocks are technically overbought and vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, investors should favor equities over bonds in 2021 given the likelihood that earnings will accelerate while monetary policy stays accommodative. Equities: This year’s losers will be next year’s winners. In 2021, international stocks will outperform US stocks, small caps will outperform large caps, banks will outperform tech, and value stocks will outperform growth stocks. Fixed income: Bond yields will rise modestly next year, implying that investors should maintain below average duration exposure. Spread product will outperform safe government bonds. Favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will continue to weaken in 2021. The collapse in US interest rate differentials versus its trading partners, stronger global growth, and a widening US trade deficit are all bearish for the greenback. Commodities: Tight supply conditions and a cyclical recovery in oil demand will support crude prices. Investors should favor gold over bitcoin as a hedge against long-term inflation risk. I. Macroeconomic Outlook V Is For Vaccine Chart 1Efficacy Rates Of Seasonal Flu Vaccines Are Well Below Those Of The Covid-19 Vaccines Ten months after the start of the pandemic, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Both of the vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna using mRNA technology have demonstrated efficacy rates of around 95%. AstraZeneca’s vaccine, produced in collaboration with Oxford University, showed an efficacy rate of 90% in one of its clinical arms. Russia and China have also launched vaccines. The Russian vaccine, Gamaleya, displayed an efficacy rate of 91% based on 22,000 test participants. Such high efficacy rates are on par with the measles and smallpox vaccines, and well above the typical 30%-to-50% success rate for the seasonal flu vaccine (Chart 1). Inoculating most of the world’s population will not be easy. Nevertheless, large-scale vaccine production has already begun. More than half of the professional forecasters enrolled in the Good Judgement Project expect enough doses to be available to vaccinate 200 million Americans (about 60% of the US population) by the end of the second quarter of 2021 (Chart 2). Chart 2Mass Distribution Of Covid-19 Vaccines Expected By Mid-2021 According to opinion polls, public concern about the potential side effects from the vaccines, while still high, has diminished over the past few weeks (Chart 3). Most countries will start by vaccinating health care workers and other at-risk groups. Assuming no major side effects are reported, the successful deployment of the vaccines among health care professionals should bolster confidence within the general public. Chart 3The Public Is Slowly Becoming Less Worried About Covid-19 Vaccines Vaccines And Growth: A Short-Term Paradox? There is no doubt that the availability of a safe and effective vaccine will bolster economic activity over the medium-to-long term. The short-term impact, however, is ambiguous. On the one hand, vaccine optimism could reduce household precautionary savings. It could also prompt more firms to invest in new capacity. On the other hand, the expectation that a vaccine is coming could motivate people to take even greater efforts to avoid getting sick in the interim. Think about what happens when you take cover under a tree after it starts to rain. Your decision to stay under the tree depends on how long you expect the rain to continue. If the rain will last for only 10 minutes, staying put makes sense. However, if it will rain continuously for the next two days, you are better off going home. You are going to get wet anyway. Who wants to get sick just as the pandemic is winding down? It is like being the last soldier killed on the battlefield. Growth In Europe Suffering More Than In The US… So Far The number of new daily cases has declined by 45% in the EU from the highs reached in the second week of November. That said, progress on the disease front has come at a cost. As Covid infections surged, European governments were forced to reimplement a variety of lockdown measures (Chart 4). Correspondingly, growth indicators have weakened across the region (Chart 5). At this point, it looks highly likely that GDP will contract in the euro area and the UK in the fourth quarter. Chart 4The Latest Viral Surge Led To Lockdowns In Europe   In contrast to Europe, the US economy should expand in the fourth quarter. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 11.2% in Q4, led by a recovery in personal consumption, strength in residential and nonresidential investment, and inventory restocking. Nevertheless, dark clouds are forming. After a short-lived dip in late November, the number of new daily cases in the US is on the rise again. The 7-day average of confirmed new cases has jumped to around 200,000. The Centers for Disease Control  (CDC) estimates that for every single case that is caught, seven go undiagnosed.1 This implies that over 11 million people are being infected each week, or about 3% of the US population. With the weather getting colder and the Christmas holiday season approaching, a further viral surge looks probable. Just as in Europe, we may see more lockdowns and more voluntary social distancing in the US over the coming weeks. Building A Fiscal Bridge To A Post-Pandemic World Lockdowns would be less of a problem if governments provided enough income support to struggling households and businesses. Unfortunately, at least in the US, considerable uncertainty remains about whether such support will be forthcoming. After a burst of stimulus earlier this year, US fiscal policy has tightened sharply. Since peaking in April, real disposable personal income has dropped by 9%, reflecting a steep decline in government transfer payments (Chart 6). The latest data suggest that real disposable income will be down in Q4 compared to the preceding quarter. Chart 5Renewed Lockdowns Are Weighing On Economic Activity In The Euro Area Chart 6Less Transfers Mean Less Income   President Trump tried to offset some of the sting from the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits in the CARES Act by diverting funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support jobless workers. However, this money has now run out (Chart 7). Likewise, the resources in the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses have been depleted, and many state and local governments are facing a cash crunch. Chart 7Drastic Drop In Unemployment Insurance Payments Chart 8People Are Eager For More Stimulus The US Congress has been squabbling over a new stimulus bill since May. Ultimately, we think a bill will be passed, potentially as part of a year-end omnibus spending package. Public opinion still very much favors maintaining stimulus. A survey conducted by Pew Research after the election found that about 80% of respondents supported passing a new stimulus package (Chart 8). Similarly, according to a recent NY Times/Siena College poll, 72% of voters supported a hypothetical $2 trillion stimulus package that would extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits, distribute direct cash payments to households, and provide financial support to state and local governments (Table 1). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. Strikingly, when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Table 1Even Republicans Want More Stimulus Peak Chinese Stimulus Even though it originated there, China has weathered the pandemic better than any other major country. Chinese export growth accelerated to 21.1% year-over-year in November. The Caixin manufacturing PMI rose to 54.9 on the month, the strongest reading since November 2010. The service sector PMI increased to a healthy 57.8. The “official” PMIs published by the National Bureau of Statistics also rose. Chinese growth will moderate over the coming months. The magnitude of China’s policy support has peaked, as evidenced by the rise in bond yields and interbank rates (Chart 9). The authorities have also permitted more corporate issuers to default, while tightening rules on online lending. Turning points in Chinese domestic demand and imports tend to lag policy developments by about 6-to-9 months (Chart 10). Thus, the tailwind from Chinese stimulus should fade by the middle of next year, hopefully just in time for the baton to be passed to a more organic, vaccine-driven global growth recovery. Chart 9China: Bond Yields And Interbank Rates Have Been Rising Chart 10Tailwind From Chinese Stimulus Will Fade By The Middle Of Next Year Japan: Near-Term Wobbles Japan is in the midst of its third wave of the pandemic. While not as bad as the latest waves in the US and Europe, it has still been disruptive enough to slow the economy. Although it did tick up in November, the manufacturing PMI remains below the crucial 50 boom/bust line, notably weaker than in other APAC countries. The outlook component of the Economy Watchers Survey fell to 36.5 in November (from 49.1), while the current situation component slid to 45.6 (from 54.5). Nevertheless, there are some encouraging signs. The number of new Covid cases seems to be stabilizing. Machine tool orders rose to 8% year-over-year in November, the first positive print since September 2018. Retail sales have recovered from a low of -14% year-over-year in April to around +6% in October. Broad money growth has reached a record high. The Japanese government is also considering a new ¥73 trillion fiscal stimulus package to fight the pandemic. Global Monetary Policy To Stay Accommodative Chart 11Service And Shelter Inflation Tend To Be Largely Determined By Labor Market Slack Could a vaccine-led economic recovery cause central banks to remove the punch bowl? We think not. Inflation is likely to rise in the first half of 2021 as the “base effects” from the pandemic-induced drop in prices reverse. However, central banks will see through these short-term oscillations in inflation. Inflation in modern economies is largely driven by services and shelter (goods account for only 25% of the US core CPI and 37% of the euro area core CPI). Both service inflation and shelter inflation tend to be largely determined by labor market slack (Chart 11). In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the main developed economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 12). While this is too pessimistic in light of the subsequent progress that has been made on the vaccine front, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next 2-to-3 years. Chart 12Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Chart 13Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Still Subdued   Moreover, despite vaccine optimism, long-term inflation expectations are still below target in most of the major economies (Chart 13). Not only do central banks want inflation to return to target, they want inflation to overshoot their targets in order to make up for the shortfall in inflation in the post-GFC era. Had the core PCE deflator in the US risen by 2% per year since 2012, the price level would be about 3.3% higher than it currently is. In the euro area, the price level is about 9.5% below where it would have been if consumer prices had risen by 2% over this period. In Japan, the price level is 11.6% below target (Chart 14). Chart 14Central Banks Have Missed Their Inflation Targets II. Financial Markets A. Global Asset Allocation Remain Overweight Equities Versus Bonds On A 12-Month Horizon Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 15). This makes equities vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Stronger economic growth should lift earnings estimates. Stocks have usually outperformed bonds when growth has been on the upswing (Chart 16). Chart 15A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 16Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Valuations also favor stocks. As Chart 17 illustrates, the global equity risk premium – which we model by subtracting real bond yields from the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield – remains quite high. Along the same lines, dividend yields are above bond yields in the major markets. Even if one were to pessimistically assume that nominal dividend payments stay flat for the next 10 years, real equity prices would have to fall by 24% in the US for stocks to underperform bonds (Chart 18). In the euro area, real equity prices would need to tumble 32%. In Japan, they would have to drop 20%. Chart 17Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 18Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds As such, investors should overweight global equities relative to bonds. We recommend a neutral allocation to cash to take advantage of any short-term dip in stock prices. Our full suite of asset allocation and trade recommendations are shown at the back of this report.   B. Equity Sectors, Regions, Styles This Year’s Losers Will Be Next Year’s Winners The “pandemic trade” is giving way to the “reopening trade.” We are still in the early innings of this transition. Hence, going into next year, it makes sense to favor stocks that were crushed by lockdown measures but could thrive once restrictions are lifted. Chart 19 shows relative 12-months forward earnings estimates for US/non-US, large caps/small caps, and tech/overall market. In all three cases, the tables have turned: Estimates are now rising more quickly for non-US stocks, small caps, and non-tech sectors. Non-US Stocks To Outperform Stocks outside the US are significantly cheaper than their US peers based on price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yields (Chart 20). The macro outlook also favors non-US stocks, which tend to outperform when global growth is strengthening and the US dollar is weakening (Chart 21). Chart 19Relative Earnings Expectations For Non-US Stocks, Small Caps, And Non-Tech Are Improving   Chart 20Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Chart 21Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening As we discuss below, the dollar is likely to depreciate further over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar benefits cyclical sectors of the stock market more than defensives (Chart 22). Deep cyclicals are overrepresented outside the US (Table 2). Being more cyclical in nature, small caps usually outperform when the dollar weakens (Chart 23). Chart 22Cyclicals Tend To Outperform Defensives In A Falling Dollar Environment Table 2Financials Are Overrepresented In Ex-US Indices, While Tech Dominates The US Market Chart 23Small Caps Also Tend To Outperform When Global Growth Strengthens And The Dollar Weakens   Chart 24Banks’ Net Interest Margins Will Receive A Boost Buy The Banks Banks comprise a larger share of non-US stock markets. Stronger growth in 2021 will put upward pressure on long-term bond yields. Since short-term rates will stay where they are, yield curves will steepen. Steeper yield curves will boost banks’ net interest margins (Chart 24).   In addition, faster economic growth will put a lid on defaults. Banks have set aside considerable capital for pandemic-related loan losses. Yet, the wave of defaults that so many feared has failed to materialize. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, commercial bankruptcies are lower now than they were this time last year (Chart 25). Personal loan delinquencies have also been trending down. The 60-day delinquency rate on credit card debt fell to 1.16% in October from 2.02% a year earlier. The delinquency rate for mortgages fell from 1.54% to 0.98%. Only auto loan delinquencies registered a tiny blip higher (Table 3). Chart 25Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Table 3Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Just A “Value Bounce”? In our conversations with clients, many investors are open to the idea that value stocks are due for a cyclical bounce. However, most still believe that growth stocks will fare best over a longer-term horizon. Such a view is understandable. After all, profit growth is the principal driver of equity returns. If, by definition, growth companies enjoy faster earnings growth, does it not stand to reason that growth stocks will outperform value stocks over the long haul? Well, actually, it doesn’t. What matters is profit growth relative to expectations, not absolute profit growth. If earnings rise quickly, but by less than investors had anticipated, stock prices could still go down. Historically, investors have tended to extrapolate earnings trends too far into the future, which has led them to overpay for growth stocks. Chart 26 demonstrates this point analytically. It features the results of a study by Louis Chan, Jason Karceski, and Josef Lakonishok. The authors sorted companies by projected five-year earnings growth and then compared the analysts’ forecasts with realized earnings. For the most part, they found that there was no relationship between expected profit growth and realized profit growth beyond horizons of two years. In general, the higher the long-term earnings growth estimates, the more likely actual earnings were to miss expectations. Chart 26Investors Tend To Overpay For Growth The Paradox Of Growth Given the difficulty of picking individual stocks that will consistently surpass earnings estimates, should investors simply allocate the bulk of their capital to sectors such as technology that have the best long-term growth prospects while eschewing structurally challenged sectors such as energy and financials? Again, the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. As Chart 27 illustrates, stocks in industries that experience a burst of output growth do tend to outperform other stocks. However, over the long haul, companies in fast growing industries do not outperform their peers (Chart 28). In other words, stock prices seem to respond more to unanticipated changes in industry growth rather than to the trend level of growth. Chart 27Stocks In Industries That Experience A Burst Of Output Growth Do Tend To Outperform Other Stocks … Chart 28… But Over The Long Haul, Companies In Fast-Growing Industries Do Not Outperform Their Peers Explaining Tech Outperformance In this vein, it is useful to examine what has powered the performance of US tech stocks over the past 25 years. Chart 29 shows that faster sales-per-share growth explains less than half of tech’s outperformance since 1996 and none of tech’s outperformance in the period up to 2011. The majority of tech’s outperformance is explained by greater margin expansion and an increase in the P/E ratio at which tech stocks trade relative to the rest of the stock market. Chart 29Decomposing Tech Outperformance What accounts for the significant increase in tech profit margins? In two words, the answer is “monopoly power.” Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Second, tech companies benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner take-all environment where success begets further success. Normally, structurally fast-growing industries attract more competition, which increases the odds that up-and-coming firms will displace incumbents. The growth of tech monopolies has subverted that process, allowing profits to rise significantly. A Tougher Path Forward For Tech A key question for investors is how much additional scope today’s tech monopolies have to expand profits. While it is difficult to generalize, two broad forces are likely to curtail future earnings growth. First, many tech titans have become so big that their future growth will be driven less by their ability to take market share from competitors and more by the overall size of the markets in which they operate. As it is, close to three-quarters of US households have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Second, the monopoly power wielded by tech companies makes them vulnerable to governmental action, including higher taxes, increased regulation, and stronger anti-trust enforcement. Importantly, it is not just the left that wants greater scrutiny of tech companies. According to a recent Pew Research study, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of the tech sector (Chart 30). Chart 30Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies We do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms since they still have a variety of tailwinds supporting them. Nevertheless, our bet is that the cyclical shift in favor of value stocks we are seeing now will usher in a period of outperformance for value names that could last for much of this decade. Not only are value stocks exceptionally cheap compared to growth stocks (Chart 31), but as we discuss below, bond yields likely reached a secular bottom this year. This could set the stage for a period of lasting outperformance for value plays. Chart 31Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks C. Fixed Income Position For Steeper Yield Curves As discussed earlier, central banks are unlikely to raise rates over the next 2-to-3 years. In fact, short-term real rates will probably decline further in 2021 as inflation expectations rise towards central bank targets. What about longer-term bond yields? Chart 32 displays the expected path of policy rates in the major developed economies now and at the start of 2020. The chart suggests that there is still scope for rate expectations in the post-2023 period to recover some of the ground they have lost since the start of the pandemic. This implies that bond investors should position for steeper yield curves, while keeping duration risk at below-benchmark levels. They should also favor inflation-linked securities over nominal bonds. Chart 32Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Avoid “High Beta” Government Bond Markets The highest-yielding bond markets tend to have the highest “betas” to the general direction of global bond yields (Chart 33). This means when global bond yields are rising, higher-yielding markets such as the US usually experience the biggest selloff in bond prices. Chart 33High-Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical This pattern exists because faster growth has a more subdued impact on rate expectations in economies such as Europe and Japan where the neutral rate of interest is stuck deep in negative territory. For example, if stronger growth lifts the neutral rate in Japan from say, -4% to -2%, this would still not warrant raising rates. In contrast, if stronger growth lifts the neutral rate from -1% to +1% in the US, this would eventually justify a rate hike.  As such, we would underweight US Treasurys in global government bond portfolios. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to increase to around 1.3%-to-1.5% by the end of 2021, which is above current expectations of 1.15% based on the forward curve. Conversely, we would overweight European and Japanese government bond markets. After adjusting for currency-hedging costs, US Treasurys offer only a small yield pickup over European and Japanese bonds but face a much greater risk of capital losses as rate expectations recover (Table 4). Table 4Bond Markets Across The Developed World BCA’s global fixed-income strategists have a neutral recommendation on Canadian and Australian bonds. While Canadian and Australian yields are also “high beta,” both the BoC and the RBA are very active purchasers in their domestic markets. Stay Overweight High-Yield Developed Market Corporate Debt In fixed-income portfolios, we would overweight corporate debt relative to safer government bonds. In an economic environment where monetary policy remains accommodative and growth is rebounding, corporate default rates should remain contained, which will keep spreads from widening. Within corporate credit, we favor high yield over investment grade. Geographically, we prefer US corporate bonds over euro area bonds. The former trade with a higher yield and spread than the latter (Charts 34A & B). Chart 34AFavor High-Yield Bonds Over Investment-Grade ... Chart 34B… And US Corporates Over Euro Area One way to gauge the attractiveness of credit is to look at the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. The 12-month breakeven spread is the amount of credit spread widening that can occur before a credit product starts to underperform a duration-matched, risk-free government bond over a one-year horizon. For US investment-grade corporates, the breakeven spread is currently in the bottom decile of its historic range, which is rather unattractive from a risk-adjusted perspective. In contrast, the US high-yield breakeven spread is currently in the 62nd percentile, which is quite enticing. In the UK, high-yield debt is more appealing than investment grade, although not quite to the same extent as in the US. In the euro area, both high-yield and investment-grade credit are fairly unattractive (Chart 35). Chart 35Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Outside the corporate sector, our US bond strategists like consumer ABS due to the strength of household balance sheets. They also see value in municipal bonds. However, they would avoid MBS, as prepayment risks are elevated in that sector. EM credit should also benefit from the combination of stronger global growth and a weaker US dollar. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced As noted earlier in the report, inflation is unlikely to rise significantly over the next three years. Beyond then, a more inflationary environment is probable. Chart 36 shows that the wage-version of the Phillips curve in the US is alive and well. It just so happens that over the past three decades, the labor market has never had a chance to overheat. Something always came along that derailed the economy before a price-wage spiral could develop. This year it was the pandemic. In 2008 it was the Global Financial Crisis. In 2000 it was the dotcom bust and in the early 1990s it was the collapse in commercial real estate prices following the Savings and Loan Crisis. Admittedly, only the pandemic qualifies as a true “exogenous” shock. The prior three recessions were endogenous in nature to the extent that they were preceded by growing economic imbalances, laid bare by a Fed hiking cycle. One can debate the degree to which the global economy is suffering from imbalances today, but one thing is certain: no major central bank is keen on raising rates anytime soon. Central banks want higher inflation. They are likely to get it. D. Currencies, Commodities, And Yes, Bitcoin Dollar Bear Market To Continue In 2021 The dollar faces a number of headwinds going into next year. First, interest rate differentials have moved significantly against the greenback. At the start of 2019, US real 2-year rates were about 190 basis points above rates of other developed economies; today, US real rates are around 60 basis points lower than those abroad. In fact, as Chart 37 shows, the trade-weighted dollar has weakened less than one would have expected based on the decline in interest rate differentials. This suggests that there could be some “catch-up” weakness for the dollar next year even if rate differentials remain broadly stable. Chart 36Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 37A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials   Second, the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 38). If the global economy strengthens next year thanks to an effective vaccine, the dollar should weaken. Chart 38The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 39USD Remains Overvalued Third, the US dollar remains about 13% overvalued based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates (Chart 39). This overvaluation is also reflected in the large US current account deficit, which rose in the second quarter to the highest level since 2008 and is on track to swell even further in the second half of the year. Technicals Are Dollar Bearish Admittedly, many investors are now bearish on the dollar. Shouldn’t one be a contrarian and adopt a bullish dollar view? Not necessarily. In most cases, being contrarian makes sense. However, this does not apply to the dollar. The dollar is a high-momentum currency (Chart 40). When it comes to trading the dollar, it pays to be a trend follower. Chart 40The Dollar Is A High Momentum Currency One of the simplest and most profitable trading rules for the dollar is to go long the greenback when it is trading above its moving average and go short when it is trading below its moving average (Chart 41). Today, the trade-weighted dollar is trading below its 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year moving averages. Along the same lines, the dollar performs best when sentiment is bullish and improving. In contrast, the dollar does worse when sentiment is bearish and deteriorating, as it is now (Chart 42). Chart 41Being A Contrarian Doesn’t Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (I) Chart 42Being A Contrarian Doesn’t Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (II) The bottom line is that both fundamental factors – interest rate differentials, global growth, valuations, current account dynamics – and technical factors – moving average rules and sentiment – all point to dollar weakness next year. Top Performing Currencies In 2021 EUR/USD is likely to rise to 1.3 by the middle of next year. The ECB does not want a stronger currency, but with euro area interest rates already in negative territory, there is not much it can do. The Swedish krona, as a highly cyclical currency, should strengthen against the euro. In contrast, the Swiss franc, a classically defensive currency, will weaken against the euro. It is more difficult to forecast the direction of the pound given uncertainty about ongoing Brexit talks. The working assumption of BCA’s geopolitical team is that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has sufficient economic and political incentives to arrive at a trade deal, a parliamentary majority to get it approved, and a powerful geopolitical need to mollify Scotland. This bodes well for sterling. The yen is a very defensive currency. Thus, in an environment of strengthening global growth, the yen is likely to trade flat against the dollar, and in the process, lose ground against most other currencies. We are most bullish about the prospects for EM and commodity currencies going into next year. China is likely to let its currency strengthen further in return for a partial rollback of tariffs by the Biden administration. A stronger yuan will allow other currencies in Asia to appreciate. Stay Bullish On Commodities And Commodity Currencies The combination of a weaker US dollar and stronger global growth should support commodity prices in 2021. Industrial metals outperformed oil this year, but the opposite should be true next year. Chart 43Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover While the long-term outlook for crude is murky in light of the shift towards electric vehicles, the near-term picture remains favorable due to the cyclical rebound in petroleum demand and ongoing OPEC and Russian supply discipline. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the average price of Brent to exceed market expectations by about $14 in 2021, which should help the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Russian ruble, Mexican peso, and Colombian peso (Chart 43). Favor Gold Over Bitcoin As An Inflation Hedge Gold has traditionally served as the go-to hedge against inflation. These days, however, there is a new competitor in town: bitcoin. In traditional economic parlance, money serves three purposes: as a medium of exchange; as a unit of account; and as a store of value. Both gold and bitcoin flunk the test for the first two purposes. Few transactions are conducted in either gold or bitcoin. It is even rarer for prices of goods and services to be set in ounces of gold or units of bitcoin. Gold arguably does better as a store of value. It has been around for a long time and if all else fails, it can always be melted down and turned into nice jewelry. Bitcoin’s Achilles Heel Bitcoin’s defenders argue that the cryptocurrency does serve as a store of value because one day, it will reach a critical mass that will make it a viable medium of exchange and a functional unit of account. Yet, this argument is politically naïve. Countries with fiat currencies derive significant benefits from their ability to create money out of thin air that can then be used to pay for goods and services. In the US, this “seigniorage revenue” amounts to over $100 billion per year. The existence of fiat currencies also gives central banks the power to set interest rates and provide liquidity backstops to the financial sector. Bitcoin’s ability to facilitate anonymous transactions is also its Achilles heel. The widespread use of bitcoin would make it more difficult for governments to tax their citizens. All this suggests that bitcoin will never reach a critical mass where it becomes a viable medium of exchange or functional unit of account. Governments will step in to ban or greatly curtail its usage before then. And without the ability to reach this critical mass, bitcoin’s utility as a store of value will disappear. Hence, investors looking for some inflation protection in their portfolios should stick with gold. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Heather Reese, A. Danielle Iuliano, Neha N. Patel, Shikha Garg, Lindsay Kim, Benjamin J. Silk, Aron J. Hall, Alicia Fry, and Carrie Reed, “Estimated incidence of COVID-19 illness and hospitalization — United States, February–September, 2020,” Clinical Infectious Diseases (Oxford Academic), November 25, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Don’t trust market inflation expectations or real interest rates. When inflation is near-zero, think in nominal terms not in real terms. New structural recommendation: Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but sell stocks if the 10-year T-bond yield rises by 0.3 percent. We address four concerns about inflation raised by clients. Fractal trade: short copper versus gold. Don’t Trust Market Inflation Expectations Or Real Interest Rates Are the markets any good at predicting inflation? No, they are not (Chart of the Week). Both the inflation forwards market and the breakeven inflation rate implied in inflation protected bonds have been lousy predictors of inflation.1 We can forgive that. What we cannot forgive is how these markets derive their inflation forecasts. Chart of the Week AThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Chart of the Week BThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Expected inflation in the UK just tracks the commodity price index (Chart I-2), and expected inflation in the US just tracks the oil price (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This link between expected inflation and the level of commodity prices is absurd, for three reasons: Chart I-2UK Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks Commodity Prices Chart I-3US Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Chart I-4US Inflation Swaps' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Inflation measures a change in a price. Therefore, inflation expectations should not track the price level of anything. Even if expected inflation is incorrectly tracking a price level, a lower price today will increase the scope for future inflation, and vice-versa. Hence, any relationship with the current price level should be an inverse relationship, not a positive relationship. Most absurd of all, how can the level of commodity prices today conceivably forecast the inflation rate five years ahead through 2026-31, as the inflation forwards seem to be suggesting? There are two important takeaways from the absurdity of inflation expectations. First, it follows that the market’s estimates of the real interest rate must also be lousy, and taken with a huge dose of salt. The market’s estimates of the real interest rate must be taken with a huge dose of salt. Second, as the market’s inflation expectations just track commodity prices, the relative performance of UK index-linked gilts versus conventional gilts just tracks commodity prices too (Chart I-5); and the performance of US TIPS versus T-bonds just tracks the oil price. Nothing more and nothing less (Chart I-6). As we expect the structural bear market in commodities has much further to run, the structural recommendation for bond investors is: Chart I-5UK Index-Linked Gilts Vs. Conventional Gilts = Commodity Prices Chart I-6US TIPS Vs. T-Bonds = The Oil Price Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. When Inflation Is Near-Zero, Think In Nominal Terms Not In Real Terms If the market is lousy at predicting long-term inflation, then it might also be lousy at predicting the long-term nominal return on equities. After all, shouldn’t prospective inflation impact the prospective 10-year nominal return on equities? The surprising answer is no. The prospective 10-year nominal return on the stock market depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The 10-year nominal return on the stock market does not depend on prospective inflation, it depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The same relationship between the stock market’s starting valuation and prospective nominal return applied in the high-inflation 1970s and 1980s as it did in the low-inflation 2000s (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Stock Market's Starting Valuation Establishes The Prospective Nominal Return, Irrespective Of The Inflation Backdrop The reason is that the stock market’s 10-year nominal return has two components: the income through the 10 years, and the terminal value at the end of the 10 years. When inflation is high, the income component is larger, but the terminal value component is smaller – because in an inflationary environment the market will demand a higher subsequent return, requiring a lower price. When inflation is low, the opposite is true: lower income, but higher terminal value. These effects cancel out, so the result is a prospective nominal return that is independent of prospective inflation. Crucially, the required prospective return on equities in excess of bonds is also established in nominal terms. This is because the bond yield’s lower limit is nominal, at say -1 percent. Proximity to this nominal yield limit makes bonds very risky because there is no longer any upside to price, only downside. Witness Swiss bonds this year. As the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, the required prospective nominal return on equities collapses towards the ultra-low bond yields. The upshot is that both the prospective return on equities and the required prospective return on equities should always be calculated in nominal terms, never in real terms. Right now, the high valuation of the aggregate stock market means a very low prospective nominal return, and this valuation is hypersensitive to ultra-low bond yields (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Stock Market Is Priced To Generate A Feeble Long-Term Return Chart I-9AUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Chart I-9BUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but as we warned two weeks ago, Sell Stocks If The Bond Yield Rises By 0.3 Percent. Four Concerns About Inflation Raised By Clients In this section, which is in question and answer format, we will address four concerns about long-term inflation that our clients have raised. 1, Isn’t the unprecedent fiscal stimulus in 2020 setting us up for inflation down the road? No, not in itself. Understand that the unprecedented stimulus is in response to unprecedented shocks to incomes that have come from the rolling waves of the pandemic. As incomes disappeared, governments provided income-substitution. As and when incomes reappear, governments will withdraw the income-substitution. Indeed, the UK government tried to withdraw its income-substitution (furlough) scheme prematurely and had to backtrack when the virus resurged. This illustrates that the unprecedented fiscal stimulus is a much-needed stabiliser of the economy, rather than a source of inflation. 2. But if governments want a bit of inflation, they can get it, can’t they?  No. Understand that inflation is a non-linear system with two states, price stability and price instability. You can shift between these two states, but you cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion, or hit an arbitrary inflation target like 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. This is something that we have been arguing for years, and it is comforting that some great thinkers – like (the late) Paul Volker and William White – fully support our non-linear system thesis. You cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion. Any government can take its economy into the state of price instability if it so chooses. Witness Turkey and Argentina. But price stability is the much better state to be in. Given that developed economies have expended decades of blood, sweat, and tears to reach the state of price stability, we think that it would be a monumental policy error to embark on the road to price instability (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Inflation Is A Non-Linear System With Two States, Price Stability And Price Instability 3. But doesn’t rampant Argentina-type inflation bail out the heavily indebted? No, not necessarily. It will only bail you out if your debt is a one-off lump sum payment in the distant future. If your debt requires ongoing refinancing, then inflation will not bail you out, because the refinancing interest rate could rise in line with, or even faster than, the inflation rate. Therefore, those highly indebted governments, firms, and households that need to refinance their debts would not benefit from rampant inflation. 4. In which case, isn’t the solution to let inflation rip while keeping interest rates depressed – so-called ‘financial repression?’ No. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of equities and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the required prospective nominal return would surge as a compensation for the higher inflation. The result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate markets. Given that the near $500 trillion combined worth of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the impact of such a crash would make this year’s pandemic feel like a waltz in the park. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is short copper versus gold, given that the spectacular relative outperformance is showing fragility in both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 10 percent. Chart I-11Copper Vs. Gold In other trades, long RUB/CZK reached the end of its holding period with a marginal partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Europe and the US have deep and liquid markets in 5-year 5-year inflation swaps (or forwards), which price the expected 5-year inflation rate 5 years ahead. The current swap measures the annual inflation rate expected through 2026-31. The UK and the US also have deep and liquid markets in inflation-protected government bonds: UK index-linked gilts, and US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The yield offered on such a security is real, which means in excess of inflation. The yield offered on a similar-maturity conventional bond is nominal. This means that the difference between the two yields equates to the market’s expectation for inflation over the maturity, known as the ‘breakeven inflation rate.’ Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Inflation Breakeven Trades: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, as breakevens in both countries are no longer below the fair values implied by our models. We are initiating a new trade this week, going long French 10-year inflation-linked bonds versus French nominal OATs, as French breakevens remain below fair value. Yield Curve Butterfly Trades: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Cross-Country Spread Trades: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing our semi-annual Central Bank Monitor Chartbook along with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy. You will receive that report a few days later than usual on Friday, December 11. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, December 15 with our 2021 Key Views report outlining our main investment themes and ideas for the upcoming year. Best Regards, Rob Robis As we enter the final weeks of an incredibly eventful and (unfortunately) all too memorable 2020, our attention now turns to investment ideas for the coming New Year. This week, all BCA Research clients will receive the 2021 Outlook report, detailing the key themes and recommendations from all our strategists. We will follow that up with our own 2021 Global Fixed Income Strategy outlook report later this month. The waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. In addition, the waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (Table 1). Several of our suggested trades have generated a solid profit (like inflation breakeven wideners) but have now outlived their original rationale. Others, like some of our yield curve trades in Europe, have not gone as we expected and should therefore be closed out. Table 1Changes To Our Tactical Overlay Portfolio As a reminder to our regular readers, our Tactical Overlay is a portfolio of individual trade ideas within the global fixed income space with an investment horizon of six months or less. These differ from our more typical strategic (6-12 month) recommendations that also populate our model bond portfolio. Ideas for our Tactical Overlay trades often stem from our fair value models, but can also be plays on events that we expect will be market relevant on a near-term basis, like central bank meetings. All recommended trades are implemented using specific securities, rather than generic Bloomberg tickers or bond indices. This allows for a more transparent process where clients can follow along with the performance of our trades. Evaluating Our Tactical Inflation-Linked Breakeven Trades We currently have two open tactical trade recommendations involving inflation-linked bonds: Long 10-year Italian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Italian bond futures Long 10-year Canadian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Canadian bond futures We initiated both of these trades back in June of this year, as well as an additional trade involving US TIPS, based on the output of our inflation breakeven fair value framework. In our models, we regress 10-year inflation breakevens on the annual rate of change of oil prices in local currency terms and a multi-year moving average of realized headline inflation.1 At the time of our mid-year report, inflation breakevens were too low on our models in the majority of developed market countries with inflation-linked bonds – a lingering after-effect of the COVID-19 shock to global growth in the second quarter of 2020 (Chart 1). Since then, 10-year inflation breakevens have caught up to fair value in the US, Germany, Italy and Canada, and have even moved above fair value in the UK and Australia. Chart 1A Big Shift In Inflation Breakeven Valuations In June, we also entered into a US 10-year TIPS breakeven widening trade, but we took profits on the trade once US breakevens returned back to our model fair value estimate in September. We now see a similar situation in Canada (Chart 2) and Italy (Chart 3) where breakevens have converged to our model-implied fair value. Chart 2Canadian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model A move above fair value is possible, but could be harder to achieve with the Canadian dollar and euro steadily trending higher which could weigh on the market’s view on future inflation in Canada and Italy. We are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively.  Thus, we are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively. The Italian returns were boosted considerably by the long side of this trade, as we entered the position when the 10-year real yield was +1.05% and which has since collapsed to -0.05% on the back of the massive rally in Italian bonds. One place where breakevens still look attractively cheap, trading close to one standard deviation below our model fair value, is in France (Chart 4). This contrasts with the breakevens in Italy and Germany that have fully converged to fair value. Thus, we are entering a new trade this week, going long the on-the-run 10yr French inflation-linked bond (OATi) and shorting French bond futures (Euro-OATs). The hedge ratio used for this trade to keep both legs duration matched, given the much shorter duration of the OATi relative to nominal French bonds, is 0.49 (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 17 for specific details on the securities used in the trade). Chart 3Italian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart 4French 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, while initiating a new breakeven widening position in France, based on the output of our breakeven fair value models. Evaluating Our Yield Curve/Butterfly Spread Trades Back in July, we initiated a series of yield curve butterfly spread trades in the US, UK, Italy and France.2 Butterfly spreads compare the yield of a single bond (bullets) to that of a duration-neutral combination of bonds with shorter and longer maturities relative to the bullet (barbells). Our valuation models produce fair value estimates of various butterfly combinations based on the relation of the butterfly spreads to the slope of the yield curve. We then combine those valuations with our own macro views on the future slope of yield curves to come up with potential value-based curve trades.3 We now evaluate our four existing curve trades in turn. Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet Our original rationale for entering this trade was two-fold. Firstly, this position was the most attractive butterfly combination in terms of the standardized deviation of the spread from its model-implied fair value. Secondly, there was a relatively low correlation between nominal UK bond yields and inflation breakevens--meaning that we could see a rise in long-dated inflation expectations that did not also push up nominal bond yields by a proportional amount. This made the trade consistent with our overall macro view back in July that the Gilt curve would flatten (the same rationale applies to the other two long barbell versus short bullet trades, or “flatteners”, in France and Italy that we discuss below). Unfortunately, our rationale did not play out as expected (Chart 5). Instead of reverting to fair value, the butterfly spread was mostly flat while the bullet grew more expensive relative to the barbell, driven by a rise in the model fair value. This in turn was due to significant steepening in the underlying 3/20 curve, contrary to our expectations. We also saw a significant overall upward shift in the overall UK Gilt curve, which generated losses on our long barbell position (which has a higher interest rate convexity) that overwhelmed the profits on our short bullet position. Going forward, there are good technical and strategic reasons to exit this trade. The butterfly spread is not yet at levels where it tends to mean-revert (second panel). In addition, Joe Biden’s US election victory has also increased the odds of a Brexit deal, which would put bear-steepening pressure on the UK Gilt curve. With that in mind, we are closing our Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a loss of -0.17%. Long France 2/30 Barbell vs. 5-Year Bullet Our rationale for entering this flattener was the same as in the UK. However, we fared quite a bit better here. The underlying 2/30 curve did flatten, as we expected, however, the butterfly spread itself moved further away from fair value, with the bullet component becoming relatively more expensive (Chart 6). So, as with the UK, the returns on this trade can be largely explained by the relative outperformance of the barbell component due to its higher convexity. In France, however, the effect worked to our favor as the yield curve shifted downwards significantly. The positive returns on the long French 30-year OAT component, where yields have been nearly slashed in half since July, dominated the other parts of the trade - even with the 30-year bond only being a small piece (11%) of the duration-weighted barbell Chart 5UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Although we did make profits on the flattener, it turned into a convexity bet that was not our original intention. Seeing as our underlying logic did not work out as expected, we are not comfortable remaining in this position. Thus, we are closing our France butterfly trade for a profit of 0.56%. Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet As with the UK and France, we entered this trade based on its attractive model-based valuation and the relatively low correlation between inflation breakevens and nominal yields in France. Our expectation of flattening in the underlying 5/30 curve did not bear out as it remained mostly flat (Chart 7). We did see some reversion in the butterfly spread towards our model-implied fair value, which helped us make profits on our trade. Again, we cannot ignore the effect of convexity when looking at the outperformance of the barbell component. Yields fell dramatically across the Italian curve in one of the clearest examples of the yield-chasing behavior we have been describing this year.4 As Italian yields continue their race to the bottom, supported by ECB asset purchases and perceptions of more fiscal co-operation between the countries of Europe, there is a chance that this trade will continue to perform by virtue of its exposure to the long end of the Italian curve. However, as our original bias towards curve flattening did not play out, we prefer to maintain our exposure to Italian government debt via an overweight allocation in our model bond portfolio instead. We therefore close our Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a profit of 0.83% Long US 7-Year Bullet vs. 5/10 Barbell The US was the only region where we initiated a “steepener” trade, with a long bullet versus short barbell combination that does well when the yield curve steepens. We chose this particular 5/7/10 butterfly as it was the most attractive steepener available based on our model-implied valuation that also fit our fundamental macro bias back in July towards US Treasury curve steepening – a view that we still hold today. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Our rationale for initiating the trade was borne out, with the underlying 5/10 Treasury curve steepening and the butterfly spread tightening towards fair value (Chart 8). Our trade was supported by a continued rebound in long-dated US inflation expectations as well as the US election result, the most bond-bearish event of the year. Chart 7Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Going forward, we see good reasons to maintain this trade. The butterfly spread, after briefly reaching expensive levels, is back to being attractively valued. Even if the residual were to dip back below zero, it would still have room to become more expensive, shoring up our trade. This trade also remains the most attractive of all the steepener trades on a model-implied valuation basis, removing any incentive to rotate towards another part of the curve. The odds favor more reflationary Treasury curve steepening after the US election. President-elect Biden has a stated goal of more fiscal stimulus, while his selection of Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary signaling increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal authorities. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Bottom Line: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Evaluating Our Cross-Country Yield Spread Trades We currently have two recommended trades involving plays on the spread between government bonds: Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus short 5-year UK Gilts, currency-hedged into GBP We initiated this trade on August 25, and to date the trade is severely underwater with a total return of -1.8%.5 That loss comes from the long New Zealand leg of the trade, as the 5-year NZ bond yield has increased by 34bps from our entry level. Chart 9A Rapid Shift Upward In NZ Rate Expectations The rationale for this trade was based on our assessment of the relative probability of the Bank of England (BoE) and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) moving to a negative interest rate policy. Both central banks hinted strongly at such a move throughout the summer months as part of their efforts to support pandemic-stricken economies. Our view back in late August was that it was more likely that the RBNZ would choose negative rates, as New Zealand had far lower inflation expectations than the UK and, unlike the British pound, the New Zealand dollar was not undervalued. This trade was initially profitable, but all that changed rapidly during the month of November. The RBNZ disappointed investor expectations on a move to negative rates at the November 11 monetary policy meeting. The central bank elected instead to increase the size of its existing quantitative easing program, while giving no hint that negative rates were coming soon. The response was a sharp move higher in both New Zealand bond yields and the New Zealand dollar (Chart 9). There was an even more violent adjustment in yields and the currency last week, after New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson wrote a letter to RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr asking the central bank to change its policy remit to include controlling New Zealand house price inflation. Markets interpreted this blatant political pressure on the central bank as the end of any hopes of negative rates in New Zealand, with bond yields and the currency spiking higher once again. House prices have surged after the RBNZ aggressively cut interest rates earlier this year, with a rapidly rising share of new mortgages having higher loan-to-value ratios (Chart 10). House price inflation is now running at 19.8%, and Finance Minister Robertson did cite deteriorating housing affordability and inequality as the basis for his letter to the RBNZ. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. This shatters the underlying rationale for our long New Zealand/short UK yield spread trade (Chart 11). Chart 10RBNZ-Fueled Boom In House Prices Thus, we are choosing to cut our losses and close out our recommended trade. Long 10-year German Bunds versus short 10-year US Treasuries Chart 11Time To Cut Our Losses On The NZ-UK Trade We initiated this recommendation on October 27, and to date the trade is running a small loss of -0.17%.6 The rationale behind the trade was two-fold: Our valuation model for the 10-year UST-Bund yield spread showed that the spread was far below fair value; We turned more bearish on US Treasuries just before the US presidential election, downgrading our recommended allocation to underweight while also upgrading more defensive Germany – with its low yield-beta to US Treasuries - to overweight. The trade initially performed well, driven by faster growth and inflation in the US versus the euro area (Chart 12). The Treasury selloff has stalled of late, but we view this as more a consolidative pause than a near-term peak in yields. Chart 12Fundamentals Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread With our Treasury-Bund valuation model still showing that the spread is too tight, and with the spread not looking overly stretched versus its 200-day moving average (Chart 13), we are keeping our US versus Germany trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Chart 13Valuation & Momentum Point To A Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, " How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies", dated July 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Readers looking for more detailed background on butterfly trades and our yield curve modelling framework should refer to the July 7, 2020 Strategy Report where we initiated these trades. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rates Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields", dated October 27, 2020 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation, which we held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. X: As always, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the economic and financial outlook with you. The past year has been truly ghastly with the wretched COVID-19 disease wreaking extraordinary economic and social havoc. I take comfort from the hope that a vaccine will allow a gradual return to more normal conditions in 2021, but my concerns about the longer-run outlook have increased. The extreme monetary and fiscal responses to the virus-related economic collapse may have been necessary but will leave most developed economies much more vulnerable down the road. Risk assets have been propped up by easy money, but I fear that simply means lower returns in the future. Ms. X: The social impact of the virus has weighed heavily on me, making me quite depressed about the outlook. I can only hope that my normal optimism will return when a vaccine ends the pandemic. Of course, I am happy that equities have done much better than might have been expected in the past year, but I share my father’s concerns about long-term returns. I look forward to discussing ideas about how to position our portfolio. BCA: The past year has indeed been grim on many levels. The economic disruption has been severe, but the social toll of the virus has been even more damaging for many people in terms of being forcibly isolated from family and friends. It is very encouraging that vaccines should start to become widely available early in the year, but the return to normality likely will take time. During the northern hemisphere winter months, the pandemic may even get worse before it gets better. As far as the longer run outlook is concerned, the policy response to the crisis will indeed have consequences. Government debt has soared in most countries and this raises the issue of how this will be dealt with in the years ahead. Meanwhile, central bank support to the markets cannot continue indefinitely, which raises the prospect of severe withdrawal pains at some point. Furthermore, both fiscal and monetary trends pose the question of whether higher inflation is inevitable. It is therefore unlikely that voters will reward politicians who impose upon them the painful deflationary pressures. Markets are forward looking and one could take the view that the strength of equity markets in the past eight months has reflected optimism about the economic outlook. However, a more plausible explanation is that hyper-stimulative monetary policies have been the main driving force behind asset prices. If that is the case, then there is some cause for optimism because central banks have made it clear that they will not be tightening policy for quite some time. While you are both right to be concerned about low returns over the long run, risk asset prices seem likely to rise further in the coming year with equities continuing to outperform bonds. We can get into that in more details later.  Ms. X: Before we get into our discussion of the outlook, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: That will be a humbling experience given that we never built a global pandemic into our forecasts! A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Global equities would enter the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks were expensive, but bonds were even more so. As a result, if global growth could recover and the US could avoid a recession in 2020, earnings would not weaken significantly and stocks would again outperform bonds. Low rates reflected the end of the debt super cycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt super cycle was still alive in EM, particularly in China. The global economic slowdown that began more than 18 months prior to our meeting started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continued to push for more deleveraging, global growth would continue to suffer as the EM debt super cycle would end. Nonetheless, we expected China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should have promoted a worldwide reacceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty would recede in 2020. Domestic constraints would force China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit was seen as marginal, and President Trump was still the favorite in the election. A decline in policy risk would foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of geopolitical risk remained, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks were highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl. Not only would it take some time before global deflationary forces receded, monetary authorities in the G-10 would want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they were already announcing that they would allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This would ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which would push the global economy into recession in late 2021 or early 2022. These dynamics were key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth would reaccelerate. The US consumer was in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets as well as robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should have benefited from a decline in global uncertainty and a pickup in global economic activity. China would continue to stimulate its economy but would not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth would also bottom but was unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan would reaccelerate in 2020. Bond yields would continue to grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields were unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures would not resurface quickly, so the Fed was unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds were particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds were a mixed offering. Investment grade credit was unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially as corporate health was deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offered better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks would enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth would recover, we favored the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happened to offer the best value. US stocks were the least attractive bourse; they were very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that would suffer from higher bond yields. We were neutral on EM equities. We recommended that investors pare exposure to equities only after inflation breakevens had moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed fund rates had moved closer to neutral. We anticipated this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar was likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations were also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro were expected to be the main beneficiaries of any dollar depreciation. We anticipated oil and gold to have upside. Crude would benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold would strengthen as global central banks would limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar would boost both commodities. We expected a balanced portfolio to generate an average return of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2018. Obviously, our forecasts were undone by the defining event of the year: the pandemic. Nonetheless, in February we warned that asset prices did not embed enough of a risk premium to protect investors against the threat that the pandemic could terminate the global business cycle. The more deflationary risk we confront today, the more inflation we will face in the future. At the beginning of the second quarter, we were quick to recommend buying stocks back, so we participated in the rally that followed. We erred in preferring foreign to US equities, which turned out to be key winners of the pandemic thanks to their heavy exposure to growth stocks (Table 1). The economic downturn meant that bond yields fell rather than rose. They have remained exceedingly low in response to exceptionally accommodative monetary conditions, a surge in savings and deeply negative output gaps. We were right to favor peripheral bonds, which benefited from the ECB’s purchases and the European Commission’s Recovery Fund (Table 1). Finally, the market rewarded our negative stance on the dollar and our bullish view on gold. However, we were offside on oil, where the continued impact of the pandemic on global transport has left crude prices at very depressed levels. Table 12020 Asset Market Returns A Brave New World Mr. X: You mentioned that you prefer stocks over bonds for 2021. I can accept this view; while stocks are expensive, their valuations are less demanding than that of bonds. Moreover, I agree that policymakers around the world are very afraid of the deflationary consequences of removing accommodation too early but they cannot ease monetary policy much from here. This creates an asymmetric payoff in favor of stocks versus safe-haven securities. However, my favorite asset class for the near future is cash. Granted, I enjoy the luxury of not having to track a benchmark and my core focus is capital preservation. With both stocks and bonds richly valued, I see no margin of safety and I would rather stand on the sidelines. The longer-term outlook is particularly concerning. The extraordinary accommodation implemented this year was unavoidable, but its future consequences worry me greatly. Real rates have never been so low and we are leaving unprecedented public debt loads to our children and grandchildren. Moreover, I fear further adoption of populist policies because inequalities have risen in the wake of the crisis. The worst affected families stand at the bottom of the income distribution while people like me have benefited from inflated asset prices. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that we will suffer a large inflation shock in the coming decade. The global broad money supply has exploded and it is very unlikely that central banks will normalize interest rates in due time because of the burden created by gigantic public debt loads and the spectrum of further populism. My worries extend beyond these obvious concerns. Last year I was already anxious about the incredibly large stock of global debt with negative yields. This situation has only worsened since. Moreover, the various programs implemented by the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and other major monetary authorities to provide liquidity directly to the private sector at the apex of the crisis have prevented the purge of unhealthy firms necessary under a capitalist system. Instead of creative destruction, zombification has become the norm. Thus, I fear that more capital is misallocated than at any point in the past 10 years. Putting it all together, my expectations are that real returns will be poor for years to come, if not outright negative. I therefore believe that gold should stand at the core of my family’s portfolio. Ms. X: I share many of my father’s concerns. It is difficult to see how monetary and fiscal authorities will normalize policy. Hence, I agree that we will face the painful legacy of a large debt overhang and poor long-term returns. Moreover, the poor demographic profile in most advanced economies as well as China bodes ill for trend growth. I do see opportunities within this bleak picture. Healthcare stocks should benefit from an aging of the world’s population and tech equities will remain a source of disruption, innovation and profit growth in the coming decades. Thus, an equity portfolio built around these themes should generate positive real returns. In light of the positive vaccine news, next year will offer investors with both rapidly expanding profits and low discount rates and it is hard to imagine equities performing poorly. BCA: Clearly, we have many things to discuss. We should start with the COVID-19 pandemic. The news that vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are around 95% effective is very encouraging. The Oxford/AstraZeneca announcement also is a source of optimism, even if the trial results have been less clear-cut. Moreover, other vaccines are currently in the mass-testing stage. By next winter, approximately 1.5 billion people globally should have been vaccinated. These positives hide many issues. First, transporting the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (particularly the one produced by Pfizer, which needs to be kept at -70°C) will be challenging, especially for poorer countries. Second, the mRNA technology used in these vaccines is new and its long-term impact is unknown. Hence, many people will be reluctant to take this shot, especially as the confidence in the safety of vaccines has declined among the general public. Only 58% of Americans said they would probably take a COVID-19 vaccine, a number that will rise once the vaccine is demonstrated but which still highlights the challenge (Chart 1). Third, the virus could mutate and render the current generation of vaccines ineffective. The recent news of such mutations in mink farms in Denmark is worrisome, especially as the new strain of the virus has already jumped back into the human population. Chart 1The Vaccine Blues Our base case is that the vaccines will allow a progressive reopening of the economic sectors currently still under lockdown. They will lead to a further improvement in employment, consumer and business sentiment, and aggregate demand. With less fear of getting infected, consumers will return to shops, restaurants, hotels, etc. This will have a very beneficial impact on capex and profit growth. It will result in higher stock prices, especially for value stocks, cyclical stocks, as well as higher yields and commodity prices. Despite this optimistic base case, investors must have contingencies ready. The three aforementioned risks around the vaccines suggest that additional waves of infections cannot be entirely ruled out and that lockdowns may continue in 2021. Thus, we could still face periods of downward pressure on activity, yields, and value stocks. For now it remains prudent not to tilt portfolios fully toward a post-COVID bias. In contrast to the past 40 years, a 60/40 portfolio will fare poorly once we account for higher inflation. Even if the vaccines enjoy widespread adoption, near-term threats to economic activity remain. The realization that the end of the pandemic is close may prompt a temporary period where households hunker down and behave in a very conservative fashion. After all, few consumers will want to contract the virus just before a vaccine becomes available. Moreover, the sight of the end of the lockdowns reduces the fiscal authorities’ urgency to provide additional support to the population and small businesses. These two dynamics could prompt a deep contraction in spending in the first quarter of 2021, which would hurt stock prices. Mr. X: Thank you. While these near-term dynamics are crucial, the emergence of the vaccine increases the importance of discussing the long-term implications of the extreme policy conducted in recent months. BCA: The long-term implications of aggressive policy stimulus tie into the evolution of the debt super cycle. As a share of US GDP, total private debt has spiked near a record high and total nonfinancial debt has surged to new all-time highs (Chart 2). This reflects two phenomena. First, the denominator of the ratio – GDP – has collapsed. Second, total nonfinancial debt also highlights the rapid increase in government deficits. Hence, climbing leverage was a consequence of the necessary dissaving by the public sector to alleviate the deflationary forces created by the crisis. This problem is repeated around the world. As Chart 3 demonstrates, nonfinancial debt levels across the G10 are rapidly rising. Moreover, debt loads in emerging markets are also extremely elevated. Chart 2COVID-19 Boosted Debt Ratios Chart 3Elevated Debt Everywhere   Going forward, either rising savings or faster nominal GDP growth will cause the debt ratios to decline. The first option is difficult; increasing savings is deflationary and it could worsen the debt arithmetic by keeping real interest rates stubbornly high. Moreover, it is politically unpopular, especially when the public sector has been the borrower. Here, we echo the words of Keynes from his 1923 Tract On Monetary Reform: "The progressive deterioration in the value of money through history is not an accident, and has had behind it two great driving forces – the impecuniosity of governments and the superior political influence of the debtor class (…). No state or government is likely to decree its own bankruptcy or its own downfall so long as the instrument of taxation by currency depreciation through the creation of legal tender (money) still lies at hand… The active and working elements (i.e., debtors) in no community, ancient or modern will consent to hand over to the rentier or bond holding class more than a certain proportion of the fruits of their work. When the piled up debt demands more than a tolerable proportion, relief has usually been sought in (…) repudiation (…) and currency depreciation." Nominal rates cannot fall further, while large inequalities and social immobility are fomenting populism (Chart 4). Moreover, the recent COVID-19 crisis has deepened the angst of the general population and its dissatisfaction with policymakers. It is therefore unlikely that voters will reward politicians who impose upon them the painful deflationary pressures that result from the high savings necessary to reduce public sector debt loads. Even a Republican-controlled US Senate will have to allow larger deficits than usual in today’s climate. Chart 4Inequalities And Immobility Are The Roots Of Populism Instead, we expect fiscal and monetary policy to work in tandem to lift inflation and deflate the global debt load. The rising popularity of Modern Monetary Theory fits within this paradigm shift. MMT posits that as long as governments issue debt in their own currency, central bank money printing can finance the deficit. The only constraint on policymakers becomes the level of inflation that society tolerates. Society is likely to tolerate a rise in inflation. MMT is unpalatable to savers, but the majority of citizens are debtors, not lenders. In an MMT framework where the median voter is a borrower, the tolerance for inflation will likely be high, which will hurt the value of financial assets. Moreover, the corporate sector is unlikely to fight strongly against large deficits funded by central banks. If we accept the Kalecki Equation of Profits, which can be simplified as: Profits = Investment – Household Savings – Government Savings – Foreign Savings + Dividends then business profits will suffer if deleveraging takes hold, whether in the public or private sector. Instead, MMT-like policies, which will keep savings at low levels and prevent deleveraging, offers a way to keep nominal profits afloat. For businesses too, the path of least resistance steers toward higher inflation. Different countries will vary in their ability to pass MMT-like policies, but the policy shift toward inflationary policies is clear. The specter of rising populism should result in heavier regulation, at least in the EU and the US under the incoming Biden administration. Regulation further hurts the growth rate of the supply-side of the economy. It limits competition, it protects workers and it increases the cost of doing business. We expect additional fiscal stimulus will come through in the coming months. Beyond political forces, the demographic deterioration highlighted by Ms. X points in the same direction. An aging population means that the dependency ratio (the number of dependents per worker) is increasing. Moreover, analysis by the UN underscores that in old age, consumption increases due to rising spending on healthcare (Chart 5). We are therefore likely to witness a slowing expansion of the supply side relative to the demand side of the economy. By definition, this process is inflationary. In the second half of the decade, inflation could average as high as between 3% and 5%. Keep in mind that inflation is not a linear process. Once it starts to rise, it becomes very hard to control. In this regard, the experience of the late 1960s is extremely instructive. Through the 1960s boom, inflation was well behaved, contained between 0.7% and 1.2%. Then it started to rise in 1966, and quickly hit 6.1% by 1970 (Chart 6). While the average-inflation target the Fed recently adopted is well intentioned, in an environment where governments are unlikely to curtail deficits as fast as the private sector cuts its savings, it could easily unleash a long-term inflationary trend. Chart 5Aging Doesn't Spell Less Spending Chart 6Inflation Is Stable Until It Is Not   Ms. X: Why won’t technological advancements such as AI and automation cause low inflation to prevail for the rest of the decade? Chart 7Low Productivity BCA: The great paradox of this crisis is that the more deflationary risk we confront today, the more inflation we will face in the future. This relationship is the consequence of financial repression. Debt arithmetic will only stay manageable as long as real interest rates remain low; consequently, central banks will only be able to increase interest rates if nominal growth rises significantly from its low average of the past decade. Both workforce and productivity growth are low, thus quicker inflation is the only solution. As you hinted, technology is a risk to our long-term inflation view. However, technology has most often been a deflationary force. The key question is whether we are experiencing a greater impact than normal on productivity from current technological developments. So far, the answer seems to be no. Even if the statistical estimation methods for GDP overestimate inflation and thus underestimate productivity, we are still nowhere near the kind of productivity gains registered in the post-WWII period or at the turn of the millennium. We remain much closer to the productivity recorded in the 1970s or early 1980s (Chart 7).  As a result, we expect technology not to be enough of a game changer to undo the inflationary effect of the shift away from the pro-capital, deregulatory, pro-global-trade consensus that prevailed for the past forty years. Ms. X: Your view rests on an assessment that political forces are structurally moving toward populism. Doesn’t the most recent US election counter this argument? Was it not a victory of centrism over populism? Chart 8AValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8BValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8CValuations Point To Poor Long-Term ReturnsChart 8DValuations Point To Poor Long-Term Returns BCA: It was a victory of moderation over populism, but it was a narrow victory that reveals powerful populist undercurrents, particularly the strong demand for economic reflation. Despite a pandemic and recession in the election year, President Trump narrowly lost in the key swing states, and managed to garner roughly 74 million votes, the second highest tally in history. Moreover he led the Republican Party to gain seats in the House of Representatives and (likely) to retain control of the Senate. Exit polls reveal that the economy was still the number one issue on voters’ minds – they rejected Donald Trump’s personality but embraced his “growth at any cost” approach. By the same token, the Democratic Party lost elections down the ballot because they became associated with lockdowns and revolutionary social causes. President-Elect Joe Biden won the election, first, by not being Donald Trump, and second, by campaigning on a larger government spending program, a moderately liberal social stance, and a less belligerent protectionism on trade and China. The fact that both candidates wanted large stimulus packages and infrastructure programs tells us something about the median voter’s stance on economic policy: it is reflationary. Going forward, if Republicans control the Senate then the Biden administration will have to appeal to moderate Republican senators to get enough votes for COVID relief and economic recovery. If Democrats gain control of the Senate on January 5, they will have a one-vote majority and their legislative agenda will depend on winning over moderate Democratic senators. The Republican scenario is less reflationary but more likely, while the Democratic scenario is more reflationary but less likely. What investors can count on in 2021 is that the US government will not enact the mammoth splurge of government spending but that Republican senators will also be cognizant of the need for some fiscal support. Mr. X: If you expect inflation to rise structurally, how should we position our portfolio on a long-term basis? Bonds will obviously suffer, but so will an extremely expensive equity market that requires low bond yields to justify current prices. It seems like there is nowhere to hide but gold. BCA: The next one to two decades will not look like the past four, which were extraordinarily rewarding for investors. The taming of inflation, the broadening of globalization and far-reaching deregulation both cut interest rates and boosted profit margins. These trends stimulated demand and lifted asset valuations. These dynamics fed exceptional returns for all financial assets. However, these tailwinds have dissipated. The Fed will look through next year’s temporary inflation rebound. This change has many important implications for portfolio construction. You are correct that it will be hard for equities to generate decent real returns in the coming decade. Valuations may be a poor gauge of immediate stock returns, but they are clearly correlated with long-term returns (Chart 8). The odds of higher inflation in the second half of the decade will eventually cause policymakers to raise interest rates and force a normalization of equities multiples. Moreover, greater regulation and rising populism will raise the share of GDP absorbed by wages. Profit margins are likely to decline from here (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Margins Under Threat? Despite the poor long-term outlook for real stock returns, equities should still outperform bonds. Over the past 150 years, shares beat bonds in each episode of cyclically rising inflation, even if stocks generate paltry inflation-adjusted returns (Table 2). This time will not be different. Equities are significantly cheaper than bonds. Based on the current level of bond and dividend yields, US, Eurozone, UK and Japan bourses need to fall in real terms 23%, 32% 50% and 20%, respectively, over the next 10-year to underperform local government bonds (Chart 10). Additionally, the duration of bonds is very high due to their extremely low yields, which means that bond prices are exceptionally sensitive to rising rates. Table 2Stocks Beat Bonds, Part I In contrast to the past 40 years, a 60/40 portfolio will fare poorly once we account for higher inflation. During the period from 1965 to 1982, when US core CPI inflation rose from 1.2% to 13.6%, the 60/40 portfolio lost 30% of its value in real terms (Chart 11). Moreover, the portfolio started to suffer poor inflation-adjusted returns well before inflation moved into double digits. As soon as CPI accelerated in 1966, the standard portfolio began to lose value. This time, inflation will not reach the dizzying height of the late 70s, but equities are trading at price-to-sales, price-to-book or Shiller P/E 33% above that of 1965 and Treasury yields stand at 0.88%, not 4.65%. Chart 10Stocks Beat Bonds, Part II Chart 11The 60/40 Portfolio Doesn't Like Inflation   The problematic long-term outlook for the 60/40 portfolio will demand greater creativity from investors than over the past 40 years. We like assets such as farmland, timberland, and natural resources as inflation hedges. We also like precious metals. Silver is particularly attractive; like gold it thrives from rising inflation, but unlike its yellow counterpart, silver trades at a discount to its fair value implied by the long-term trend in consumer prices (Chart 12). Industrial metals are also interesting; the effort to reduce carbon emissions will hurt fossil fuel prices but will require greater reliance on electricity. Hence, the demand for copper will stay robust while investments in extraction capacity have been poor for the last decade. Silver, a great electricity and heat conductor, will also benefit from this trend. Chart 12Silver Is Cheaper Than Gold Within equity portfolios, winners and losers will also change. Empirically, technology, utilities and telecom services underperform when inflation rises durably. On the other hand, healthcare, materials and real estate outperform. The first group does not possess much pricing power in an accelerating CPI environment while the second does, justifying the bifurcated relative performances. We recommend tilting long-term equity exposure this way. Finally, this sectoral view implies a structural overweight in Europe and Japan at the expense of the US and emerging markets. Mr X: Thank you. This discussion about long-term risks and portfolio construction was very useful. That being said, the thought of MMT becoming more mainstream leaves me extremely uncomfortable. The Economic Outlook Ms. X: From your observations on the vaccine rollout, I presume you expect the recovery to remain robust next year. Aren’t you concerned that a big part of the G-10 could experience a double dip recession in the first half of the year? BCA: Near-term risks are very elevated and it is likely that Europe is experiencing a renewed slump in activity as we speak. In response to the recent violent second wave of infections, consumers have avoided public spaces and governments across the continent and in the UK have implemented increasingly stringent lockdowns. Various high-frequency indicators and live trackers for the regions already indicate that another contraction in activity is taking place (Chart 13). The US is not immune to a slowdown. The country is in the thrall of its third wave of infections and local governments are increasingly imposing lockdowns. Just look at New York City, which is somewhat of a canary in the coalmine for the nation, where schools have closed. This development is happening as the economy was already slowing down after a blistering recovery in the third quarter. Naturally, the US economic surprise index is quickly declining, which indicates that economic data is falling short of expectations (Chart 14). Chart 13The European Economy Is Slowing Right Now Chart 14The US Economy Is Decelerating   Growth is slowing but the level of US GDP is not doomed to contract. First, inventory restocking could add as much as 3.5% to current quarter GDP. Second, consumer spending is still robust. This summer, household savings jumped massively in response to both the large transfers created by the CARES act as well as the low marginal propensity to spend caused by depressed consumer confidence. Now, consumers are deploying this large pool of funds, which is buttressing expenditures. Despite these short-term headwinds, growth in 2021 should be well above trend in the US and in Europe. The ECB Target II balance permanently attaches Germany to its weaker neighbors. Mr. X: What about the risk that a lack of fiscal stimulus could scuttle the recovery? BCA: We are not overly concerned about that as we expect additional fiscal stimulus will come through in the coming months. Chart 15Borrowing Costs Are Not A Constraint To Spending In Europe, the case for additional fiscal support is clear. All the major euro area countries, including Greece, can borrow at negative interest rates, depending on the maturity (Chart 15). This too is true for Sweden, Switzerland and even the UK. Within the Eurozone, the issuance linked to the European Commission’s Recovery Fund represents the first wave of common-debt issuance. It is an embryonic tool for fiscal risk sharing, one that goes further than the European Stability Mechanism, and it is an important driver of the spread compression in the European bond market. European governments are under little pressure to apply any fiscal brake because of these low borrowing costs. Moreover, the various European central banks are buttressing government bond markets. Thus, fiscal authorities have a free hand to provide additional support if they choose to do so while lockdowns remain in place. The loose fiscal setting will allow activity to recover quickly. In the US, the situation is more complex, but we expect at least a minimal level of support. The gridlock in Washington prevents the large stimulus that would have passed under a unified Democratic control of Congress. However, a Biden administration faced with a Senate controlled by the GOP also cannot increase taxes significantly. Meanwhile the Republicans are willing to provide additional help as long as it targets households and small businesses. Netting these forces out, we expect a stimulus package of $500 billion to $1 trillion. This is smaller than the various offers on the table prior to the election, but the more concrete eventuality of a vaccine deployment in the first half of 2021 also means that the economy needs help for a shorter period. While the risk to the forecast is that the Democrats and the Republican reach a larger compromise, investors may have to wait months for a deal. This delay could magnify the underlying weakness in the US economy. Chart 16The Chinese Locomotive Is Intact In Japan, the law prescribes a negative fiscal thrust of –7.1% of GDP. We doubt this will transpire. Prime Minister Suga does not want to kill a nascent recovery and feed powerful deflationary pressures. Hence, supplementary budgets will provide more support to growth. Ms. X: Last year, we spoke a lot about China as an important driver of the global manufacturing cycle and growth. Is this still the case? BCA: China remains an important factor supporting our positive stance on global growth in 2021. Thanks to the aggressive use of testing and tracing, China has contained the virus, which is letting the economy heal and respond normally to monetary policy. On this front, the lagged impact of the easing enacted since 2019 will continue. Total social financing flows have rebounded to 33% of GDP and are consistent with a further improvement in our China Activity Indicator (Chart 16). Strengthening Chinese cyclical spending will lift imports of raw materials and machinery. The uptick in the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse suggests that China will remain a positive force for the rest of the world until the second half of 2021. After the summer, the positive impact of China on global growth will ebb. The PBoC is already allowing market interest rates to increase, which suggests that the apex of the credit easing was reached in Q4. Nonetheless, President Xi Jinping cannot tolerate any kind of instability ahead of the 100th anniversary of the CCP in October 2021. Thus, the fiscal and monetary policy tightening will be calibrated before that date and will only become a major risk afterwards. As a result, global growth will enjoy its maximum contribution from Chinese demand around Q2 2021. After that, Chinese activity will still be high enough to keep global industrial production elevated, but not enough to cause a further acceleration.  Chart 17China's Marginal Propensity To Consume Augurs Well Another good news for the Chinese and global economies is the recent pickup in China’s marginal propensity to consume (MPC), as approximated by the gap between the growth rate of M1 and M2 money supply (Chart 17). When M1 accelerates faster than M2, demand deposits are growing quicker than savings deposits, which highlights that economic agents are positioning their liquidity for increased spending. The MPC’s uptick will reinforce the positive signal for global economic activity from China’s credit trend. It also creates upside risk for China’s economy in the second half of the year compared to what policy dynamics imply. Ms. X: Beyond China and fiscal policy, do you foresee any other tailwinds for the global business cycle? BCA: Yes, there are plenty. As we already mentioned, the vaccine should allow the service sector to normalize progressively over the course of the year. Households’ healthy balance sheets will underpin US consumer spending next year. At the end of 2019, debt to disposable income stood at an 18-year low and the debt servicing-costs ratio was near generational troughs. In addition, both of these measures of financial health only improved during the crisis. Collapsing interest rates allowed households to refinance their mortgages and government transfers boosted disposable income. Likewise, after a very negative shock in Q1, household net worth quickly rebounded in Q2 when asset prices surged and household savings grew (Chart 18). The wealth effect will therefore help consumption, especially because employment continues to improve. The odds of higher yields are most pronounced for longer maturities. The outlook for capex is also bright. Capex intentions have been surprisingly robust in recent months and core durable goods shipments have reached all-time highs (Chart 19). Admittedly, capex is a lagging economic variable – companies take their cues from the behavior of households. But, this means that, as household spending continues to recover, so will capital investment. Another way to approach this topic is to think about the link between capex and corporate profitability. In capital budgeting, the pecking order theory argues that retained earnings are the preferred source of financing for corporate investments. This theory is echoed by empirical evidence. Business capital formation follows operating profits by roughly six months (Chart 20). The positive outlook for profits therefore bodes well for capex. Chart 18Solid Household Balance Sheets In The US Chart 19Surprising Capex Rebound Chart 20Earnings Drive Capex A major concern for the US economy is commercial real estate. This sector’s losses will likely be very large because many buildings are now uneconomical. Even if vaccines normalize daily activities, post-pandemic life has in some ways been reshaped. Workers are likely to conduct more of their job from home and shoppers have become used to the convenience of E-commerce. As a result, the need for office and retail space will decrease, which falling rents are already reflecting. The hit to the US banking system is still unknown. While CRE accounts for 13% of bank assets, this exposure is concentrated within smaller regional banks, which are much frailer than their SIFI counterparts (Chart 21). We could therefore see some localized troubles within a banking system that is tightening credit standards already (Chart 22). This danger warrants close monitoring. Chart 21CRE Is A Threat For Small Banks Chart 22Another Tightening In Standards Would Be Dangerous Chart 23Europe Is More Exposed To Chinese Demand It is not clear whether the US or the euro area will enjoy the sharpest growth improvement in 2021. Normally, Europe benefits the most during a manufacturing upswing, especially when China’s marginal propensity to consume is expanding (Chart 23). The European economy is more cyclical than that of the US because exports and manufacturing constitute a larger share of employment and gross value added (Chart 23, bottom panel). Moreover, the fiscal drag in Europe is likely to subtract roughly 3% from GDP next year while it could subtract 5% to 7% from the US GDP. However, an important handicap will counterbalance these advantages for Europe; the biggest source of economic delta next year should be the service sector because spending on goods began to recover in earnest in 2020. There is simply more pent-up demand left in services than goods and the service sector accounts for a larger share of output in the US than in Europe. Three additional factors could also favor the US against both Europe and Japan. First, residential activity is rebounding more quickly in North America. Historically, residential investment makes a large contribution to cyclical expenditures and it galvanizes additional spending on durable goods. Second, the Fed was able to engineer deeper declines in real interest rates than the ECB or the BoJ while Washington expanded the deficit faster than Tokyo or most European capitals. Finally, the weak dollar is creating another relief valve unavailable to Japan and Europe. In fact, the euro’s strength is potentially the greatest dampener of the European recovery in the coming quarter. Finally, emerging economies face important domestic hurdles that will handicap them significantly versus advanced economies in the first half of the year. EM banking systems remain fragile after the violent capital outflows witnessed in the first half of 2020. Thus, their ability to expand credit is comparatively limited. Moreover, EM economies have yet to withstand the inevitable second wave of infections, and their healthcare systems are even weaker than in advanced economies. The logistical complications associated with the rollouts of the vaccine will be most acute in poorer countries. Mr. X: I share your worries about long-term inflation, but where do you stand regarding near-term dynamics? A faster inflation recovery would amount to the kiss of death for asset markets. BCA: You are correct that faster inflation would threaten asset markets. It would force a rapid re-pricing of the Fed’s policy path and lift yields higher. Expensive stocks would buckle under this impulse. However, while it is a risk we monitor closely, it is far from our base case. We particularly like real yield curve steepeners. To begin with, both the output gap and the unemployment gap will remain meaningful in 2021. Our US Composite Capacity Utilization Indicator is not consistent with higher inflation (Chart 24). Additionally, at 6.9%, the US unemployment rate understates the amount of slack in the labor market. The employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers offers a more accurate read of the labor market because it accounts for discouraged workers. This labor market indicator points toward limited inflation in the Employment Cost Index (Chart 25). Chart 24Limited Immediate Inflationary Pressures Chart 25The Labor Market Is Replete With Slack Inflation is still likely to spike in the first half of the year, but this jump will prove temporary. In the second quarter, both the core CPI and the core PCE inflation will incorporate a strong base effect when annual comparisons include the extremely depressed numbers that prevailed at the nadir of the recession. Moreover, once the service sector reopens in response to broadening vaccination programs, service sector inflation could pop higher, as goods prices did once the goods sector reopened last summer. The base effect will quickly ebb and the initial surge in service inflation should also dissipate because shelter inflation will remain dampened by stubborn permanent unemployment (Chart 26). The Fed will look through next year’s temporary inflation rebound. Its new average inflation target officialized last September is designed to avoid this kind of premature response and Fed officials are currently more afraid of committing deflationary errors than inflationary ones. Markets understand this well. Hence, as long as inflation breakeven rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% band consistent with market participants believing in the Fed’s ability to achieve 2% inflation durably (Chart 27), market wobbles caused by higher inflation will create buying opportunities. Chart 26Shelter Inflation Will Remain Downbeat Chart 27The Fed Monitors Inflation Expectations   One factor could cause inflation to start moving durably higher than our base case anticipates. So far, money supply is behaving very differently than in the wake of the GFC. Back then, the Fed aggressively expanded its balance sheet, but the private sector’s deleveraging compressed money demand. Consequently, the Fed’s money injections stayed trapped in the banking system where excess reserves swelled. Broad money growth was tepid and the money multiplier collapsed. Today, the private sector is not deleveraging and M2 has surged at its fastest pace since 1944. Thanks to this lack of monetary bottlenecks, real interest rates fell much faster than in 2008/9 even if the nominal Fed Funds rate dropped to zero in both instances (Chart 28). Monetary conditions are therefore much more accommodative than they were 12 years ago. Another consequence of a functioning monetary system is that the broad money supply’s advance is outstripping the Treasury’s issuance. Historically, when money supply grows quicker than government debt, inflation emerges (Chart 29). We are tracking the velocity of money closely to gauge whether this risk is morphing into reality. Chart 28Policy Is More Accommodative Than During the GFC Chart 29An Inflationary Risk   Ms. X: Before we move on to asset market forecasts for 2021, I would like to hear your thoughts on Brexit and the extraordinary showing of European unity last summer. BCA: We came very close to ending the Brexit transition period without a free-trade agreement between the UK and the EU. First, PM Boris Johnson had been under attack from the right wing of the Conservative party. In response, his government ramped up the hard rhetoric in recent months. However, the negative impact on the British economy in the absence of a free trade agreement with the EU was always a binding constraint on the PM. Hence, the tough rhetoric was mostly bluster and negotiation tactic with Brussels. Second, the electoral defeat of President Donald Trump in the US means that the UK is unlikely to receive preferential treatment from the US if it cannot reach a trade deal with the EU. The UK would be on its own, especially because President-Elect Joe Biden is likely to side with the EU, with whom he wants to rebuild a relationship. On the EU side, it is highly unlikely that Berlin will let French demands on fishing rights threaten its capacity to sell to its 5th export market. Thus, we expect a deal to come to fruition imminently. The move toward fiscal integration in Europe is also crucial beyond its near-term bullish impact on Italian, Spanish or Portuguese bonds. Jean Monnet, one of the architects of the 1951 Treaty of Paris that created the European Coal and Steel Community (the EU’s embryo), famously wrote in his memoirs that: “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” We witnessed these dynamics last summer. The EUR750 billion Recovery Fund created by the European Commission to help economies struggling with the pandemic will issue its own bonds. It is the first step toward a permanent common bond issuance mechanism and fiscal risk sharing in the euro area. As expensive as stocks may be in absolute terms, the monetary and yield backdrop creates a large enough buffer for now. The experience of last decade’s euro crisis shows that temporary solutions often become permanent features of the EU, even if its treaties originally forbade them. The latest move will be no exception. The euro is popular; it is supported by 83%, 60%, 72%, 76% and 82% of the Spanish, Italian French, Dutch and German populations, respectively (Chart 30). Moreover, German support for the euro is particularly important. Germany’s current account surplus equals 7% of GDP because of the euro. The euro is a lot weaker than the Deutsche mark would be, which boosts German exporters’ competitiveness in international markets and within the euro area. Without the common currency, German cars would be much more expensive in France, Italy or China than they are today. Chart 30The Glue That Binds Europe Together Likewise, the ECB Target II balance permanently attaches Germany to its weaker neighbors. Italy and Spain owe EUR 1 trillion to this settlement system while Germany is owed EUR915 billion. If Italy or Spain were to go bankrupt or to leave the euro and redenominate their debt in lira or pesetas, the resulting hit would threaten the viability of the German banking system (Chart 30, bottom panel). Chart 31Competitiveness Convergence The past competitiveness problems of the European periphery are also steadily diminishing. Compared to Germany, harmonized unit labor costs in Italy or Spain have fallen 15% since 2009 and are not far from the levels prevailing at the introduction of the euro in 1999 (Chart 31). Consequently, current account deficits in Spain and Italy are narrowing considerably. Germany’s euro benefits, the tie created by the Target II imbalances and the periphery's improved competitiveness only bring Europe together and they allow the COVID-19 crisis to force a closer union. While these developments have little implication for Europe’s growth next year, they constitute a major long-term positive because they will curtail the cost of capital in the periphery and permit the sharing of funds necessary to build a lasting monetary union. Ms. X: To summarize; at the beginning of 2021, global growth should remain volatile. However, the recovery will ultimately strengthen over the remainder of the year thanks to the rollout of vaccines, the sustained fiscal support across major economies, the continued positive impact of China’s economic healing, and the strength of household balance sheets. Capex will remain robust as well, even if commercial real estate is a dangerous spot that we must monitor. Moreover, it is too early to ascertain whether the US or the EU will experience the strongest recovery in 2021, but emerging economies should lag behind. In addition, while you are concerned about the long-term inflation risk, consumer prices should not experience a durable pickup this year. Likewise, you foresee a benign outcome to the UK-EU trade negotiations and are positive on European integration. BCA: Yes, you summed it up nicely. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I find the Treasury market very puzzling right now. On the one hand, demanding valuations of US government bonds worry me, particularly in light of the upbeat economic outlook for 2021. On the other hand, if inflation remains low and the Fed is unlikely to push up rates until 2022 at the earliest, the upside for yields should be limited.  BCA: We recommend a below-benchmark duration for fixed-income portfolios with an investment horizon of 12 months or so. Valuations partially underpin this recommendation. Our Global and US Bond Valuation Indices highlight that government bonds are at the level of overvaluation that, over the past 30 years, often produce a negative return in the following 12 months (Chart 32). However, valuations only indicate the degree of vulnerability of an asset but they rarely trigger price moves. Instead, timing most often relies on cyclical and technical factors. Favor cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. Cyclical forces are increasingly negative for bonds. In the US, our BCA Pipeline Inflation Indicator has perked up. It is not pointing toward an imminent rise in inflation but it suggests that deflationary risks are ebbing, something BCA’s Corporate Pricing Power Proxy also captures (Chart 33). A removal of the left-tail risk in CPI should push up yields, especially as our BCA Nominal Cyclical Spending Proxy is also firming, which normally happens ahead of meaningful yield pickups (Chart 33, bottom panel). Chart 32Pricey Bonds Chart 33Cyclical Risks For Bond Prices Chart 34Investors Will Want Protection Against Inflation Uncertainty The odds of higher yields are most pronounced for longer maturities. First, our central forecast expects a significant rise in inflation in the latter part of the decade. Second, monetary and fiscal policy will remain very accommodative over the coming years even as private demand increases, which will lift medium- to long-term inflation uncertainty. Rising inflation uncertainty usually facilitates a steepening of the yield curve (Chart 34). Despite these forces, the upside to yields will prove limited in 2021. The Fed’s new inflation target means that it will be patient, and waiting for core PCE inflation to move sustainably above 2% could take time. The US central bank is therefore unlikely to increase interest rates for many years. This inertia limits the immediate upside in Treasury yields, but does not preclude it. While the Fed will not be quick to lift off, its forward interest rate guidance is not going to get any more dovish and the bond market is already pricing-in the first rate hike for late 2023. This expected liftoff date will be brought forward as the economy recovers, meaning that long-maturity nominal yields, real yields and inflation breakeven rates all have moderate upside. The recent equity market leadership of growth stocks is another limiting factor for higher yields. Growth stocks are extremely sensitive to long bond yields. If the latter back up too fast, it will scuttle bourses and unleash risk aversion and deflationary pressures. This creates an upper bound on the speed at which yields can move up. Mr. X: Even with their limited room to fall in the near term, the meaningful long-term and valuation risks of bonds make them so unappealing to me that I refrain from using them as near-term portfolio hedges. How can I protect my equity holdings right now? BCA: Hedging near-term risks to stocks has become one of the most hotly discussed topic with our clients because investors are witnessing the increasingly asymmetric payoffs of bonds. When equity prices rise, bond prices typically decline, but when stocks correct, bond prices barely rally. This newfound behavior of safe-haven bonds is a consequence of global policy rates having moved to or near their lower bound. We increasingly like small-cap firms relative to large-cap ones. For non-US based investors, there is a simple solution to this problem: parking some funds in US cash because the USD still acts as an effective hedge against market corrections. For US-based investors, finding adequate protection is more challenging. Those who can short and use leverage should sell currency pairs with an elevated sensitivity to changes in risk aversion, such as the EUR/CHF, AUD/JPY or MXN/JPY, to achieve some protection. Otherwise, holding cash to buy back stocks at lower levels remains an appropriate strategy. Mr. X: Which government bond market do you like most, or more accurately, which one should I avoid most right now? BCA: At the moment, we prefer the European periphery. The valuation ranking we often use when we see you is clear: Portuguese, Greek, Italian or Spanish bonds are the cheapest while German Bunds and US T-Notes are exceptionally expensive (Chart 35). Real bond yields confirm this estimation. Additionally, the nascent fiscal risk-sharing created by the European Commission’s Recovery Fund should result in declining breakup risk premia embedded in peripheral bonds. Furthermore, the ECB’s asset purchases are set to rise in response to Frankfurt’s efforts to fight off the deflationary effect of both the euro’s appreciation and the second wave’s lockdowns. Chart 35The Value Is In Europe’s Periphery We are more negative on US Treasuries than Bunds. The valuation difference between the two safe havens is minimal. However, in 2020 the US has been more reflationary than Europe and the recent decline in the USD should lift US inflation relative to Germany’s, which will widen yield differentials in favor of Bund prices (Chart 36). Besides, the US economy has a higher potential GDP growth than Europe, which warrants a superior neutral rate of interest. Consequently, investors should expect US real yields to rise relative to the euro area’s benchmark. Outside of these markets, dedicated fixed-income investors should also overweight JGBs within their portfolio. JGBs have a low yield beta, which will limit their price declines if global yields move up. If the global recovery peters off, this feature will not create a major handicap because global yields have limited room to fall from here. Moreover, Japanese bonds are the cheapest safe haven (Chart 37). Chart 36Bunds vs Treasuries: Follow The Inflation Gap Chart 37JGBs Are The More Attractive Safe Haven   We are neutral Canadian and Australian bonds. Historically, Canadian and Australian yields tend to have high betas to US T-Note yields. However, the BoC and the RBA are very active purchasers in their domestic markets, which will dampen the volatility of Canadian and Australian bonds. Ms. X: Considering the limited scope for major interest rate moves next year, what are your high-conviction trades for fixed-income portfolios? BCA: Within US government bond markets, we like curve steepeners. We also recommend positioning for rising inflation expectations by going overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. We particularly like real yield curve steepeners (within the TIPS curve). The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below that of long-maturity protection, which means that short-term inflation breakeven rates have more upside as core PCE returns to the Fed’s target. A TIPS-curve steepener benefits from both a flattening of the inflation breakeven curve and a steepening of the nominal Treasury curve. It is therefore a high-octane play on both our favored strategies. We like both Europe and Japan. Within US corporate credit, we are currently overweight investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield bonds. However, valuation at the upper-end of the credit spectrum heavily favors tax-exempt municipal bonds over corporates. Investors that can take advantage of the tax exemption should prefer munis over investment grade corporates. Elsewhere, we are underweight MBS as pre-payment risk is elevated, but we like consumer ABS due to the strong position of household balance sheets. Ms. X: Before we moved on to equities, where do you stand on EM credit? Do you expect any global search for yield to push EM bond prices higher? BCA: With a few exceptions like Mexico and Russia, we prefer US corporate bonds to dollar denominated EM bonds of similar credit quality. EM bonds offer poorer value, but EM spreads will continue to evolve in line with US corporate spreads. Because of this directional correlation, our preference for US investment grade bonds translates to EM bonds as well. Our more circumspect attitude toward EM high-yield bonds also reflects our more conservative stance on US high-yield bonds. For local-currency rates, we are receivers in the swap market because the near-term outlook for EM currencies is difficult. Most EM countries have a deflation problem, not inflation troubles. Hence, real and nominal rates in emerging economies will fall as central banks try to stimulate their economies. These declines will be positive for the local-currency performance of EM bonds but it will hurt their currencies. Over the next twelve months, this challenge will be most pronounced against non-US DM currencies. In the short-term, this hindrance will also exist against the USD because the Greenback should rebound temporarily, something we can discuss in more detail in our chat about the currency and commodity markets. Our favorite bets are to receive Mexican, Colombian, Russian, Indian, Chinese and Korean swap rates. Mr. X: I agree that the case to make a major duration bet next year is limited, but risks are slightly skewed toward upside for yields. I am a little surprised that you like European peripheral bonds so much and yet prefer Bunds to Treasuries. I will have to digest your view on EM bonds because I would have bought EM currencies outright. Finally, I find your real yield curve steepener idea extremely intriguing. Thank you for giving me ideas to ponder. Now, shall we move to next year’s equity outlook? Equity Market Outlook Chart 38The Bubble Can Grow Mr. X: I am a firm believer that growth stocks, tech in particular, are in a massive bubble. My daughter tries to convince me that we cannot generalize. Yet, both my gut and my brain tell me to seek refuge in value stocks. I appreciate that the outlook for tech stocks hinges on the evolution of monetary policy. Nonetheless, I think that any small shock can topple the so-called FANGs because they are so expensive and over-owned. I fear that where the FANGs go, so will the market. BCA: We have recently published a report broaching the question of bursting bubbles. When real interest rates are negative, when money supply is expanding at a double digit pace and when the Fed is extremely reluctant to tighten policy, the chances that a bubble will deflate are extremely low, even if stocks are furiously expensive (Chart 38). Beyond monetary tightening, an escalation in the supply of financial instruments also caused some bubbles to deflate. For example, an increase in the number of tulips following a harvest contributed to the end of the tulip mania. Bubbles from the eighteenth century, such as the South Sea Bubble and the Mississippi Company Bubble, followed stock issuances or regulatory changes. Even during the tech bubble, the large IPOs of the late 1990s added to the supply of securities available to investors. Right now, we are not witnessing this surge in supply. Buybacks, which are a contraction in supply, have acted as a key fuel to the bubble in the tech sector. Moreover, dominant tech titans have built large moats around their businesses because they often rely on pronounced network effects, if they are not a network themselves. These monopolistic behaviors account for their large profit margins, but they also prevent the emergence of viable competitors in the near term. Meanwhile, the mushrooming of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) is worrisome in the long-term. They are mostly vehicles to conduct backdoor IPOs of private firms. For now, they remain too small to topple the bubble. The real worry for tech investors is the eventual resurgence of inflation. During the tech bubble at the turn of the millennium, the rise in core CPI in early 2000 forced investors to discount more rate hikes, which toppled tech equities (Chart 39). As we discussed already, the outlook for inflation is benign for 2021, but if it were to change, tech stocks could fall in absolute terms. We expect tech names to underperform the S&P 500 over the next 12 months, but not to fall outright. This is akin to the experience of Japanese banks in the 1980s. In the first half of that decade, Japanese lenders stood at the forefront of the equity bubble. However, in the late 1980s, they lagged behind the rest of the Nikkei, even if they generated positive absolute returns (Chart 40). Chart 39Inflation Is The Threat To Tech Stocks Chart 40Without Falling, Bubble Leaders Can Still Lag   Ms. X: I agree, it is hard to be too negative on stocks next year with the Fed standing firmly on the sidelines. What do you see as the market’s main driver in 2021 and what is the biggest risk to the outlook? BCA: Many important factors underpin global equities. First, we still are in the early innings of a new business cycle upswing. Statistically, bull markets most often end when earnings permanently decline. This observation means that equity bear markets rarely develop in the absence of recession (Chart 41).  Chart 41Recessions And Bear Markets Travel Together Second, as expensive as stocks may be in absolute terms, the monetary and yield backdrop creates a large enough buffer for now. The combination of our Valuation and Monetary Indicators remains in low-risk territory, which historically is consistent with positive absolute returns for the S&P 500 over the coming 12 to 18 months (Chart 42). However, the gap between the two indicators is narrower than it was last spring, which suggests that the easy market gains lie behind us. Another tool to think about valuations is the Equity Risk Premium. Our measure, which adjusts for the lack of stationarity of the ERP’s mean as well as for the expected growth of cash flows, is not as wide as it was in Q2 or Q3, but it remains congruent with positive prospective equity returns (Chart 43). Chart 42Monetary Policy Beats Valuations, For Now Chart 43The ERP Points To Positive Stock Returns in 2021   Third, forward earnings estimates will rise further. The gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customers’ Inventories subcomponents of the ISM survey indicates that earnings revisions will continue to climb from here (Chart 44). Additionally, our Corporate Pricing Power Proxy is back into neutral territory after having flashed dangerous deflationary pressures. Thanks to the operating leverage embedded in equities, improving selling prices can quickly push the bottom line higher (Chart 45). The rollout of vaccines next year will only feed these dynamics and help profit growth even further. Chart 44Room For Positive Earnings Revisions Chart 45Less Deflation Is Good For Earnings     Fourth, our benign expectations for the credit market is consistent with both higher multiples and earnings. A well-functioning credit market is essential to risk taking and multiples. It also allows capex to remain well sustained and cyclical spending to expand. Both these forces are bullish for profits. Fifth, our negative stance on the dollar will ease global financial conditions. A weaker dollar pushes down the global cost of capital, which strengthens the global industrial cycle. Global stock markets overweight the industrial and goods sectors relative to the economy. Therefore, global bourses benefit from a weaker dollar. The greatest risk for stocks is an uncontrolled jump in bond yields, where 10-year Treasury yields climb above 1.2% in a short period, especially if real rates drive the leap. Too quick an adjustment in the cost of capital would threaten the ERP and it would hurt the multiples of growth stocks that are highly sensitive to fluctuations in the discount rate. Moreover, a rapid rise in borrowing costs would likely force a more precipitous deceleration in the housing sector, which is a key locomotive of the recovery. Another risk is that vaccine rollouts are delayed, which would rapidly sap growth expectations. Mr. X: Rather than taking a large net long exposure in equities, I would favor value stocks at the expense of growth stocks. The valuation gap between both styles is exceptionally wide, and value equities have not been this cheap on a relative basis since at least 2000, or more, depending on the indices used . As a result, they embed a much greater margin of safety than growth stocks, which makes me rest easier because I am less comfortable than you are about this equity bubble’s near-term prospects. Chart 46Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives Ms. X: As I mentioned at the beginning of our chat, I, however, prefer growth stocks. The sectors most represented in the value indices face secular headwinds such as low rates, a move away from carbon, and the increasing role of software, not goods, as the source of value added in our economies. Meanwhile, growth stocks also benefit from the aging of the population, the historically low trend growth rate of the global economy, and the network effects, which protect the profit margins of large tech firms. As you can see, my father and I have been clashing on this topic. Where do you stand? BCA: Within the firm, we have had our disagreements on this topic as well. One thing we all agree upon is that the growth-versus-value debate amounts to a sector call. One common preference we share is to favor cyclical equities relative to defensive ones. Over the coming 12 months, a weak dollar, rising inflation expectations, the strengthening of the Chinese and global economy and improving capex will all conspire to boost the profit and multiples of cyclical stocks at the expense of defensive sectors (Chart 46). Nonetheless, if the Chinese economy starts to slow in the second half of 2021, we will have to evaluate if this bet remains valid. Within the cyclicals, we prefer the more traditional ones, like industrials and materials at the expense of the tech sector. The expected growth rate embedded in tech stocks is extremely elevated compared to the rest of the market in general and other cyclicals in particular (Chart 47). This aggressive pricing is rooted in the recent experience, whereby tech earnings significantly outperformed the rest of the market. However, this outperformance mirrored strong sales of techs goods and services during the pandemic, when households and firms prepared for long lockdowns and remote working. Gravity-defying sales in the midst of the deepest recession in 90 years stole demand away from the future. Now that the economy recovers, pent-up demand for tech goods is smaller than for other categories of cyclical spending. Thus, the current pricing of tech earnings growth leaves room for disappointments. Within traditional cyclicals, financials are a question mark. The broadening of the economic reopening subsequent to the rollout of the vaccines is positive for the quality of banks’ loan books. However, the scope for yields to rise is restricted, which will limit how steep the yield curve will become and how wide net interest margins will swell. Thus, for 2021, industrials and materials remain our favored sectors. Chart 47Too Much Earnings Optimism For Tech Stocks We also favor a basket of “back to work” stocks at the expense of “COVID-19 winners”. With vaccines coming through next year, this trade has further to run. The first group includes some airlines, hotels, oil producers, restaurant operators, capital goods manufacturers, credit card companies, automobile manufacturers and a steel producer.1 The second basket includes a bankruptcy consultant, a software company, some grocers, some biotech names, a Big Pharma company, a large e-commerce business, an online streaming service, a teleconferencing company and two household products leaders.2  For the next 12 to 18 months, we favor value stocks at the expense of growth stocks, which is a consequence of our preference for traditional cyclical names and of the “back to work” names. Moreover, since 2008, periods of economic acceleration correspond to quicker earnings growth of value stocks compared to growth equities (Chart 48). Additionally, if bond yields move up – even if not much, the multiples of value stocks should expand relative to growth firms (Chart 48, bottom panel). We also increasingly like small-cap firms relative to large-cap ones. Small cap indices have substantial underweights in healthcare and tech names, which contrasts with the S&P 500 or the S&P 100. Accordingly, the Russell 2000 both has a cyclical and value bend relative to large-cap benchmarks. Moreover, small call equities outperform the S&P 500 when the dollar declines and when commodity prices appreciate (Chart 49). Additionally, the recent sharp rebound in US railroad freight volumes will support the more-cyclical Russell 2000. Besides, greater shipments lead to upgrades of junk-bond credit ratings, which decreases the perceived riskiness of the heavily levered small cap firms (Chart 50). Chart 48Value Investors Will Like 2021 Chart 49The Case For Small Cap Stocks, Part I Chart 50The Case For Small Cap Stocks, Part II The long-term picture is less clear. Many key supports for growth stocks remain in place. Principally, the aging of the population and the risk of rising inflation in the second half of the decade should flatter healthcare stocks. In addition, the wide profit margins of tech stocks are unlikely to fully mean-revert because firms like Amazon, Google or Microsoft benefit from monopolistic positions that have decoupled their profitability from their capital stock. For now, the biggest risk to these sectors would be a regulatory onslaught from Washington and Brussels. Meanwhile, the sectors composing value indices suffer from the structural headwinds that Ms. X already noted. Counterbalancing this narrative, the extreme relative overvaluation of growth stocks suggests that their prices reflect these long-term forces already. On a very near-term basis (next two to three months), the rapid rise in investor sentiment as well as the collapse in the put-call ratio are consistent with a correction or sideways move in equities (Chart 51). When this correction materializes, no meaningful trend in growth relative to value stocks should emerge. Therefore, we recommend tactical traders play relative value within growth stocks and within value equities, where overextended sectors should correct. Within growth, we would like to rotate away from tech into healthcare. Within value, the next three months should reward financials at the expense of materials. Chart 51Near-Term Risks For Stocks Ms. X: Based on these sectoral views, I gather you would underweight the US market. But where do you stand on emerging markets? BCA: You are correct, in 2021, we expect US equities to underperform the rest of the world. Their large weight in healthcare combined with the low beta of the US economy to global growth gives a defensive twist to the S&P 500. In addition to healthcare, the most significant overweight in the US equity benchmark is tech, which reinforces the growth style of US stocks. The US’s tech overweight is greater than appears because US communication services and consumer discretionary sectors are mostly tech names such as Facebook, Google, Netflix or Amazon (Table 3). Finally, our bearish outlook on the USD creates an additional hurdle for US equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 52). Table 3Sector Representation In Various Regions While we like both Europe and Japan, the latter stands out for 2021. Japanese stocks have particularly large allocations to the most attractive deep cyclicals (industrial and consumer discretionary equities) and are very cheap, even on a sector-to-sector comparison (Chart 53). To like Japan, we do not need to bet on a multiples convergence. This equity market’s low valuations mean that we are buying each unit of profit growth at a discount to the same sectors in the rest of the world. As a result, Japanese equities are more levered to our positive view on the earnings of deep cyclicals than any other major bourse. Chart 52US Stocks Underperform When The Dollar Weakens Chart 53Japan Offers The Right Exposure At The Right Price   Finally, we are neutral on EM stocks. We like them more than US equities but less than Japan or Europe. EM stocks will benefit from a weaker dollar, but they have become tightly correlated to the NASDAQ due to the leadership of a few large tech names in Asia. Essentially, like the US, EM stocks have a very large weighting in the tech sector. If our view is correct that growth underperforms value next year, North Asian EM, which have driven EM stocks since March, will lag behind Latin America in 2021. Mr X: Thank you for your thoughts on equities. I agree that a monetary shock normally is needed to burst bubbles, but I also worry that the current extreme overvaluation of tech stocks could lead to gravity taking hold without the help of the Fed. This means that I am slightly less confident than you are that equities will rise this year. However, I agree with you that value stocks should beat growth stocks and that US equities should become the laggards after years of leadership. Ms. X: Should we move on to the currency and commodity markets? Currencies And Commodities Chart 54The Dollar Is Vulnerable Technically Mr. X: I was skeptical last year, but your bearish dollar view panned out very well. However, you did not get its cause correctly. For one, you were constructive on global growth and consequently, negative on the dollar. I am skeptical that the dollar will depreciate much further in 2021 because it possesses a considerable yield advantage over other G-10 currencies. BCA: Today, the dollar sits at a critical spot. As you mentioned, we were negative on the USD last year; since then, it has breached all the major trend lines that have defined its bull market over the past nine years (Chart 54). This technical configuration suggests that more weakness is in store.  One thing is very clear, dollar bulls have gone missing. Speculators are heavily selling the USD. Bullish sentiment on the euro is at its most elevated level in a decade. Historically, when it faces such one-sided negativity, the dollar enjoys temporary rebounds. Nonetheless, the DXY’s upside should be limited, at 2-4%, not more. A few forces cap the dollar’s upside. The currencies with the most upside against the dollar in 2021 are the European currencies. The liquidity crunch that handicapped global markets in March is over. Most foreign central banks have ample access to dollar liquidity and do not rely on the Fed anymore, as its outstanding swap lines stand close to zero (Chart 55). In 2009, this was a clear signal that the dollar liquidity shortage was behind us. The Fed has increased its supply of domestic currency more aggressively than other central banks. Today, interest rates around the world are at zero. Therefore, central banks’ balance sheet policy and forward guidance are the main tools to communicate the future path of interest rates. Chart 56 shows that other G-10 central banks have been lagging the Fed in terms of their balance sheet expansion. This has hurt the dollar and benefitted other currencies. Chart 55No More Liquidity Crunch Chart 56Currencies Respond To Balance Sheets   US growth is lagging the rest of the world. This might not last, but growth differentials will continue to drive the performance of currencies, as they did in recent years. The November PMIs showed that the US economy held up well, but 2021 growth expectations from the IMF and other agencies favor the Eurozone. Finally, we are also deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. However, negative rates are the symptom and not the disease. China has positive interest rates because its domestic demand is strong. Europe or Japan are very sensitive to Chinese growth, which could cause the US rate advantage to evaporate. Ms. X: Earlier, you mentioned that the dollar is the perfect hedge for non-US based investors, which is a view I share. Are there any other currencies outside the dollar that we should hold that provide some safety? BCA: The currencies with the most upside against the dollar in 2021 are the European currencies, especially the Norwegian krone and the Swedish krona. They are the most undervalued currencies within the G-10, and they offer some margin of safety. While less attractive than the Scandinavian currencies, the pound will nonetheless appreciate more than the euro next year. Even if most currencies should gain against the USD, the yen is the one that will offer the most protective ability in a portfolio. It would be an excellent defensive complement to the dollar for investors looking to hedge portfolio risk. Gold will not perform effectively as a deflation hedge, but its ability to protect portfolios against long-term inflation risks remains intact. First, the yen is cheap. Over the years, falling Japanese price levels have tremendously improved the value of the yen. This cheapness makes Japanese equities an attractive investment, especially on an unhedged basis. These unhedged flows into Japan are very positive for the yen. Second, Japan offers the highest real interest rates in the G10. This attribute will incite investors to purchase JGBs. Moreover, Japanese investors could represent a major source of fixed-income flows into the country because of a large proportion of US Treasuries will mature, which will invite repatriation flows. Chart 57The Yen Likes A Weaker USD Finally, the yen is a low beta currency versus the USD. Both the DXY and the USD/JPY are positively correlated, thus when the dollar declines, the yen rises, but less so than other currencies (Chart 57). This means that when global equity markets enter risk-off phases, the yen appreciates against non-dollar currencies, but it loses less value against these same currencies when markets are rallying. This places the yen in a very enviable “heads I win, tails I don’t lose too much” position, which is what we need out of a portfolio hedge.  Mr. X: I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the yen, but I agree that it is an interesting portfolio hedge. Nonetheless, my precious metals still provide me with a lot more comfort than any fiat currencies. Moving to commodities; it has been a remarkable year. Oil was crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic – more so than other commodities. Crude now appears to be attempting a comeback. Gold did well this year, but it recently dipped below $1,800/oz., and seems to be struggling to get back above that level. Let’s start with oil. Where do you see it going and how should we play it? BCA: Oil is about one principle: Supply and demand have to clear the market. Even more than with other commodities, the COVID-19 pandemic clobbered oil demand, especially those segments of the market tied to transportation, such as motor fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel), jet and marine fuels. While the news around vaccines are encouraging, it will be months before these treatments are available on the massive scale required to revive transportation demand. Chart 58Crude Forecasts Ms. X: Are you saying the oil prices will remain depressed in 2021?   BCA: Not really. We expect demand to recover following local – as opposed to national – lockdowns in the US and Europe. This process will become evident even before the vaccines have been rolled out on a large-enough scale to affect transportation demand. The impact on energy demand of the vaccines themselves should become visible toward the end of the first half of 2021.  On the supply side, we believe the producer coalition lead by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to adjust supply to meet demand. Hence, global oil inventories will fall further, which will tighten the market. Based on these supply/demand dynamics, Brent crude-oil prices will average $63/bbl next year, which is above the forward curve in oil markets (Chart 58). Mr. X: Oil-market risk seems very difficult to pin down right now. Do you expect downside or upside risks to dominate prices next year? BCA: At the current juncture, risks to the oil market are exceptionally two-sided. On the downside, with the exception of China, most major economies have been unable to control the rapid spread of COVID-19. If the health crisis lingers, oil demand could remain weaker than our base case anticipates. On the upside, Big Pharma has acted with unprecedented speed in developing vaccines to combat this coronavirus. Netting all these forces out, the balance of risks, in our view, favors the upside, as our price forecast indicates. Mr. X: Thank you. I would like to move on to gold. You mentioned that the dollar was your favourite hedge against equity risk for non-US based investors. As I mentioned earlier, I tend to prefer gold. BCA: Gold and the US dollar are both safe-haven assets; when risk aversion and uncertainty increase, investors buy both these assets to hedge their portfolios. Typically, a weaker dollar is good for gold, and vice versa. The past four or five years have been extraordinarily uncertain – trade wars, political uncertainty, the global rise of nationalist populism, the COVID-19 pandemic, you name it. All of these factors drove investors to hold dollars and gold at the same time.  While the bullish dollar forces are dissipating, we cannot say the same for gold. The Fed is committed to maintaining an ultra-accommodative monetary policy indefinitely, which, along with the US government’s ever-expanding budget deficits, will keep the supply of money and credit extremely high for years. As we already argued, this policy setup will have a positive impact on inflation expectations. On the geopolitical front, even if the Sino-US tensions become less acute in the near-term, an undercurrent of distrust and rivalry will prevail. This combination will let bullion prices reach $2,000/oz. next year. Despite these positive fundamentals, gold will not hedge portfolios well against temporary deflationary shocks. Stuck at their lower bound, interest rates cannot decline any more. Consequently, negative growth shocks weigh on inflation expectations, which lifts real interest rate and the dollar, albeit briefly. This process is bearish for gold. Thus, gold will not perform effectively as a deflation hedge, but its ability to protect portfolios against long-term inflation risks remains intact. Mr. X: Thank you. Any other natural resource you would highlight for 2021? BCA: In our research, we heavily focus on the evolution of the global economy toward a low-carbon regime. Hence, we have opened up a whole line of investigation on CO2 markets, particularly in the EU, which is the largest such venue in the world. We are expecting it to become a leading indicator of global efforts to price carbon going forward.  On a related note, we are very interested in the buildout and modernization of China’s electric grid as it embarks on its 14th Five-Year Plan in 2021. Similar efforts are arising globally. We think this will be very important for base metals prices, particularly copper and aluminium. Geopolitics Mr. X: Before we conclude, let us talk about global geopolitical risks. The past two years were replete with tensions, many stocked by the Trump administration. Does a change of leadership in the US will fundamentally alter global relations, especially between the US and China?   Chart 59Peak US Polarization BCA: The fundamental geopolitical dynamic at the outset of the 2020s is the division of the United States and the rise of China.   The sharp increase in US political polarization began with the decline of a common enemy, the Soviet Union, in the 1980s. Pro-growth policies that widened the wealth gap, and a series of political, military, economic, and financial shocks in the twenty-first century, drove polarization to levels not witnessed since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The anti-establishment Trump administration marked the latest peak in polarization (Chart 59). Now, in 2020, the Democratic Party-led political establishment has reclaimed the White House, but only narrowly. The popular vote was roughly evenly divided (47% to 51%) and the Republicans have likely retained the Senate. Because the popular vote and Electoral College vote are now aligned, and because Biden looks limited to center-left policies, polarization is likely to come off its highs. But it will remain elevated due to gridlock in Congress and persistent socio-economic disparities. President Xi Jinping’s “New Era” has led to a backlash from foreign powers. Polarization is globally relevant because it increases uncertainty over the US’s role in the world, particularly on fiscal policy and foreign policy. At home, gridlock produces periodic budget crises that weigh on global risk appetite. Abroad, partisanship causes new presidents to reverse the foreign policies of their predecessors (see President Obama on Iraq and President Trump on Iran). These dramatic reversals increase global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk (Chart 60). Chart 60A Bull Market In Policy Uncertainty As the US descended into internal partisan conflict, China expanded its global influence. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, the Communist Party was forced to change its national strategy to better handle demographic decline, structural economic transition, rising social ills, and foreign protectionism. Slower trend growth increases long-term risks to single-party rule, forcing the CCP to shift the basis of its legitimacy from rapid income growth to Chinese nationalism. Hence Beijing has aggressively sought a technological “Great Leap Forward” to improve productivity while adopting a much more assertive foreign policy to build a sphere of influence in Asia Pacific. President Xi Jinping’s “New Era” has led to a backlash from foreign powers, most markedly with COVID-19 but also with the removal of Hong Kong’s autonomy, saber-rattling in neighboring seas, and politically motivated boycotts of neighboring countries like Australia. The sharp decline in China’s international image has occurred despite the damage that President Trump did to America’s image at the same time (Chart 61). The Xi administration is not likely to change course anytime soon as it seeks to consolidate power even further ahead of the critical 2022 leadership transition. Chart 61A Broadening Distrust Of China American polarization and Chinese nationalism are a dangerous combination. China is increasingly fearful of US containment policy and is adopting a new five-year plan built on accelerating its quest for economic self-sufficiency and technological leadership. The US is fearful of China as the first peer competitor that it has faced since the Soviet Union, and one of the few sources of national unity is the bipartisan agenda of confronting China over its illiberal policies. The Biden administration will mark the third US presidency in a row whose foreign policy will be preoccupied with how to handle Beijing. With Biden likely facing gridlock at home, and likely a one-term president due to old age, his administration will largely amount to restoring the Obama administration’s policies. Internationally, this means an attempt to rejoin or renegotiate the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 so that the US can reduce its involvement in the Middle East and pivot to Asia. Assuming that any American or Israeli action against Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration is limited, Biden will probably achieve a temporary solution with Iran, which otherwise faces economic collapse just ahead of a critical presidential election and eventual succession of the supreme leader. But the process could involve force or the threat of force before a solution is reached, and this would temporarily trouble markets. The greatest geopolitical opportunity in 2021 lies in Europe. Biden will also seek to re-engage China to manage the dangerous rise in tensions, while making amends with US allies for Trump’s “America First” approach. There is already a tension between Biden’s commitment to multilateralism and his need to get things done. The Trump tariffs are viewed as illegal according to the WTO but give Biden leverage over China. Biden is forced to confront China and Russia over their authoritarian actions, but he also needs their assistance on Iran and North Korea. Meanwhile unforeseen crises will emerge, likely in emerging markets badly shaken by this year’s deep recession. Chart 62The Taiwan Strait Is The Top Geopolitical Risk In 2021 The greatest geopolitical risk in 2021 lies in the Taiwan Strait. If China becomes convinced that Biden is not attempting a real diplomatic reset, but is instead pursuing a full-fledged containment policy and technological blockade, then it will be increasingly aggressive over rising Taiwanese pro-independence sentiment (Chart 62). A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is still possible and would have a cataclysmic impact on markets. But Biden will start by trying to lower tensions with Beijing, which is positive for global equity markets until otherwise indicated. China’s long-run strategy has paid off in Hong Kong so it will likely think long-term on Taiwanese matters as well. Ms. X: In your opinion, which region will experience the greatest geopolitical tailwind next year? The greatest geopolitical opportunity in 2021 lies in Europe. The UK will likely be forced to accept a trade deal with the EU for the sake of the economy and internal unity with Scotland. Meanwhile Trump will not be able to impose sweeping unilateral tariffs on Europe and his maximum pressure policy on Iran will dissipate, reducing the risk of a major war in the Middle East. Germany’s transition from the era of Chancellor Angela Merkel will bring debates and concerns, but Germany is fundamentally stable and its agreement with France to upgrade European solidarity puts a lid on Italian political risk as well (Chart 63). Russia remains aggressive, but it is increasingly worried about domestic stability, and now faces an onslaught of democracy promotion from the Biden administration. Chart 63EU Solidarity Is The Top Geopolitical Opportunity In 2021 Investors are rightly optimistic about 2021 because of the vaccine for COVID-19 are the reduction in global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk as a result of the change in the White House. But a lot of optimism is being priced as we go to press, whereas the US-China and US-Russia rivalries have gotten consistently more dangerous since 2008. While geopolitical risk is abating from the extreme peaks of 2019-20, it will remain elevated in 2021 and the years after.     Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned. On the one hand, the global reflationary policies  forced through the system this year remains positive for risk assets. On the other, valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. Moreover, the pandemic is still not under control and while the news on the vaccine front is encouraging, the economy still has ample room to negatively surprise next year. Furthermore, I find the long-term picture particularly concerning, especially if inflation and populism rear their ugly heads. As a result, while I feel like I must be invested in equities rights now, I prefer to slant my portfolio toward value stocks and to keep generous holdings of cash and gold to protect myself. Ms. X: I agree with my father that the uncertain nature of the evolution of the pandemic, especially when contrasted with the demanding valuations of equities, creates many risks for investors. Nonetheless, I do not expect inflation to come back anytime soon. Thus, monetary policy will not become a threat in the near future. Moreover, I am quite optimistic on the earnings outlook. Accordingly, I am more comfortable than my father is with taking some risk in our portfolio this year, even if a slightly larger-than-normal allocation to cash and gold is reasonable. Unlike the BCA team, I believe growth stocks, not value stocks, will generate excess returns from equities in the coming years. Thus, I favor US markets and I am less negative on the US dollar than you are. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach to investing. Nonetheless, many assets have become more expensive this year and long-term inflation risks are increasing. Thus, real long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 4 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.0% over the next ten years, or 1.0% after adjusting for inflation. That is a deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.4% from last year, and also still well below the 6.1% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1990 and 2020. Table 4Lower Long-Term Returns The uncertainty around the base case scenario for the global economy and asset markets remains very large. Hence, as we did last year, we recommend a list of guideposts to evaluate whether global markets stay on track to generate gains in 2021: The rollout of the vaccines: Much of the outlook will depend on the global health crisis. As the recent weeks have shown, the subsequent waves of COVID-19 are still debilitating and deadly, even if recent lockdowns are not as stringent as in the spring. Thus, if the vaccines take longer to be distributed, the economy will suffer a greater risk of relapse, which will hurt asset prices. Realized and expected inflation: If both realized and expected inflation rise quickly, the market will price in a faster withdrawal of monetary accommodation. The market is too expensive to withstand this shock, which would prove more painful than another wave of lockdowns. A stronger dollar and a flattening yield curve: If these two phenomena develop in tandem, this will indicate that the global economy is suffering another deflationary shock. Because fiscal and monetary authorities remain on guard, this may not force any meaningful equity correction. However, growth stocks and defensive names will outperform the rest of the market. US diplomacy: Starting January 20, a new president will occupy the Oval Office. Markets have rejoiced at the anticipation of a more conciliatory approach by the US toward its allies and commercial partners. If the US proves colder than expected, markets will have to reprice their optimistic take on global relations. Bank health: We expect sour commercial real estate loans to create limited damage to the banking system. If we are wrong, credit standards will tighten further instead of easing. This would be a bad omen for global demand and would suggest that yields have downside and that growth stocks would beat value stocks. Fiscal policy: We expect fiscal policy to remain accommodative next year, even if less so than in 2020. An absence of a deal in Washington and a quicker return to fiscal rectitude in the rest of the world would mean that global growth will be weaker than we expect. This would impact equities negatively, especially value stocks. Ms. X: Thank you for this list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It would be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: In 2021, stocks will outperform bonds thanks to the global economic recovery, the lack of immediate inflationary pressures and the prospects of a resolution to the pandemic. Imbalances in the global economy are growing, and the explosion in debt loads witnessed this year will carry significant future costs. Rising inflation is the most likely long-term consequence because of rising populism and the meaningful chance of financial repression. This change in inflation dynamics will generate poor long-term returns for a 60/40 portfolio, especially because asset valuations are so expensive. Compared to the past two years, geopolitical uncertainty will recede in 2021, but will remain elevated by historical standards. China and the US are interlocked in a structural rivalry, which means that flashpoints, such as Taiwanese independence, will remain a source of tensions. Europe will enjoy geopolitical tailwinds next year. For now, no central bank or government wants to remove economic support too quickly. Monetary policy will remain very stimulative as long as inflation is low, which means no tightening until late 2022, at the earliest. Fiscal deficits will narrow, but more slowly than private savings will decline. The US will grow faster than potential thanks to this policy backdrop. Moreover, household finances are robust and industrial firms are taking advantage of low interest rates as well as surprisingly resilient goods demand to increase their capex plans. Outside of the US, China’s stimulus and an inventory restocking will fuel a continued upswing in the global industrial cycle that will push 2021 GDP growth well above trend. However, at the beginning of the year, we will likely feel the remnants of the lockdowns currently engulfing Western economies. The uncertainty around the base case scenario for the global economy and asset markets remains very large. Bond yields can rise next year, but not by much. Ebbing deflationary pressures and the global industrial cycle upswing will lift T-Note and T-Bond yields. However, the extremely low probability of monetary tightening in 2021 and 2022 will create a ceiling for yields. We favor peripheral European bonds at the expense of German Bunds and US Treasuries. Corporate spreads should stay contained thanks to a very easy policy backdrop and the positive impact on cash flows and defaults of the ongoing recovery. We also like municipal bonds but worry about pre-payment risks for MBS.   Global stocks should enjoy a robust advance in 2021, even if the market’s gains will be smaller and more volatile than from March 2020 to today. Easy monetary conditions will buttress valuations while recovering economic activity will support earning expectations. Within equities, we favor cyclical versus defensive names and value stocks relative to growth stocks. As a corollary, we prefer small cap to large cap and foreign DM-equities to US equities. We are neutral on EM equities due to their large tech sector weighting. The dollar bear market is set to continue, and high-beta European currencies will benefit most. The yen remains an attractive portfolio hedge. Oil and gold have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand. Gold will strengthen as global central banks will maintain extremely accommodative conditions and global fiscal authorities will remain generous. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 1.0% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.1% a year between 1990 and 2020. We sincerely hope that next year, we will get to see each other in person instead of via computer screens. Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 30, 2020   Footnotes 1  The tickers of the stocks in the “back to work” basket are: LUV, DAL, MAR, HLT, CVX, EOG, SBUX, MCD, CAT, HON, AXP, COF, NUE, GM. 2  The tickers of the stocks in the “COVID-19 winners” basket are: TDOC, FCN, ZM, CTXS, JNJ, AMGN, REGN, CLX, RBGLY, WMT, COST, KR, NFLX, AMZN.

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. We will be back the week after with the GIS quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major investment themes and views we see playing out in 2021. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights While a vaccine, ironically, could dampen economic activity in the near term, it will pave the way for faster growth in the medium-to-long term. Inflation is unlikely to rise much over the next two-to-three years. However, it could gallop higher later this decade as unemployment falls below pre-pandemic levels and policymakers keep both monetary and fiscal policy accommodative. Many of the structural factors that have depressed inflation are going into reverse: Baby boomers are leaving the labor force, globalization is on the back foot, and social cohesion is fraying. The lackluster pace of productivity growth suggests that innovation is not occurring as fast as many people think. Rather, what seems to be happening is that the nature of innovation is changing in ways that are a lot more favorable to Wall Street than Main Street. Monopoly power has grown, especially in the tech sector. This has had a deflationary effect in the past but could take a more inflationary tone in the future. Investors should remain overweight stocks for the next 12 months, while shifting equity allocation away from growth companies towards value companies and away from the US towards the rest of the world. The Waiting Game This week brought some further good news on the pandemic front. The number of reported daily cases continues to trend lower in Europe. The 7-day average has now fallen by 30% from its November 8th peak (Chart 1). In the US, there are faint indications that the number of new cases is stabilizing, especially in the hard-hit Midwest (Chart 2). Chart 1Covid Cases In Europe: Past The Worst Chart 2Covid Cases In The US: Approaching The Peak Of The Third Wave? Nevertheless, it is too early to breathe a sigh of relief. As with other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily in colder temperatures. Moreover, this week is Thanksgiving in the US, and with the holiday season approaching in the wider world, there will be more opportunities for the virus to propagate. Chart 3The US May Have To Follow Europe In Tightening Lockdown Measures Despite the cresting in new cases, the absolute number of confirmed daily infections remains extremely high. The 7-day average currently stands at about 175,000 in the US. Adjusting for the typical three-week lag between new cases and deaths, the case-fatality rate is approximately 1.8%. The CDC estimates the “true” fatality rate is 0.7%.1 This implies that for every one person who tests positive for Covid-19, 1.5 people go undetected. Thus, around 450,000 Americans are catching Covid every day. That is 3.2 million per week or about 1% of the US population. Other estimates from the CDC suggest that the true number of new infections may now be even greater, perhaps as high as 11 million per week.2 Unlike in Europe, where governments have implemented a series of stringent lockdown measures, the US has taken a more relaxed approach (Chart 3). If the number of new infections fails to fall much from current levels, more US states will have to tighten social distancing rules. The availability of vaccines will pave the way for stronger growth in the medium-to-long term. Ironically however, as we pointed out two weeks ago, vaccine optimism could dampen economic activity in the near term. With the light clearly visible at the end of the tunnel, more people may choose to hunker down to avoid being infected. After all, how frustrating would it be to contract the virus just a few months before one can be vaccinated? It is like being the last guy shot on the battlefield in a war that is drawing to an end. The Outlook For Inflation Could inflation make a comeback once a vaccine is widely available? The pandemic put significant downward pressure on prices in a number of areas, particularly air transport, accommodation, apparel, and gasoline. While prices in some categories, such as used cars, meats and eggs, and certain toiletries did rise briskly, the net effect was still a substantial decline in overall inflation (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impact Of Covid On US Inflation Core PCE inflation stood at 1.4% in October, well below the Fed’s target. As Chart 5 illustrates, core inflation is below central bank targets in most other economies as well. A bounce back in prices in the most pandemic-afflicted sectors should lift inflation over the next six months. Our US bond strategists expect core PCE inflation to peak at 2¼% in the second quarter of next year, before falling back below 2% by the end of 2021. Chart 5Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Chart 6Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Ignoring the temporary oscillations in inflation due to base effects, a more sustained increase in inflation would require that labor market slack be fully absorbed. In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the major economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 6). While a vaccine will expedite the healing of labor markets, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next three years. What about beyond then? The fact that long-term bond yields are so low today implies that most investors think that inflation will remain subdued for many years to come (Chart 7). This is confirmed by CPI swaps, which in some countries go out as far as 50 years. For the most part, they are all trading at levels below official central bank inflation targets (Chart 8). Chart 7Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Chart 8… As Are Long-Term Inflation Expectations Heading Towards The Kink Is inflation really dead, or is it just dormant? We think it is the latter. Contrary to the claim that the Phillips curve has become defunct, Chart 9 shows that the wage version of the Phillips curve – which compares wage growth with the unemployment rate – is very much alive and well. What is true is that rising wage growth has failed to translate into higher price inflation in most economies since the early 1980s. However, this may have simply been due to happenstance: Every time the global economy was starting to heat up to the point that a price-wage spiral could develop, something would happen to break it. In 2019, the unemployment rate in the G7 hit a 46-year low. Perhaps inflation would have accelerated this year had it not been for the pandemic? Likewise, inflation might have risen in 2008 had it not been for the financial crisis, and in 2001 had it not been for the dotcom bust. Chart 9Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 10Inflation Reached The ''Kink'' In 1966 Rather than being defunct, the price-version of the Phillips curve may turn out to be kinked at a very low level of the unemployment rate. Such was the case during the 1960s (Chart 10). US core inflation remained steady at around 1.5% in the first half of that decade, even as the unemployment rate drifted lower and lower. In 1966, with the unemployment rate nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, inflation blasted off, doubling to more than 3% within a span of six months. Core inflation would go on to increase to 6% by 1969, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s. A Less Deflationary Structural Backdrop Many pundits argue that the structural backdrop for inflation is vastly different today than it was during the 1960s, making any comparison with that decade next to worthless. They point out that unions had a lot more power back then, global supply chains were underdeveloped, and rapid population growth was creating more demand for goods and services than the economy could supply. We have addressed these arguments in the past and will not belabor the point this week other than to note that all three of these structural forces are now in retreat.3 Chart 11The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us Granted, unions are not as powerful as they were in the 1960s. However, public policy is still moving in a more worker-friendly direction. Witness the fact that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage in increments from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden has also pledged to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output moving sideways for more than a decade (Chart 11). At the same time, baby boomers are departing the labor force en masse. Rather than remaining net savers, these retiring workers will become dissavers. This means that the global savings glut, which has suppressed interest rates and inflation, could begin to dry up. Perhaps most ominously, social stability is at risk of breaking down. Homicides in the US have risen by nearly 30% so far this year compared to the same period a year ago.4 Historically, the institutionalization rate has tracked the homicide rate quite closely (Chart 12). As was the case in the 1960s, a lot of the well-meaning discussion about criminal justice reform today could turn out to be counterproductive. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but it is worth remembering that inflation exploded in the 1960s at exactly the same time that the murder rate shot up (Chart 13). Chart 12Dramatic Drop In Institutionalization Rate During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Chart 13Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation The Role Of Innovation Technological innovation has been routinely cited as a driver of falling inflation. In many ways, this is rather odd. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real income. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Moreover, the fixation on technology as a deflationary force is a bit strange considering that measured productivity growth has been exceptionally weak in most advanced economies over the past 15 years – weaker, in fact, than it was in the 1970s (Chart 14). Chart 14US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years How, then, does one explain why tech stocks have fared so well? One often-heard answer is that productivity growth is mismeasured. We examined this argument carefully in our report entitled Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians, concluding that this does not appear to be the case. A more plausible answer is that while the pace of innovation has not sped up, the nature of innovation has changed dramatically in ways that have helped Wall Street a lot more than Main Street. The True Nature Of Corporate Profits Standard economics textbooks regard profit as a return on capital. This implies that if the price of capital goes down, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, that has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. While business investment did rise in 2018, this was all due to a rebound in energy spending. Outside of the oil and mining sector, business investment grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 15). Likewise, neither falling interest rates nor rising stock prices – two factors that should produce a lower cost of capital – have done much to buoy investment spending in recent years. Chart 15Overall Capex In 2017-2019 Was Boosted By The Oil And Mining Sector Chart 16A Winner-Takes-All Economy   Why did the standard economic relationship between investment and the cost of capital break down? The answer is that the traditional approach does not take into account what has become an increasingly important driver of corporate profits: monopoly power. A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely found that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997.5 Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times that of the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 16). The dispersion in performance has been particularly stark within the tech sector. According to BCA Research’s proprietary Equity Analyzer, the shares of “value tech” companies – that is, companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales – have not only lagged the shares of other tech companies, but they have also lagged the shares of similarly valued financial companies (Chart 17). This underscores the point that the outperformance of growth stocks over the past 12 years has not just been a story about technology. Rather, it has primarily been a story about some tech companies doing much better than other tech companies. Chart 17Value Tech Lagged Value Financials The Winner-Take-All Economy What explains the bifurcation in performance within the tech sector? Two reasons come to mind. First, tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Second, tech companies benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner take-all environment where success begets further success. The role played by winner-take-all markets explains how a handful of companies were able to become mega-cap tech titans. Chart 18 and Chart 19 show that increased monopoly power, as reflected in rising profit margins and higher relative P/E ratios, has played a greater role in driving tech share outperformance since the mid-1990s than faster revenue growth. Chart 18Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Chart 19Decomposing Tech Outperformance (II) Reaching Adulthood History suggests that monopolists tend to experience an initial rapid growth phase in which they capture ever-more market share, followed by a mature phase where they effectively function as utilities – cranking out stable cash flows to shareholders without experiencing much further growth. While it is impossible to say how far along most of today’s tech leaders are in this cycle, it does appear that the period of rapid growth for many of them may be drawing to a close. As it is, close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. The shift away from “growth status” towards “utility status” for some tech monopolists could prompt investors to trim the valuation premium they assign to these stocks. In addition, it could lead to increased regulation by governments to ensure that monopoly power is not abused. This could further depress valuations. Monopolies And Inflation What about the implications for inflation? Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output could depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has emphasized,6 this implies that rising market power could simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment in new capacity. At least initially, this could be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment spending will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. This helps explain why falling real interest rates and rising profits have failed to trigger an investment boom. Further down the road, the impact of monopoly power on inflation could turn on its head. Less investment spending will curb potential GDP growth, making it easier for economies to run up against capacity constraints. Low real interest rates could also induce governments to run larger budget deficits, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Finally, an economy where monopoly power runs unchecked will eventually spur a populist backlash, leading to reflationary policies that favor workers over business oligarchs. Investment Conclusions Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 20). Given the likelihood that economic growth could surprise on the downside in the near term, equities are vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 21European Banks: A Low Bar For Success   Equity investors should shift their allocation away from growth stocks towards value stocks and away from the US towards the rest of the world. We like European banks in particular. They currently trade at 0.6-times tangible book value and 7.2-times 2019 earnings. Earnings estimates for 2021 have been slashed but should rebound on the expectation of a vaccine-driven growth recovery later next year (Chart 21). Faster growth should produce a modest steepening in yield curves, boosting net interest margins in the process. Faster growth should also lead to stronger credit demand while reducing bad loans. Looking further out, this week’s report argues that inflation could accelerate meaningfully once unemployment returns to pre-pandemic levels in about two-to-three years. The departure of baby boomers from the labor market, sluggish productivity growth, fraying social cohesion, and a backlash against monopoly power could all push up inflation. These forces could also create a more challenging environment for stocks, particularly today’s mega-cap tech names.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 A recent systematic review of literature found that the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) stood at 0.7%. Similarly, in September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published age-specific IFRs in its Covid-19 Planning Scenarios. The population-weighted average of the CDC’s “best estimate” suggests a 0.7% IFR. Please see “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated September 10, 2020; and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and Lea Merone, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 29, 2020. 2 Please see “Covid live updates: CDC estimates only eighth of infections counted,” NBC News Live Blog, November 25, 2020; and “The Latest: South Korea has most daily cases in 8 months,” Associated Press, November 26, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Is The Entire World Heading For Negative Rates?” October 25, 2019; Special Reports “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1),” and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),”dated August 10 and 24, 2018; and Weekly Report, “Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?” dated September 22, 2017. 4 Please see this Twitter thread on the latest data from the 100 largest US cities by Patrick Sharkey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. 5 Gustavo Grullon, Yelena Larkin, and Roni Michaely, “Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?” Oxford Academic, Review of Finance (23:4), July 2019. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” dated June 27, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights COVID-19: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investors price in a return to “normalcy”. FX & Monetary Policy: An increasing number of central banks have raised concerns about unwanted currency appreciation. With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially vs the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Reacting Calmly To This COVID-19 Surge With US election uncertainty now fading away on a stream of failed Trump legal challenges, investors have turned their attention back to COVID-19. On that front, there has been both good and bad news. New cases and hospitalizations have surged across the US and Europe, leading to renewed economic restrictions to slow the spread at a time when governments are dragging their heels on fresh fiscal stimulus measures. Yet markets are seeing past the near-term hit to growth, focusing on the positive news from both Pfizer and Moderna about their COVID-19 vaccine trials with +90% success rates. With markets looking ahead to a possible end to the pandemic, growth sensitive risk assets have taken off. The S&P 500 is now at an all-time high, with beaten-up cyclical sectors outperforming. Market volatility is calm, with the VIX index back down to the low-20s. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe are rallying hard, with CCC-rated US junk bond spreads tightening back to levels last seen in May 2019. Even the US dollar, which tends to weaken alongside improving global growth perceptions, continues to trade with a soggy tone - the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index has fallen to a 19-month low (Chart of the Week). Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. The weakening trend of the US dollar has already become a monetary policy issue for some central banks that do not want to see their own currencies appreciate versus the greenback at a time of depressed inflation expectations. Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. There Is Room For Optimism Amid More Lockdowns The latest wave of coronavirus spread has dwarfed anything seen since the start of the pandemic. The number of daily new cases in the US, scaled by population, has climbed to 430 per million people in the US, setting a sad new high for the pandemic. The numbers are even worse in Europe, led by France where the number of new cases reached a high of 757 per million people on November 8 (Chart 2A). COVID-19 related hospitalization rates have also surged in the US and Europe, straining the capacity of health care systems to care for the newly sickened. In Europe, governments have already imposed severe restrictions on activity to limit the spread of the virus. According the data from Oxford University, the so-called “Government Response Stringency Index”, designed to measure the depth and intensity of lockdown measures such as school closures and travel restrictions, has returned to levels last seen during the first lockdowns back in March and April (Chart 2B). Chart 2AA Huge Second Wave of COVID-19 Chart 2BEconomic Restrictions Weighing On European Growth Vs US Oxford data on spending on sectors most impacted by lockdowns, like retail and recreation, also show declines in Europe and the UK similar in magnitude to those seen last spring. The data in the US, on the other hand, shows no nationwide pickup in lockdown stringency, or decline in spending. While economic restrictions are starting to be imposed in parts of the US, the hit to the overall domestic economy, so far, has been limited compared to what has taken place on the other side of the Atlantic. To be certain, the positive headlines on the vaccines will limit the ability of US local governments to impose unpopular restrictions anywhere near as severe as was seen earlier this year. Yet even if a vaccine ready for mass inoculation arrives relatively quickly, it will not be a smooth path to getting widespread public acceptance of the vaccine. According to a Pew Research survey conducted in late September, only 51% of Americans would take a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it was available (Chart 3). This was down from 72% in a similar survey conducted in May during the panic of the first US wave of the virus. The declines in willingness to take the vaccine were consistent across groupings of age, race, education and political leanings. Of those who said they would not take a vaccine right away, 76% cited a concern about potential side effects as a major reason. Chart 3Most Americans Are Wary Of A COVID-19 Vaccine So even with an effective vaccine now on the horizon, it may take some time to convince people that it is safe to take it. What is clear now, however, is that economic sentiment took a hit from the surge in COVID-19 cases before the vaccine news arrived. The latest ZEW survey of economic forecasters, published last week, showed a decline in growth expectations across the developed economies in the early days of November (Chart 4). The decline occurred for all countries, including the US, but was most severe for the UK, where there are not only new COVID-19 lockdowns but also the looming risk of a messy upcoming resolution to the Brexit saga. Yet the net balance of survey respondents was still positive for all countries in the survey, suggesting that underlying economic sentiment remains robust even in the face of more COVID-19 cases and increased lockdowns in Europe. The ZEW survey also asks questions on sentiment for other factors besides growth. Expectations for longer-term bond yields have moved moderately higher in recent months, as have inflation expectations, although both took a slight dip in the latest survey (Chart 5). No changes for short-term interest rates are expected, consistent with most central banks promising to keep policy rates near 0% for at least the next couple of years. Chart 4COVID-19 Surge Weighing On Global Growth Expectations While global bond yield expectations have clearly bottomed, the ZEW survey shows that expectations for global equity and currency markets have also shifted in what appears to be pro-growth fashion. Chart 5Global Interest Rate Expectations Have Bottomed Survey respondents expect both the US dollar and British pound to weaken versus the euro. At the same time, expectations for future equity market returns have improved, even for European bourses full of companies whose profitability would presumably suffer with a stronger euro (Chart 6). As the US dollar typically trades as an “anti-growth” currency, depreciating during global growth upturns and vice versa, greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Chart 6Bullish Equity Sentiment, Bearish USD Sentiment The big question that investors must now grapple with is if the near-term hit to growth from the latest COVID-19 surge will be large enough to offset the more medium-term improvement in economic sentiment with a vaccine now more likely to be widely distributed in 2021. Given the message from bullish equity and corporate credit markets, and with US Treasury yields drifting higher even with US COVID-19 cases surging, investors are clearly viewing the vaccine news as more significant for medium-term growth than increased near-term economic restrictions. We agree with that conclusion. We continue to recommend staying moderately below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, with an overweight tilt towards corporate credit versus government bonds, in global fixed income portfolios. A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. Chart 7A New Leg Of USD Weakness On The Horizon? A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. The DXY index now sits at critical downside resistance levels, while a basket of commodity-sensitive currencies tracked by our foreign exchange strategists is approaching upside trendline resistance (Chart 7). While emerging market (EM) currencies have generally lagged the US dollar weakness story of the past several months, the Bloomberg EM Currency Index is also approaching a potentially important breakout point. The US dollar is very technically oversold now, so some consolidation of recent moves is likely needed before a new wave of weakness can unfold. Any such breakout of non-US currencies versus the US dollar will open up a whole new assortment of problems for policymakers outside the US, however – particularly those suffering from depressed inflation expectations. Bottom Line: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investor’s price in a return to “normalcy”. Currency Wars 2.0? On the surface, more US dollar weakness should be welcome by policymakers around the world. Much of the downward pressure on global traded goods prices over the past decade can be traced to the stubborn strength of the greenback. With the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index now -1.9% lower on a year-over-year basis, global export prices and commodity indices like the CRB Raw Industrials are no longer deflating (Chart 8). While a weaker US dollar would help mitigate the downward pressure on global inflation rates from traded goods prices, such a move would hardly be welcomed everywhere. Within the developed world, some countries are currently suffering from more underwhelming inflation rates than others. The link between currency swings and headline inflation is particularly strong in the US, euro area and Australia (Chart 9). While a weaker dollar has helped lift headline US CPI inflation over the past few months, a stronger euro and Australian dollar have dampened euro area and Australian realized inflation. It should come as no surprise that both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have recently cited currency strength as a factor weighing on their latest dovish policy choices. Chart 8An Inflationary Impulse From A Weaker USD There is not only a link between exchange rates and inflation for policymakers to worry about – currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Chart 9Currency Impact On Inflation Greater In Some Countries Chart 10Biggest Currency Impact On Financial Conditions Outside The US Financial conditions indices, which combine financial variables like equity prices and corporate bond yields, typically place a big weighting on trade-weighted currencies in countries with large export sectors like the euro area, Japan, Canada and Australia (Chart 10). This makes sense, as a strengthening currency represents a meaningful drag on growth via worsening export competitiveness. In the US with its relatively more closed economy and greater reliance on market-based corporate finance, the dollar is a less important factor determining financial conditions. So what can central banks do to limit appreciation of their currencies? The choices are limited when policy rates are at 0% as is the case in most developed countries. Negative policy rates are a possible option to help weaken currencies, but seeing how negative rates have destroyed the profitability of Japanese and euro area banks, central bankers in other countries are reluctant to go down that road. It is noteworthy that the two central banks that have made the loudest public flirtation with negative rates in 2020, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), have not yet pulled the trigger on that move. Both have chosen to go down a more “traditional” route doing more QE to ease monetary policy at a time of weak domestic inflation. The ECB is set to do the same thing next month, increasing its balance sheet via asset purchases and cheap bank funding in an attempt to stem the dramatic decline in euro area inflation expectations. Currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Can more QE help weaken currency levels in any individual country? Like anything involving currencies, it must be considered on a relative basis to developments in other countries. In Chart 11, we plot the ratio of the Fed’s balance sheet to other developed economy central bank balance sheets versus the relevant US dollar currency pair. The thick dotted lines denote the projected balance sheet ratio based on current central bank plans for asset purchases.1 The visual evidence over the past few years suggests a weak correlation between balance sheet ratios and currency levels. At best, more QE can help mitigate currency appreciation that would otherwise have occurred – which might be all that the likes of the RBA and RBNZ can hope for now. There is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads. Where there is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads (Chart 12). This is reasonable since expanding QE purchases of government bonds can dampen the level of bond yields - either by signaling a desire to push rate hikes further into the future (forward guidance) or by literally creating a demand/supply balance for bonds that is more favorable for higher bond prices and lower yields. Chart 11Relative QE Matters Less For Currencies Chart 12Relative QE Matters More For Bond Yield Spreads This is the critical point to consider for investors: the more efficient way to play the relative QE game is through cross-country bond spread trades, not currency trades. On that basis, favoring government bonds of countries where central banks have turned more aggressive with expanding their QE programs – like the UK, Australia and Canada – relative to the debt of countries where the pace of QE has slowed – like the US, Japan and Germany – in global bond portfolios makes sense (Chart 13). Although in the case of Germany (and euro area debt, more generally), we see the ECB’s likely move to ramp up asset purchases at next month’s policy meeting moving euro area bonds into the “expanding QE” basket of countries. Chart 13More Non-US QE Will Support Non-US Bond Outperformance Chart 14Central Banks Are Increasingly 'Funding' Government Spending One final note: central banks that choose to expand their QE buying of government bonds may actually provide the biggest economic benefit by “funding” fiscal stimulus and limiting the damage to bond yields from rising budget deficits (Chart 14). This may be the most important factor to consider as governments contemplate more stimulus measures to offset any short-term hit to growth from the rising spread of COVID-19. Bottom Line: With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially versus the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The projections incorporate the following: by June 2021, the Fed grows its balance sheet by US$840 billion, the ECB by €600 billion, the BoJ by ¥80 trillion, the BoE by £150 billion, the BoC by C$180 billion, and the RBA by A$100 billion. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

I will be co-hosting a webcast with our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, in which we will discuss arguably the two biggest topics of the moment. The US Election Result, And The Pandemic: What Happens Next? on Friday November 6 at 8.00AM EST (1.00PM GMT, 2.00PM CET, 9.00PM HKT). Also, in lieu of the next strategy report, I will be presenting the quarterly webcast on Thursday November 12 at 10.00AM EST (3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT). I hope you can join both webcasts. Highlights Productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. Equity investors should tilt towards viable small companies and businesses with operations in the US rather than in Europe. Higher productivity growth in the US means that this cycle’s low in US versus euro area core CPI inflation is unlikely to be reached until deep into 2021, at the earliest. Remain structurally overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Structurally favour European currencies versus the dollar. Investors who cannot tolerate volatility should own CHF/USD. Investors who can tolerate volatility should own the more undervalued SEK/USD. Fractal trade: Underweight Australian construction. Feature If the economic difference between the US and Europe could be encapsulated in one picture, then the Chart of the Week would be that picture. In the US, you can hire and fire workers very easily. In Europe, you cannot. This means that in good times, the US can create millions of jobs, Europe much less so. The flip side is that in bad times, the US can destroy millions of jobs, Europe much less so. Chart of the WeekThe US Can Hire And Fire Workers. Europe Much Less So After the dot com bust of 2000, employment fell by 2 percent in the US, but did not fall at all in France. After the global financial crisis of 2008, employment fell by 6 percent in the US, but by just 1.5 percent in France. After the pandemic recession of this year, US employment has rebounded strongly, yet is still down by 7 percent. In contrast, employment in France is down by just 3 percent.  After A Recession, Productivity Surges In The US, But Not In Europe If an economy can shed millions of jobs in a recession, then it is easier to restructure the economy with a new labour-saving technology or strategy that substitutes for the labour input permanently. In which case – to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway – the economy’s productivity growth comes gradually, and then suddenly. The suddenly tends to be immediately after a recession. In Europe, where the economy cannot easily shed workers in a recession, such a sudden post-recession productivity boom never happens. In the US, it always does. For example, at the start of the Great Depression a substantial part of the US automobile industry was still based on skilled craftsmanship. These smaller, less productive craft-production plants were the ones that shut down permanently, while plants that had adopted labour-saving mass production had the competitive advantage that enabled them to survive. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Another simple example is the ‘typing pool’ which was a ubiquitous feature of the office environment until the late 1990s. Following the 2000 downturn, these typing jobs became extinct, to be replaced by the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word. Productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. After the 2000 downturn, productivity surged by 9 percent in the US, but rose by just 2 percent in France. After the 2008 recession, productivity increased by 5 percent in the US, but did not increase at all in France. And after this year’s recession, productivity is already up by 4 percent in the US, while it is down by 1 percent in France1 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2After Recessions, Productivity Surges In The US But Not In Europe If history is any guide, productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. One conclusion is that equity investors should tilt towards viable small companies and businesses with operations in the US rather than in Europe. A Surge In Productivity Means Lower Inflation Yet the flip side of the post-recession productivity boom is rising unemployment. After the 2000 downturn, the number of permanently unemployed US workers continued to rise until September 2003, two years after the trough in economic activity. After the 2008 recession, permanent unemployment continued to rise until February 2010, almost a year after the economy had bottomed (Chart I-3). Chart I-3US Permanent Unemployment Peaks Well After The Economy Bottoms Therefore, optimistically assuming the pandemic trough in the economy occurred in the second quarter of 2020, the rise in the number of permanently unemployed US workers is likely to continue through the winter. In fact, it could last much longer because, compared to the global financial crisis, the pandemic is wreaking much more structural havoc on the way that we live, work, and interact. This means that compared to a common-or-garden recession, many more jobs are now economically unviable. Worse, if a resurgent pandemic causes a double-dip recession, then the peak in structural unemployment will be pushed back even further. Higher structural unemployment depresses rent inflation. Higher structural unemployment hurts the security and growth of wages. Therefore, as we pointed out in last week’s Special Report, The Real Risk Is Real Estate, one major consequence is that it depresses housing rent inflation (Chart I-4). It also depresses owner equivalent rent (OER) inflation – the imputed costs that homeowners notionally pay ‘to consume’ their home – because OER inflation closely tracks actual rent inflation (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Higher US Permanent Unemployment Depresses Rent Inflation Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation This is important for European investors, because another big difference between the US and Europe is the treatment of owner-occupied housing costs in the consumer price index (CPI). The US includes OER in its inflation rate, whereas Europe does not. The result is that shelter – the sum of OER and actual rents – carries a 42 percent weighting in the US core CPI, compared with just a 13 percent weighting in the euro area core CPI. Hence, US core CPI inflation closely tracks rent inflation (Chart I-6). Meaning that US core CPI inflation reaches its cycle low only after the number of permanently unemployed workers reaches its peak. This holds true both in absolute terms, and in relative terms versus euro area core CPI inflation. After the 2000 downturn, both the absolute and relative inflation cycle lows were not reached until late 2003. After the 2008 recession, the inflation lows were not reached until late 2010 (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-6US Core CPI Inflation Tracks ##br##Rent Inflation Chart I-7Only After Permanent Unemployment Peaks Does US Core Inflation Bottom, Both In Absolute Terms... Chart I-8...And Relative To Euro Area Core CPI Inflation On this basis, this cycle’s low in US versus euro area core CPI inflation is unlikely to be reached until deep into 2021, even on the most optimistic assumptions. Some Investment Conclusions From an investment perspective, US versus euro area core CPI inflation is important because it drives relative bond yields. As the spread between relative inflation rates compresses, the spread between long-dated bond yields also compresses (Chart I-9). Chart I-9When US And Euro Area Core CPI Inflation Rates Converge, So Do US And Euro Area Bond Yields One conclusion is to remain overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Our preferred expression is to stay overweight a 50:50 portfolio of higher yielding US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus a 50:50 portfolio of near-zero yielding German Bunds and French OATs. In this strategic position, any price moves in the aftermath of the US election result are just short-term noise. A second conclusion is that the likely yield spread compression between US and European long-dated bond yields will structurally favour European currencies versus the dollar. Though an important caveat is that the dollar will retain its haven qualities during periods of market stress, because many haven assets and markets are denominated in the greenback.  Remain overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Therefore, investors who cannot tolerate volatility should own Europe’s haven currency, the Swiss franc versus the dollar. Investors who can tolerate volatility should own the more undervalued Swedish krona versus the dollar. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Australian construction sector versus the market. One way to implement this is to short an equally-weighted basket of James Hardie, Lendlease, and Boral versus the market. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5.7 percent. In other trades, short MSCI Finland versus MSCI Switzerland achieved its 7 percent profit target. But long 30-year T-bond versus French 30-year OAT reached its 3.2 percent stop-loss just before the T-bond’s strong post-election rally. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-10Australia: Construction Materials Vs. Market When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Productivity is defined here as real GDP per employed person, and productivity growth is quoted for the periods q1 2002 through q4 2003, q2 2008 through q4 2010, and q4 2019 through q3 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights COVID-19 In Europe: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. ECB: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. European Bond Strategy: Stay overweight core European government debt, particularly versus US Treasuries. Remain overweight Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well, which remain supported by both ECB asset purchases and perceptions of increases European fiscal integration. Stay cautious on euro area corporate debt, however, as the renewed recession risk comes at a time when yields and spreads offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. Feature Chart of the WeekA Bad Time For A Second Wave Today’s long anticipated US election will be the focus for investors in the coming days (and, potentially, weeks) as all votes are counted. We have discussed our views on the potential bond market impact of the election - bearish for US Treasuries with both Joe Biden and Donald Trump promising big fiscal stimulus in 2021 – in our previous two reports. We will provide an update of those views as soon as we get clarity on the election result. This week, we discuss a new concern for jittery markets - the explosion of new COVID-19 cases in Europe that has already led to governments imposing aggressive lockdown measures. The timing of the new viral surge could not be worse for the euro area economy, which had recovered smartly from the massive lockdown-related demand shock this past spring. Real GDP for the entire euro area exploded higher at a 12.7% rate in Q3/2020, a big rebound from the 11.8% drop in Q2. Yet the second wave of coronavirus is starting to weigh on the more domestically focused service sectors most vulnerable to lockdowns and declining consumer confidence (Chart of the Week). From the perspective of European fixed income strategy, the imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. This will support the performance of euro area government bond markets, both in absolute terms and especially versus US Treasuries where yields are drifting higher and should continue to do so after the US election. Another Deflationary Shock To Europe From The Virus The surge in COVID-19 cases has hit the euro area hard and fast. France has seen the most stunning increase, with a population-adjusted daily increase of 596 new cases per million, a nearly six-fold increase in just two months (Chart 2). Importantly, this second wave has so far been nowhere near as lethal as the first wave. The “case fatality ratio” – confirmed deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases – is down in the low single digits for the largest euro area countries (bottom panel). The imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. Even with this second wave being less deadly, governments are taking no chances. France and Germany announced national lockdowns last week for at least the month of November, and Italy and Spain have put new restrictions on activity as well. The new lockdowns are already denting consumer confidence across the euro area and this trend will continue as people choose to spend less time outside of their homes to avoid infection. If the case numbers do not begin to stabilize and the lockdown measures extend into December or beyond, governments will likely be forced to consider new fiscal stimulus measures. According to the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, the largest euro area economies are projected to have a negative “fiscal thrust” – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of potential GDP – in 2021 of at least -3% of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 22nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal Chart 3A Big European Fiscal Drag Coming Next Year In the case of Italy, the fiscal thrust is expected to be a whopping -6.6% of GDP. The main cause is reduced government spending as the massive temporary stimulus measures to fight the 2020 COVID-19 recessions roll off. Chart 4The ECB Has A Deflation Problem A fresh set of lockdowns will result in a need for more government support measures for unemployed workers, especially those in service-related industries like hospitality and tourism most exposed to lost business as consumers stay home. This poses a serious problem in countries like Spain and Italy that saw a rise in unemployment during the first lockdown but have seen no reversal since (Chart 4). More elevated unemployment rates suggest a lack of inflationary pressure, a point confirmed by recent inflation data. Overall headline HICP inflation fell to -0.3% in September, while core inflation is now a mere +0.4%. Headline HICP inflation rates are now below 0% in the largest euro area economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain), while core HICP inflation in Italy fell to -0.3% in September. The collapse in oil prices earlier in 2020 has been the main cause of the negative headline inflation prints in the euro area, but is not the only source of weak inflation. According to a decomposition of inflation presented in the Bank of Italy’s October 2020 Economic Bulletin, a falling contribution from services inflation was responsible for about one-third of the entire decline in euro area headline HICP inflation since January (Chart 5). This comes from the part of the euro area economy most exposed to COVID-19 restrictions, highlighting the deflationary risk of the second wave. Chart 5Euro Area Deflation Is Mostly, But Not Only, Driven By Oil Simply put, the second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Policymakers need to spring into action to help provide support for the euro area economy during this time, starting with the ECB. The second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Bottom Line: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. The ECB Will Deliver New Stimulus In December At last week’s policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde announced that the Governing Council would reassess its monetary policy stance at the December meeting, when a new set of economic projections would be presented that factored in the negative impact of the second COVID-19 wave. Lagarde was very candid about the expected outcome of that next meeting, when she stated that the ECB would “recalibrate its instruments” based on the new economic forecasts. Chart 6European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards In our view, the ECB’s next policy options can only realistically focus on three options: Cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory Increasing the size, or altering the composition of its bond-buying programs Altering the terms of its current Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs) We view a rate cut as a low probability outcome. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. According to the ECB’s latest Bank Lending Survey, euro area banks tightened credit conditions in Q3/2020 (Chart 6). Worsening perceptions of risk and a deteriorating economic outlook were cited as the main reasons for tightening lending standards. The tightening was most severe in Spain, but Italy also saw a big swing away from the easing standards seen in the Q2/2020 survey. Within the details of the Q3/2020 survey, the demand for loans from companies was expected to improve in Q4/2020. The demand for housing and consumer credit increased due to favorable borrowing conditions and a softening in negative contribution from consumer sentiment. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. The ECB’s bond buying programs – the Asset Purchase Program (APP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – were deemed to have a positive impact on bank liquidity and financing but a negative impact on profitability. Chart 7Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Therein lies the problem of the ECB’s negative interest rate policy and large-scale bond buying – it has lowered borrowing costs for euro area governments, consumers and businesses, but has crushed the profits of Europe’s banks. That can be seen when looking at the ongoing miserable performance of euro area bank stocks, which continue to plumb new lows. The relative performance of euro area banks versus the broad equity market benchmark index tracks the slope of government bond yield curves quite closely in the major euro area economies (Chart 7), highlighting the link between the level of euro area interest rates and bank profits. In Chart 8A, we show the Tier 1 capital ratio, as well as the non-performing loan (NPL) ratio for the five largest banks in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. The message from the chart is clear – European banks remain well capitalized, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios well in excess of regulatory minimums, and have a relatively low share of assets that are non-performing. This is especially true in Italy, where the NPL ratio has collapsed from a high of 20% to 7% over the past five years. In Chart 8B, we present the return on equity and return on asset ratios for the same banks presented in the previous chart. Most large euro area banks suffer from a very low return on assets, not materially above 0%, reflecting the non-existent interest rates banks earn on their government bond holdings as well as the low rates on their loan books. Chart 8AEuropean Banks: The Good News Chart 8BEuropean Banks: The Bad News So given the fragile state of euro area bank health, and with banks already tightening lending standards in anticipation of slower economic activity because of second wave lockdowns, we can rule out a policy interest rate cut as an option to ease policy in December. This leaves only two other easing options, both associated with an expansion of the ECB’s balance sheet – more asset purchases of sovereign bonds and encouraging bank lending through cheap funding via TLTROs (Chart 9). The impact of either policy in offsetting slowing growth is debatable. Government bond yields are already miniscule, if not outright negative, across the euro area and do not represent a hindrance to increased government spending. The ECB can tweak some of the terms of the existing TLTRO programs, like maturity or the price of funding, but that may not encourage new lending if both borrowers and lenders fear a double-dip recession because of the second wave. The pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. Nonetheless, the pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. While real interest rates are still negative, they are increasingly becoming less so as inflation expectations continue to drift lower. The 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap rate is now down to 1.1%, and was last trading near the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2% in 2013-14 (Chart 10). Unsurprisingly, the rising real rate backdrop has helped boost the value of the euro, especially versus the US dollar, which has suffered under the weight of falling real US interest rates this year. Chart 9The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet In the end, greater fiscal stimulus will be the only option available to get Europe through the second wave. All the ECB can do is provide a backdrop of loose monetary policy that supports easy financial conditions, so that any stimulus will have the maximum effect on growth. Chart 10Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Bottom Line: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. Stay Overweight European Government Bonds, But Stay Cautious On Euro Area Credit With the ECB set to deliver some form of easing in December, core European bond yields are likely to remain stable over at least the next six months. The ECB has shown no reservations about expanding its balance sheet via bond purchases when needed. A surge of buying similar in size to that of the first COVID-19 wave is not out of the question if Europe faces a double-dip second wave recession (Chart 11). Chart 11Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Chart 12Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit In an environment where we see US Treasury yields having more upside on the back of post-election fiscal stimulus, this makes the likes of German bunds and French OATs good “defensive” lower-beta plays to replace high-beta US Treasury exposure in global USD-hedged bond portfolios. We also like core Europe as a pure spread trade versus Treasuries, as we see scope for the UST-Bund spread to widen further – a tactical trade we initiated last week (see our Tactical Overlay table on page 15). We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying.  We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying (Chart 12). The ECB has already been purchasing a greater share of Italy in the PEPP, allowing significant deviations from the Capital Key weights that limit purchases in the older APP. ECB President Lagarde noted last week that those deviations will continue over the life of the PEPP, which should help support further declines in Italian bond yields over at least the next six months. We are maintaining a relatively cautious stance on European credit, however, even with the ECB likely to make a move in December. The renewed recession risk from the second wave comes at a time when low yields and spreads for euro area corporate bonds offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. We continue to prefer owning US corporate credit, both investment grade and high-yield, versus US equivalents in USD-hedged bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out…   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Both public opinion polls and betting markets suggest that Joe Biden will become President, with the Democrats gaining control of the Senate and retaining the House of Representatives. Such a “blue wave” would have mixed effects on the value of the S&P 500. On the one hand, corporate taxes would rise under a Biden administration. On the other hand, trade relations with China would improve. The Democrats would also push for more fiscal stimulus, which the stock market would welcome. The odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. In a blue wave scenario, the Democrats will enact $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion in pandemic relief shortly after Inauguration Day. Joe Biden‘s platform also calls for around 3% of GDP in additional spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Unlike in late 2016, the Fed is in no mood to raise interest rates. Large-scale fiscal easing will push down the value of the US dollar, while giving bond yields a modest boost. Non-US stocks will outperform their US peers. Value stocks will outperform growth stocks. Looking further out, Republicans will move to the left on economic issues, leaving corporate America with no clear backer among the two major parties. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade. Look, Here's The Deal: Joe Biden Is In The Lead With four weeks remaining until the US presidential election, Joe Biden remains on course to become the 46th president of the United States. According to recent public opinion polls, the former vice president leads Donald Trump by 10 percentage points nationwide, and by 4 points in battleground states (Chart 1). Far fewer voters are undecided today compared to 2016. This suggests that there is less scope for President Trump to narrow his deficit in the polls. Betting markets give Biden a 68% chance of prevailing in the race for the White House (Chart 2). They also assign a 67% probability that the Democrats will take control of the Senate and 89% odds that they will retain their majority in the House of Representatives. Chart 1Opinion Polls Favor Biden ... Chart 2.... As Do Betting Markets   Mixed Impact On The S&P 500 What would the market implications of a “blue wave” be? Our sense is that the overall impact on the value of the S&P 500 would be small, largely because some negative repercussions from a Democratic sweep would be offset by positive repercussions. On the negative side, Biden has pledged to raise the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He has also promised to introduce a minimum of 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and lift payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. Together, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. On the positive side, while geopolitical tensions will persist, US trade relations with China would likely improve if Joe Biden were to become the president. Biden has roundly criticized Trump’s tariffs, saying that they are “crushing farmers” and “hitting a lot of American manufacturing… choking it to within an inch of its life.”1 He has pledged to honor multilateral agreements. The World Trade Organization concluded on September 15 that Trump’s tariffs violated international trade rules. This judgement and the desire to turn the page on the Trump era could give Biden the impetus to eventually roll back some of the tariffs. In contrast, having been stricken by what he has called the “China virus,” Trump could take things personally and retaliate with a flurry of new punitive measures.  Fiscal policy would be further loosened in a blue wave scenario, an outcome that the stock market would welcome. Voters would also applaud more pandemic relief. Table 1 shows that 72% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, support the broader contours of the $2 trillion stimulus package that President Trump has rejected. Table 1Voters Support A New $2 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Package By A Fairly Wide Margin At this point, the odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. If Biden wins and the Republicans lose control of the senate, the Democrats would likely enact a stimulus package worth $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion shortly after Inauguration Day on January 20. In addition to pandemic-related stimulus, Joe Biden has called for around 3% of GDP in spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Only about half of those expenditures would be matched by higher taxes, implying substantial net stimulus for the economy. A Weaker Dollar And Modestly Higher Bond Yields The greenback jumped on Tuesday after President Trump said he is breaking off negotiations with the Democrats over a new stimulus bill. This suggests that the dollar will weaken if fiscal policy is loosened. If that were to happen, it would be different from what transpired following Trump’s victory in 2016 when the dollar strengthened. Why the disconnect between now and then? The answer has to do with the outlook for monetary policy. Back then, the Fed was primed to start raising rates again – it hiked rates eight times beginning in December 2016, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to 2.5% by end-2018 (Chart 3). This time around, the Fed is firmly on hold, with the vast majority of FOMC members expecting policy rates to stay at rock-bottom levels until at least 2023. This suggests that nominal bond yields will rise less than they did in late 2016. Since inflation expectations will likely move up in response to more stimulative fiscal policy, real yields will rise even less than nominal yields. Over the past 18 months, US real rates have fallen a lot more in relation to rates abroad than what one would have expected based on the fairly modest depreciation in the US dollar (Chart 4). If US real rates remain entrenched deep in negative territory, while the US current account deficit widens further on the back of strong domestic demand, the dollar will continue to weaken. Chart 3Trump Victory Was Followed By Rising Interest Rates Chart 4A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials   Favor Non-US And Value Stocks Non-US stocks typically outperform their US peers when the dollar is weakening (Chart 5). This partly stems from the fact that cyclical stocks are overrepresented in stock markets outside of the United States. It also reflects the fact that cash flows denominated in say, euros or yen, are worth more in dollars if the value of the dollar declines. Chart 5A Weaker Dollar Tends To Benefit Cyclical And Non-US Stocks Financial stocks are overrepresented outside the US (Table 2). They are also overrepresented in value indices (Table 3). While a Biden administration would subject the largest US banks to additional regulatory scrutiny, the impact on their bottom lines would likely be small. US banks have been living under the shadows of the Dodd-Frank Act for over a decade. Today, banks operate more as stable utilities than as cavalier casinos. Table 2Financials Are Overrepresented In Ex-US Indexes, While Tech Dominates The US Market Table 3Financials Are Overrepresented In Value, While Tech Dominates Growth Indexes Stronger stimulus-induced growth next year will allow many banks to release some of the hefty provisions against bad loans that they built up this year, while modestly steeper yields curves will boost net interest margins. Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices. Better trade relations would help US tech companies, as would a weaker dollar. That said, Joe Biden’s plan to increase taxes on overseas profits would hit tech companies disproportionately hard since the tech sector derives over half its revenue from outside the United States. Stepped up antitrust enforcement and more stringent privacy rules could also weigh on tech profits. On balance, while there are many moving parts, a Democratic sweep would favor non-US equities over US equities, and value stocks over growth stocks. Trumpism Transcends Trump Chart 6Trump Targeted Socially Conservative Voters In 2016, we bucked the consensus view that Hillary Clinton would win the election. On September 30, 2016, we predicted that “Trump will win and the dollar will rally,” noting that “Trump has seen a huge (yuge?) increase in support among working-class whites. If the so-called “likely voters” backing Clinton are, in fact, less likely to turn out at the polls than those backing Trump, this could skew the final outcome in Trump's favor.”2 Right-wing populism was the $1 trillion bill lying on the sidewalk that no mainstream Republican politician seemed eager to pick up. According to the Voter Study Group, only 4% of the US electorate identified as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in 2016, compared to 29% who saw themselves as fiscally liberal and socially conservative (Chart 6). The latter group had no political home, at least until Donald Trump came along. Rather than waxing poetically about small government conservatism – as most establishment Republicans were wont to do – Trump railed against mass immigration, unfair trade deals, rising crime, never-ending wars, and what he described as out-of-control political correctness. While Trump was able to carry out parts of his protectionist agenda, most of his other actions fell well short of what he had promised. His only major legislative achievement was a massive tax cut for corporations and wealthy individuals – something that the vast majority of his base never asked for. The Rich Are Flocking To The Democratic Party How did corporations and wealthy Americans reward Trump for lowering their taxes? By shifting their allegiances towards the Democrats, that’s how. According to the Pew Research Center, households earning more than $150,000 favored Democrats by 20 percentage points during the 2018 Congressional elections, a 13-point jump from 2016. Households earning between $30,000 and $149,999 favored Democrats by only 6 points in 2018. The only other income group that strongly favored Democrats were those earning less than $30,000 per year (Table 4). Table 4Democratic Candidates Had Wide Advantages Among The Highest-And-Lowest Income Voters Chart 7Democratic Districts Have Fared Better Over The Past Decade Other data tell a similar story. Median household income in Democratic congressional districts rose by 13% between 2008 and 2017. It fell by 4% in Republican districts. Today, on average, Republican districts have a median income that is 13% below Democratic districts (Chart 7). Campaign donations have shifted towards the Democrats. The latest monthly fundraising data shows that the Biden campaign received three times more large-dollar contributions in total than the Trump campaign. The nation’s CEOs have not been immune from this transformation. Seventy-seven percent of the business leaders surveyed by the Yale School of Management on September 23 said they would be voting for Joe Biden.3   As elites desert the Republican Party, will the Democratic Party start championing lower taxes and less regulation? That seems unlikely. According to the Voter Study Group, higher-income Democrats are actually more likely to support raising taxes on families earning more than $200,000 per year than lower-income Democrats (83% versus 79%). Among Republicans, the opposite is true: 45% of lower-income Republicans are in favor of raising taxes, compared to only 23% of higher-income Republicans.4  There used to be a time when companies tried to steer clear of the political limelight. This is starting to change. As the relative purchasing power of Democratic voters has risen, many companies have become emboldened to adopt overtly political stances on a variety of hot-button social and cultural issues, even if those stances alienate many conservative customers.  What does this imply for investors? If big business abandons conservative voters, conservative voters will abandon big business. Corporate America will be left with no clear backer among the two major parties. Over the long haul, this is likely to be bad news for equity investors. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  “Biden Takes On ‘Trump’s Tariffs’,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2019. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Three (New) Controversial Calls,” dated September 30, 2016. 3 “CEO Caucus Survey: Business Leaders Fault Trump Administration on COVID and China,” Yale School of Management, September 24, 2020. 4 Lee Drutman, Vanessa Williamson, Felicia Wong, “On the Money: How Americans’ Economic Views Define — and Defy — Party Lines,” votersstudygroup.org, June 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores