Sectors

Earnings season is in full swing, and rock bottom expectations for most sectors will prove once again a low bar to surpass. Earnings ultimately matter for stock returns. As a reminder the SPX drubbing in March predicted a collapse in 2020 EPS below $110, and the subsequent 1000 point S&P 500 rebound since the lows signals a return to EPS trend near $162 in 2021. The top panel of the chart shows that this is more or less what the Street expects. Our updated four-factor macro model corroborates this V-shaped rebound in profit growth and should continue to underpin stocks on a cyclical time horizon (bottom panel). In the near-term however, we would be cautious and not chase stocks higher. The steeper the short-term rise in the SPX, the steeper the eventual snapback will be. The risks we are monitoring are the high concentration of returns in a handful of tech titans, the Fed’s balance sheet leveling off, a potential fiscal cliff, and a “blue wave” risk that is not at all priced into equities as we recently posited. Bottom Line: While our cyclically sanguine broad equity market view remains intact, we are cautious in the short-term prospects of the S&P 500, until the election uncertainty lifts in November.    

Two Friday’s ago we highlighted that the tech sector’s (plus FANG: FB, AMZN, NFLX & GOOGL) market cap weight in the SPX was high and rising to uncharted territory near 40%, and such narrowing breadth was a clear risk to the market rally. Today we compare the five tech titans’ market cap weight in the SPX with five GICS1 cyclical sectors (industrials, energy, materials, financials and real estate). The results are staggering: five tech stocks are worth as much as 224 deep and early cyclical stocks in the S&P 500 (top panel). Such high concentration is worrisome and represents a near-term risk to the equity market recovery run. While the drubbing in the 10-year US treasury yield is propelling the tech titans’ forward multiple to the stratosphere (bottom panel), we fear that gravity will sooner-rather-than-later push these stocks back down to earth. NFLX recent earnings fired a warning shot that uncharacteristically high expectations are being built into tech stocks, making them vulnerable to sizable pullbacks. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the short-term prospects of the S&P 500, until the election uncertainty lifts in November.   ​​​​​​​

Highlights The ultimate extent of credit losses in this cycle is unknown, … : Conventional models are ill-equipped to project the damage that the pandemic will inflict on the economy when monetary and fiscal policymakers are doing all they can to mitigate it. … but household borrowers have held up quite well so far and business borrowers have benefitted from a flood of liquidity: Generous transfer payments have kept household delinquencies in check, the capital markets have allowed bigger companies to pre-fund themselves, and a combination of forbearance and PPP loans has given smaller companies a lifeline. Cash hoards have protected households and businesses, but it is not yet clear when they’ll feel secure enough to spend them: Consumer spending had been on an upward trajectory before rising infection rates forced states to pause or reverse re-opening plans. We remain bullish on the SIFI banks, despite the uncertainty surrounding their outlook: The earnings power of the SIFIs’ franchises has allowed them to build up considerable loan-loss reserves without depleting their capital (ex-Wells Fargo). Stable book values make them too cheap to pass up in an otherwise pricey equity market. Clear As Mud The five largest banks reported their second quarter earnings last week. From the perspective of investing in the banks, the news wasn’t too bad. Excepting beleaguered Wells Fargo (WFC), the SIFI banks and U.S. Bancorp (USB) were able to maintain their per-share book values despite loan-loss reserve increases that exceeded the first quarter’s sizable builds. The results supported our investment thesis: as long as monetary and fiscal policy makers are able to limit the credit fallout from the pandemic, the earnings power of the SIFIs’ franchises can fully offset COVID-19 credit costs, preserving their book values and making their stocks compellingly cheap versus the broad market. Our current investment view aside, we monitor the banks’ calls for insight into the future direction of the economy. The largest banks are always well positioned to observe budding trends in consumption, borrowing and credit performance. They currently also offer a window into the success of policy measures intended to prevent the pandemic from catalyzing a negatively self-reinforcing default spiral. The economic picture the banks painted this quarter was murky, befitting the uncertainty surrounding the virus. They saw activity pick up as social distancing restrictions began to be eased in much of the country in May and June, but the virus’ resurgence (Chart 1) had them stressing that the immediate future is especially uncertain. The tone on this round of calls tended to be cautious, though the CEOs and CFOs acknowledged the potential for positive surprises and allowed that they may well be done building up loan-loss reserves. Chart 1US Daily New Infections The banks’ big-picture observations tended to reinforce each other. One view that they unanimously expressed in their first quarter calls was borne out in the second quarter: the March-April drawdown of corporate credit lines was indeed precautionary, as the draws were largely repaid at every bank once the corporate bond market was able to accommodate new issuance. Debit and credit card spending troughed at all the banks around mid-April and then rose steadily across May and June. Bank of America reported that its customers’ spending had increased on a year-over-year basis over the first two weeks of July. All the banks have been encouraged by the performance of consumer borrowers who have requested deferments or other forbearance measures. It is way too early for conclusions, but lenders have been pleasantly surprised by the sizable share of forbearance borrowers who have managed to keep making payments and the modest share who have requested additional deferments. Perhaps the consumer deferments are analogous to businesses’ drawdowns of credit lines in March and April – an emergency precaution unwound once other help, like aid from the CARES Act, arrived. All the banks set aside more money for future loan losses in the second quarter than they did in the first, and their aggregate reserve build rose by 50% quarter-on-quarter (Table 1). Vigorous reserving hurt this quarter’s earnings, but it will help gird the banks for a more protracted downturn than they foresaw on March 31st. Table 1Stacking Up The Loan Loss Reserve Sandbags The news was very good from an operational standpoint, though it may herald future softness for airlines, hotels and the owners of office and retail space. No bank reported any hiccups in transitioning to servicing their clients and customers remotely. Capital markets activity surged, even as trading floors were empty and million-mile-club investment bankers hunkered down at home. Pandemic shutdowns may point the way to a reduced-overhead future, as banks shrink their branch footprints, lease less office space, trim headcount and pare travel and entertainment budgets. 2Q20 Big Bank Beige Book Household Borrowing (Chart 2) And Spending (Chart 3) Chart 2Consumers Are Paying Down Their Debt Chart 3Whiplash Debit and credit sales volumes … consistently trended upward since the trough in the second week of April to down just 4% year-on-year in the last two weeks of June. T[ravel]&E[ntertainment] and restaurant spend continue to be down meaningfully. The most significant improvement … was in retail, with a strong recovery in credit card volume in the second half of the quarter and consistently strong growth in card-not-present1 volume throughout the quarter. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) [In April, our consumers’] spending was down 26% compared to April of 2019. However, for … June, that spending was relatively flat to 2019. [T]hrough the first couple weeks of July, we’re seeing … spending … above what it was last year. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) All big banks saw similar performance trends from participants in their consumer loan forbearance programs. It's too early to make conclusions, but the preliminary data are encouraging. April saw the lowest level of [auto] loan and lease originations since the financial crisis, but activity rebounded sharply in May and June, and … June [was] the best month for auto originations in our history. (Piepszak, JPM) [R]etail [mortgage] purchase applications … recover[ed] to well above pre-COVID levels in June due to a strong and broad market recovery. (Piepszak, JPM) [A]uto lending … [is] going to be a bright spot [in] the third quarter, but overall consumer lending is likely to be down simply because consumer spending has been down. (Dolan, USB CFO) Consumer credit card spend improved steadily starting in mid-April, but was still down approximately 10% from a year ago as of the end of June. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) Lower interest rates drove strong industry [mortgage] volume, with [the] second quarter estimated to [have] the largest origination … since the third quarter of 2003. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Consumer Forbearance Relative to peak levels … at the beginning of April, we’ve seen a significant decline in new [assistance] requests. … [A majority of borrowers requesting assistance] hav[e] made at least one payment while in the forbearance period. … [L]ess than 20% of [credit card] accounts [have] request[ed] additional assistance [after reaching the end of the initial 90-day deferral period]. (Piepszak, JPM) [F]irst-time enrollment volumes have come down significantly. … [R]e-enrollment … rates are running below expectation, … right around … the mid-teens. … [W]e’re seeing good signs of those rolling off [of forbearance] continuing to remain current. (Mason, C CFO) In the last few weeks, [loan deferral requests] have been … 98% below [the] peak [in the first week of April]. … More than 60% of the … card deferrals have made at least one payment[;] [o]ne-third have made every payment every month. (Donofrio, BAC CFO) 70% of customers [with credit card deferrals] have started to make normal payments after [the deferral periods end], … [and] about 20% [have] re-enroll[ed]. … So, so far, so good on the [card deferral] performance. (Runkel, USB Chief Credit Officer) Business (And Bank) Caution [Last quarter’s debt and equity issuance] is pre-funding. This is not capital. All this [cash] is not being raised to go spend. It’s being raised to sit [on] the balance sheet, so that you’re prepared for whatever comes next. And you’ve heard a lot of companies make statements [like] … we’ve got two years of cash, we’ve got three years of cash. [P]eople want to be prepared [for anything]. (Dimon, JPM CEO) [T]he commercial spend has been pretty cautious. It was down [around] … 30-35% in … April … , and it’s still down around somewhere between 25 and 30%. (Cecere, USB CEO) Commercial card spend remained significantly lower throughout the second quarter and was still down over 30% in the last full week of June compared to the same week a year ago, with declines across industry segments. (Scharf, WFC CEO) We’ve added $284 billion in deposits since year-end, [and] all of that has gone into cash, earning 10 basis points. [A]s we assess the future of this pandemic, as we … assess how much of [those deposits] is going to stick around, and we get a little bit more confident … , a portion of that … could be deployed into securities. (Moynihan, BAC) It’s Uncertain Out There [T]he extraordinary actions of the Fed and the Treasury leave … industry models kind of wanting for more insight, [because] we’ve never seen this type of action whether it’s the checks people receive, whether it’s … $500-plus billion [of the PPP], whether it’s the income tax payment holiday. (Corbat, C CEO) We cannot forecast the future. We don’t know. I think you’re going to have a much murkier economic environment going forward than you had in May in June, … which is why … the base case, an adverse case, an extreme adverse case … are all possible. And we’re just guessing the probabilities of those things. That’s what we’re doing. (Dimon, JPM) All the big banks reported that their business clients were proceeding cautiously; the banks themselves are, too, leaving their deposit windfalls in cash until they have a better sense of what's to come. [W]e go in feeling very well positioned against this. But we don’t want people leaving the call simply thinking that the world is a great place and it is a V-shaped recovery. … I don’t think anybody should leave any bank earnings call this quarter simply feeling like the worst is absolutely behind us and it’s a rosy path ahead. (Corbat, C) Buy The SIFIs As every SIFI management team stressed on last week’s calls, the environment is extremely uncertain. We are in unchartered waters and regression models can do no more than guess at how monetary accommodation, fiscal aid and lender forbearance will interact with COVID-19 transmission patterns, improved treatments and vaccine development efforts to influence credit performance. Investing in the SIFIs is by no means a slam dunk. The equity market is clearly skeptical about their prospects and our BCA colleagues are in no hurry to join us on the SIFI bandwagon. The group’s unpopularity, however, is precisely why it offers outsized prospective returns. As the longtime investment counselor for one of New York’s wealthiest families put it, “you can have cheap stocks or you can have good news, but you can’t have both.” The news is fraught right now, but we think a critical story line will take a turn for the better once Washington comes through with another major phase of fiscal aid. Given the hole left by consumption (Chart 4) and businesses’ suspended animation, government spending is the only way to keep the economy – and the administration’s faltering re-election prospects – afloat. Chart 4Plunging Consumption Has Left A Gaping Hole In The Economy We are well aware that investors are leery of the banks when low interest rates and a flat yield curve are depressing net interest income, but it’s far more of an issue for community banks that do nothing more than take deposits and make loans than it is for the SIFIs, which generate gobs of fee income and match the duration of their assets and liabilities to the first decimal place. Even the narrow relationship between bank net interest margins and the yield curve is greatly exaggerated (Chart 5), and relative equity returns have had no relationship with the yield curve since the crisis (Chart 6). Banks do not need a major rise in the 10-year yield to outperform; they just need to demonstrate that the earnings power of their franchises is enough to overcome the drag from projected credit losses. Chart 5Little Fundamental Relationship ... Chart 6... And No Market Relationship From our perspective, second quarter earnings provided just that demonstration, at least away from woebegone WFC, which has a raft of intrinsic issues to overcome. Despite two quarters of huge loan-loss reserve builds, the SIFI banks’ book values have emerged unscathed (Table 2). Pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) has been up to the task of absorbing massive write-downs so far this year (Table 3). If the base-case scenarios hold (unemployment doesn’t move materially higher and GDP has begun slowly recovering), the SIFI banks as a group have already accomplished the bulk of their reserve2 building and their per-share book values will grow at a healthy clip for as long as buybacks remain suspended. Table 2SIFI Book Values Table 3Taking The Reserve Builds In Stride Additional credit costs are a legitimate concern, but the banks can earn enough to keep from having to eat into their equity capital. The banks trade off of their book values, and book value gains should feed higher stock prices given that their multiples are already at bombed-out levels. It is unusual to have the chance to buy sound banks at or around their book value, and we expect that investors who buy them now and hold them for at least a year will be amply rewarded in relative performance terms. The SIFIs’ soundness will not be in doubt if Congress delivers a meaningful fourth phase of aid by early August. We believe Citi’s CEO had it right on its first-quarter call in mid-April, and we think his conclusion applies to all the SIFIs, even WFC: [T]his isn’t a financial crisis, it’s a public health crisis with severe economic ramifications. … [W]e entered [it] in a very strong position from [a] capital, liquidity and balance sheet perspective. We have the resources we need to serve our clients without jeopardizing our safety and soundness. … I feel confident in our ability to manage through whatever scenario comes to pass.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A transaction in which the purchaser does not present his/her card to the merchant, typically conducted over the phone or the internet. 2 We are confident that policy makers will be able to continue propping up consumer borrowers, but the business borrower outlook is considerably more uncertain. However, the banks’ earnings calls contained a detail that may suggest that their aggregate loans to businesses got stronger last quarter. Bank loans are typically senior to bonds, and to the extent that last quarter’s massive issuance was aimed at proactively addressing future funding needs, rather than plugging a leak, it made obligations senior to the new bonds better credits. Bank loans to large investment-grade borrowers may be worth a little more than they were at the end of the first quarter.

The drubbing in the US/EMU sovereign bond spread is cause for concern for the SPX’s slingshot recovery off the March 23 lows, especially given the tight positive correlation of these two series over the past three decades (top panel). Typically, higher relative yields attract capital to US shores and vice versa, and some of that capital inevitably leaks into US stocks. Moreover, theory would suggest that relative yields move with the ebb and flow of relative return on capital. Indeed, the bottom panel of the chart highlights such an empirical relationship. Currently, euro area return on assets is narrowing the gap with the US which usually happens in recessions. The persistent unresponsiveness in the 10-year UST yield near the zero line which stands closer to the ECB’s NIRP, likely spells short-term trouble for the SPX. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the near-term prospects of the S&P 500 until the election uncertainty lifts in November.   

Table 1 Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy’s 55% odds for the "Blue Wave" scenario. Therefore, it pays to examine what will be the likely impact of a blue wave on the US stock market. Specifically, Biden is planning to increase the US corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and possibly even higher. In our most recent Special Report, we have conducted a similar exercise to the one we did in late-2017, when we calculated a one time boost to S&P 500 EPS due to Trump’s tax cut. This time, however, we reversed the calculation to compute by how much S&P 500 EPS are likely to fall should Biden raise the corporate tax rate. Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. For more information, please refer to our most recent Special Report discussing Biden and his policies’ likely effects on the US stock market.  

Following our recent downgrade in the S&P banks index, we were also compelled to downgrade the S&P investment banks & brokerage (IBB) index to a benchmark allocation as it has a similar investment profile. The COVID-19 accelerated recession has not only mothballed potential industry M&A deals that were in the works, but also a number of previously announced deals have been canceled (second panel), which will weigh on the sector’s profit prospects. While “Robinhood” (retail investor) trading stories abound, margin debt remains moribund and continues to contract, despite the V-shaped recovery in all major US stock markets since the March 23 lows (third panel), spelling trouble for commission-related revenues. As a result we deem the collapse in the relative price-to-book ratio to represent a value trap rather than a value opportunity (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We are neutral the S&P IBB index. Please refer to the following Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG: S5INBK – GS, MS, SCHW, ETFC, RJF. ​​​​​​​

Neutral We have recently downgraded the S&P banks index to neutral as yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. More specifically on credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently, and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 18mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. Bottom Line: We are neutral the S&P banks index.  For more details on the other two key bank profit drivers, please refer to the following Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT. ​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights Energy Bond Model: This report presents models for both investment grade and high-yield Energy bond excess returns. The models are based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price. They can be used to generate Energy bond excess return forecasts for investment horizons up to 12 months. IG Energy Bonds: Our model suggests that investment grade Energy bond excess returns will be strong during the next 12 months under likely economic scenarios. We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Energy bonds.  HY Energy Bonds: Our models imply positive excess return outcomes for high-yield Energy bonds, but we remain concerned about near-term default risk for lower-rated issuers. We advise a cautious (neutral) allocation for now. Part 2 of this Special Report, to be published next week, will dig further into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis. Feature Table 1Energy Bond Excess Return* Scenarios (12-Month Investment Horizon) During the past couple of months we’ve published several reports that take more detailed looks at specific industry groups within both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. So far, we’ve published reports on: Banks1 Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals2 Technology3 This week and next week, we continue our series with a deep dive into Energy bonds that is split between two Special Reports. This week’s report develops a model for Energy bond excess returns based on overall corporate bond index excess returns and the oil price. In next week’s report, we look more deeply into the characteristics of the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. We also consider the outlooks for the five sub-categories of Energy debt: Independent, Integrated, Oil Field Services, Refining and Midstream. A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns A good starting point for modeling the excess returns of any corporate bond sector is to combine the sector’s Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) ratio with the excess returns of the overall corporate bond index.4 Please note that “excess returns” refers to returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. The DTS-only model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Considering only a sector’s DTS ratio, we can define the following model for monthly investment grade Energy excess returns: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP Where: EXSENRG = Monthly investment grade Energy excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) = The investment grade Energy sector’s DTS ratio EXSCORP = Monthly investment grade corporate index excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries For example, the current DTS for the investment grade Energy sector is 18. The DTS for the overall corporate index is 12. This means that the DTS ratio for the Energy sector is 18/12 = 1.5. According to our simple model, we would expect Energy sector excess returns to be 1.5 times corporate index excess returns in any given month. It turns out that our simple model performs quite well. Chart 1 shows monthly investment grade Energy sector excess returns versus our model’s prediction. Our sample period spans from 1997 to the present. Specifically, we find that our model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Chart 1Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: DTS-Only Model** The simple (DTS-only) model’s performance is admirable, but we can do slightly better if we also incorporate the oil price. Chart 2 shows a statistically significant relationship between the residual from the DTS-only model and the monthly change in the Brent crude oil price. Chart 2Residual From DTS-Only Model* Versus Oil Price Combining the models shown in Charts 1 and 2, we get a model for investment grade Energy monthly excess returns based on both corporate index excess returns and the oil price: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP + (376.84 * ∆ ln Oil) – 1.0587 Where excess returns are measured in basis points and (∆ ln Oil) = the monthly change in the natural logarithm of the Brent crude oil price. Chart 3 shows the historical performance of this complete model. Note that the model now explains 91% of the historical variance of investment grade Energy excess returns, 5% more than the initial DTS-only model. Chart 3Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: Complete Model (DTS & Oil)** Robustness Checks We performed the same analysis for 3-month, 6-month and 12-month excess returns and found very consistent results (Table 2). The oil price adds significant explanatory power to the model in each case, but the bulk of variation in investment grade Energy excess returns is determined by trends in the overall corporate index spread. Table 2Investment Grade Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) We also find consistent results when looking at high-yield Energy returns (Table 3). Once again, the bulk of excess return variation is explained by multiplying the DTS ratio and the benchmark index’s excess returns. The oil price also adds a statistically significant amount of extra explanatory power. Table 3High-Yield Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) One final observation is that oil explains a greater proportion of the variation in Energy sector excess returns if we limit our sample period to the past few years. Specifically, we re-ran the monthly iterations of both the investment grade and high-yield models from July 2014 to present. We found that the DTS component of the model explains the same amount of excess return variation as it did for the full sample. However, we also found that the oil price has a much greater impact if the sample is limited to the past six years (Table 4). Table 41-Month Excess Return* Models: Full Sample (1997 - Present) Versus Recent Sample (2014 - Present) Energy Excess Return Scenarios Finally, using our 12-month excess return models for investment grade and high-yield Energy, we can project likely outcomes for Energy excess returns versus Treasuries for the next 12 months. All we have to do is assume different outcomes for the overall benchmark index spread (either the investment grade or High-Yield index, depending on the model) and the oil price.5 The results of this scenario analysis are shown in Table 1. Starting with investment grade Energy, we see that all scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. This is true even in a scenario where the oil price falls by $20 during the next year. Our model also suggests that a $10-$20 increase in the oil price during the next 12 months will keep Energy excess returns positive, even in a modest “risk off” scenario where the corporate index spread widens by 25 bps. All scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. The story is similar in high-yield, though returns are much more variable. For example, high-yield Energy is projected to lose money relative to Treasuries in a scenario where the junk index spread tightens 50 bps and the oil price falls by $20. There are no scenarios where benchmark index spread tightening coincides with negative Energy excess returns in the investment grade model. Chart 4Watch For Falling Inventories In terms of likely scenarios for the next 12 months, we anticipate further spread tightening for corporate bonds rated Ba & above. But we also view B-rated and lower spreads as too tight given the default outlook for the next 12 months and the fact that these lower-rated issuers usually can’t access the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.6 With that in mind, we would confidently bet on investment grade index spread tightening during the next 12 months, but can envision high-yield spread widening driven by the lower credit tiers. On oil, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts an average Brent crude oil price of $65 in 2021, a sizeable increase relative to the current price of $43.27.7 Our strategists expect a significant supply contraction in the second quarter of this year that will cause the oil market to enter a physical deficit in the second half of 2020. Investors can look for falling storage levels in the coming months to confirm whether that forecast is playing out (Chart 4). Escalating tensions between the US and Iran pose an additional near-term upside risk to oil prices. This risk increased during the past few weeks as a string of mysterious explosions struck several Iranian military and economic facilities.8 However, with major oil producers now operating significantly below capacity, any net impact on oil prices from a supply disruption in the Persian Gulf would likely be short-lived. Investment Conclusions All in all, our bullish outlook for both investment grade corporate bond spreads and the oil price makes us inclined to overweight investment grade Energy bonds on a 12-month horizon. Within high-yield, our model also suggests that we should have a bullish bias toward Energy, but we remain concerned about default risk for lower-rated (B & below) Energy issuers during the next few months. We will dig into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis in Part 2 of this report, to be published next week. For now, we advise a more cautious stance toward high-yield Energy.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 5 We translate changes in benchmark index spread into 12-month excess returns using the formula: excess return = option-adjusted spread – (duration * change in option-adjusted spread) 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Vol, High Uncertainty Keeps Oil-Price Rally On Tenterhooks”, dated June 18, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East”, dated July 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Dear Client, Next Monday, July 20, we will be hosting our quarterly webcast, one at 10am EST for our US and EMEA clients and one at 9pm for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our regular weekly publication will resume on Monday July 27, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. A Biden presidency would lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. Democrats would remove the Senate filibuster. Yet the macro agenda is reflationary. A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps. While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Feature Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our “Blue Wave” scenario for the US election this year. The odds are closer to 50%-55% than 35%. Hence the equity market, especially the NASDAQ, is complacent about rising political risks to US equity sectors (Chart 1). The immediate risk to the rally is not politics but the pandemic, namely the COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, which is causing governors of major states like Texas, California, and Florida to slow down the economic reopening. The US’s failure to limit the spread of the virus has not yet led to a spike in deaths in aggregate, but it is leading to a spike in major states like Texas and Florida (Chart 2). Deaths are ultimately what matter to politicians and financial markets, since governments will not shut down all of society for less-than-lethal ailments. Fear will weigh on consumer and business confidence, including fear of a deadly second wave this winter. Near-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. Chart 1Blue Wave Expected, Equities Unconcerned Chart 2COVID-19 Outbreak Still A Risk Beyond this risk, the driver of the cyclical rally is the gargantuan monetary and fiscal stimulus – and more is on the way. President Trump wants another $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, while House Democrats already passed a $3 trillion package to demonstrate their election platform that government should take a greater role in American life. Senate Republicans (and reportedly Vice President Mike Pence) want a smaller $1 trillion bill but will capitulate in the face of a growing outbreak and any financial turmoil. Congress is highly likely to pass a new relief bill before going on recess on August 10. If COVID-19 causes another swoon in financial markets and the economy, then this congressional timeline will accelerate. America’s total fiscal stimulus for 2020 is rapidly approaching 20% of GDP, or 7% of global GDP (Chart 3). Thus it is understandable that the market has not reacted negatively to an impending blue wave election. Bipartisan reflation is overwhelming the Democratic Party’s market-negative agenda of re-regulation, tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, energy curbs, price caps, and anti-trust probes. Moreover the Democrats’ agenda also includes social and infrastructure spending, cheap immigrant labor, and less hawkish trade policy ex-China, which are all reflationary. Chart 3US Stimulus Greater Than Global – And Rising In short, over the next year, the US is not lurching from massive stimulus to a mid-term election that imposes budget controls and “austerity,” as occurred in 2010, but rather from massive stimulus to a likely Democratic sweep that will be fiscally profligate (Charts 4A & 4B). After all, Democrats are openly flirting with modern monetary theory. Chart 4ADeficits Would Soar Under Democrats Chart 4BDemocrats Would Be Ultra-Dovish On Fiscal Debt monetization is the big change, regardless of the election, which makes investors cyclically bullish. China is also bound to provide massive fiscal-and-credit stimulus because its first recession since the 1970s is threatening the Communist Party’s source of legitimacy (Chart 5). The European Union is uniting under a banner of joint debt issuance to fend off deflation. Bottom Line: Near-term risks to the exuberant post-lockdown rally abound, but the cyclical view remains constructive due to the ultimate policymaker stimulus put. Chart 5China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps Pre-Election Volatility And Post-Election Equity Returns Volatility normally rises ahead of US elections and it could linger in the aftermath given extreme polarization and the risk of vote recounts, contested results, Supreme Court interventions, and refusals by either candidate to concede. This is a concern in the short run but not the long run. US equities will grind higher over the long run regardless of the election outcome. Stocks normally rise by 10% in the 12 months after a presidential election that yields single-party control, though the upside is smaller and the initial downside is bigger than is the case with a gridlocked government (Chart 6, top panel). In cases of gridlock – which is virtually assured if Trump wins – the equity pullback after the election is just as deep but tends to be later in coming. On average stocks rise by the same amount after 12 months in either case (Chart 6, bottom panel). Thus political risks are primarily relevant in their regional or sectoral effects, though investors should take note that a Democratic sweep probably limits next year’s upside. Chart 6Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep There are two likely scenarios. The first is the risk that President Trump makes a historic comeback and wins re-election, with Republicans retaining the Senate. Subjectively we put Trump’s odds at 35% though our quantitative model suggests they could be as high as 44%. The second scenario is our base case that the Democratic Party wins the Senate as well as the White House. In this scenario, the Democrats will prove more left-wing and anti-corporate than the market currently expects. Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. However, history shows that a clean sweep limits the market’s upside risk. And full Democratic rule entails major political risks that have a regional and sectoral character. Biden And The Blue Wave Our expectation of a blue sweep is not based only in polling – which is uniformly disastrous for Trump as we go to press – but in the surge in unemployment. The basis for investors to view Biden as a risk-on candidate is driven by the macro and market views outlined above, not political fundamentals. From the political point of view, Biden may prefer to govern as a centrist, but victory in the Senate would remove constraints on his party’s domestic agenda. He would move to the left. Indeed, a Democratic sweep would mark a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy that is negative for corporate profits and the capital share of national income. It would unleash pent-up ideological and generational forces in favor of redistributing wealth and restructuring the economy. Progressivism would have the tendency to overshoot and create negative surprises for investors (Chart 7). Unlike 2008-10, when Republicans were last out of power, Republicans this time would be divided over Trump and populism and would be unlikely to recuperate as quickly. Chart 7Democratic Party Would Focus On Inequality Biden would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration, promoting Big Government while restricting Big Business and re-regulating Wall Street banks. A sharp leftward turn would be in keeping with the trend in the Democratic Party and the generational shift in the electorate (Chart 8). Only if Republicans pull off a surprise and keep the Senate despite losing the White House (~10% chance) would Biden be forced to govern as a true centrist. Even then Biden would oversee a large re-regulation of the economy through executive powers alone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Generational Shift Favors Wealth Redistribution Chart 9Biden Would Re-Regulate The Economy Additional reasons to expect a left-wing policy overshoot:  · Presidents tend to succeed in passing their initial legislative priority after an election. This is incontrovertible when they control both chambers of Congress, as Obama showed in 2009 and Trump showed in 2017.2 · Biden will have huge tailwinds. He will not be launching a new agenda so much as restoring a policy status quo in most cases (laws and agreements that Trump either revoked or refused to enforce). He will also benefit from majority popular opinion and support of the bureaucracy and media (Chart 10). · Biden and the Democrats will be even more determined not to “let a good crisis go to waste” after having witnessed the Obama administration’s frustrations the last time the party took over in a sweeping victory on the back of a national disaster. · Democrats will not hesitate to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their first priority legislation with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. This is how Trump passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). This is also how progressive stalwart Howard Dean believed the party should have passed a public health insurance option in 2009. This means Biden will be capable of increasing the corporate tax rate higher than 28%, pass a minimum 15% tax rate for corporations, and raise the capital gains tax and individual taxes. Chart 10Popular Opinion Would Boost Biden Administration · Contrary to consensus, Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster in the Senate – enabling bills to pass with a simple majority rather than the 60/100 votes required to close off debate. Yes, some moderate Democrats have already spoken out against “going nuclear” and changing such a critical norm. But populism and polarization are the driving forces in US politics today and we would advise investors not to bet heavily on “norms.” If Republicans prove capable of obstructing major legislative initiatives in the Senate, then Democrats, remembering obstructionism in the Obama years, will go nuclear to enact their progressive agenda. This would mark a massive increase in uncertainty for investors on everything from taxes to wages to anti-trust laws. Bottom Line: Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. If Republicans are obstructionist, Democrats will remove the filibuster. Biden’s Legislative Priorities First, Biden would seek to restore and expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The party has fixated on health care since 1992. Investors are complacent about Biden’s plan. A public health insurance option will be a major new progressive initiative that would undercut private health insurers over time (Chart 11). The bill will also impose caps on pharmaceutical prices and allow imports, reducing Big Pharma’s pricing power (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Insurers Will Be Undercut By Biden Public Option Investors are also complacent about taxation. Biden will pay for health care reform by partially repealing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. He has proposed raising the corporate rate from 21% to 28%, but this could go higher and still fall well below the 35% that Trump inherited in 2017. Chart 12Big Pharma Faces Price Caps A rate above 28% would be a major negative surprise for financial markets and yet it is an obvious way for Democrats to raise much-needed revenue. Biden also intends to pass a 15% minimum tax that would hit large firms adept at paying lower effective taxes. Capital gains taxes and individual income taxes for high-earners could also rise by more than is expected (Table A1 in Appendix). Second, Biden will seek to offset the negative growth impact of falling stimulus and rising taxes by enacting large “Great Society” fiscal spending on infrastructure, the Green New Deal, education, and other non-defense discretionary spending (Table A2 in Appendix). Even defense spending will be largely kept flat due to rising geopolitical conflicts. As mentioned, this part of the agenda is reflationary, especially relative to a scenario in which fiscal largesse is normalized more rapidly by a Republican Senate. The redistribution effects would be marginally positive for household consumption, but marginally negative for corporate investment. On immigration, Biden will follow the Obama administration in pursuing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” (illegal immigrants brought to the US as children) and taking executive action to allow more high-skilled workers and refugees, defer deportation of children and families, and reduce border security enforcement. There will be some constraints due to the risk of provoking another populist backlash, but comprehensive immigration reform is possible. This would be positive for potential GDP, agriculture, construction, and housing demand on the margin (Chart 13). On trade, Biden will have to steal some thunder back from Trump if he is to win the election and maintain the Rust Belt. He will concentrate his protectionist policy on China, while removing virtually all risk of a trade war with Europe, Mexico, or other partners. China may get a reprieve at first but Biden will ultimately prove hawkish (Chart 14). Investors are underrating the use of import duties to punish countries like China for carbon-intensive production. Chart 13Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden will take a multilateral approach and restore international agreements that Trump revoked. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not a massive change given that even Trump agreed to trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and Japan. But it is marginally positive for the US-friendly trade bloc while contributing to the US economic decoupling from China (Chart 15). Chart 14Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Chart 15Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China On foreign policy, Biden will face the ongoing US-China cold war. He will also seek to restore the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The removal of Iran risk is positive for European companies with a beachhead in Iran as well as for the euro more generally, since regional instability ultimately threatens the EMU with waves of refugees (Chart 16). Chart 16Biden Removes Tail-Risk Of Iran War Bottom Line: A Biden presidency will lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. But Biden’s agenda is mostly reflationary in other respects. Blue Wave Equity Market And Sector Implications The most profound implication of a blue sweep of government is an SPX profit margin squeeze that will weigh heavily on EPS. Importantly, there are two clear avenues through which net profit margins will suffer: An increase in the corporate tax rate. A rise in labor’s share of national income. As a reminder these are two of the four primary profit margin drivers we discussed in detail in our “Peak Margins” Special Report last October (Chart 17). The other two are selling price inflation and generationally low interest rates. Odds are high that all four drivers are slated to dent S&P 500 margins. With regard to corporate tax rates, the mirror image of the one time fillip that SPX EPS enjoyed in 2018, owing to Trump’s 1.2% increase in fiscal thrust that year, is a drop in S&P 500 profits given that a Biden presidency will boost the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% or higher. In early-December 2017 we posited that SPX EPS would jump 14% on the back of that fiscal easing package, which is very close to what actually materialized. Chart 18 compares S&P 500 EBIT growth with S&P 500 net profit growth. The 2018 delta hit a zenith of 16%. Chart 17Profit Margin Drivers Chart 18Spot Trump's Tax Cut Assuming a blue wave, the opposite would happen, i.e. net profit growth would suffer an 11% one-time contraction according to our calculations (Table 1). The bill would pass in 2021 and take effect in 2022. Importantly, Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table The second way SPX margins undergo a squeeze is via climbing labor costs. Labor costs have been increasing since 2008/09 (labor’s share of income shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17), coinciding with the apex of globalization (third panel, Chart 17). A Biden presidency would also more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers over six years. These policies would take a bite out of corporate profits by knocking down profit margins. While S&P 500 EPS maybe recover back to trend near $162 in 2021, they would gap lower in 2022 which is not at all priced in sell side analysts’ EPS expectations of $186. A blue sweep would produce some other US equity sore spots. Small caps would suffer disproportionately compared with their large cap brethren as would banks, health care, and parts of tech (see below). Chart 19 shows that according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners grew extremely concerned about higher taxes and red tape by the end of the Obama presidency. When President Trump got elected, he cut back these fears drastically. Today concerns about taxes and regulation are probing multi-decade lows, which implies that SMEs are not prepared for the regulatory shock that a Biden administration has in store for them (Chart 19). These small business concerns will resurface with a vengeance if there is a blue sweep this November. The implication is that at the margin small caps would underperform their large cap peers, especially given that small cap indexes sport 1.5x the financials sector market cap weight compared with the SPX (Table 2). Bottom Line: A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps as they will have to vehemently contend with rising red tape and taxes. Chart 19Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Historical Parallel Of Blue Sweeps And Select Sector Performance A more detailed discussion on banks, health care, and technology sectors is in order, as they are the likeliest candidates to be at the forefront of Biden’s regulatory, wage, and tax policies. There are two recent episodes when US presidential elections resulted in a blue sweep, namely in 1992 and 2008. Both times, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House but eventually surrendered this trifecta two years later during the 1994 and 2010 mid-term elections.3 Charts 20 & 21highlight the S&P banks, S&P health care, and S&P IT sectors’ performance during the last two blue waves. In both cases, banks remained flat to down; health care equities went down sharply; while tech stocks had mixed results. Tech took off in 1993-1994, but remained flat in 2009-2010 (excluding the recovery rally off the recessionary trough). Armed with this general roadmap, we now dive deeper into each of these three sectors for a more detailed discussion. Chart 20Not Everyone Is A Fan... Chart 21...Of The Blue Sweeps Banks Face High Risk Of Re-Regulation There is little doubt that Biden will re-regulate Wall Street, especially after the recent COVID-19-related watering down of the Dodd-Frank Act. Big banks are popular scapegoats. In fact, Biden already moved to the left on bankruptcy reform by adopting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s progressive proposal after a long drawn-out battle over this issue between them. Both of the earlier blue wave elections proved challenging for the banking sector. In addition, banks are already under pressure from the recent Fed stress tests. There are high odds that a number of banks will further cut or suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance, especially if profits take a big hit, as we expect. Currently, the market is underestimating the Biden threat to the banking sector as a substantial divergence has materialized between the banks’ relative performance and the blue sweep probability series (Chart 22). As the election draws closer, a repricing in the banking sector is likely looming. Chart 22Mind The Divergence Health Care Stands To Lose The Most From A Blue Sweep The health care sector was the only sector we analyzed that clearly underperformed in both 1992 and 2008 blue waves. Health care reform will be Biden’s top priority, as outlined above. Biden will also go after pharma manufacturers. As a reminder, while Medicare has substantial bargaining power with hospitals and other drug providers due to the number of Americans enrolled, it has no leverage when it comes to pharma manufacturers leaving them free to set prices at will. Biden intends to end such practices, enabling Medicare to bargain for prices. He also wants to link the rise in drug prices to inflation and allow foreign imports. These actions will put a cap on pharma manufacturers’ pricing power. Importantly, the S&P pharmaceuticals index is the dominant player within the S&P health care universe comprising 29% of the entire health care sector. A direct hit to pharma earnings will be a hard pill to swallow, especially if the S&P biotech index (comprising 17% of the S&P health care market cap weight) is included that are similar to Big Pharma as they manufacture blockbuster drugs. In fact, as the American electorate is getting more interested in Biden’s campaign, the market is pricing in a tougher environment for US pharmaceuticals (Chart 23). Markets can rely on the fact that Biden has rejected a single-payer government health system (“Medicare For All”) – this policy position helped him beat Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. However, he is proposing a public insurance option, which will have the ability to absorb losses indefinitely and will have the insurance regulators at its side. Thus private health insurers will be undercut. Chart 23Beginning Of The End A public option is also seen even by promoters as a “Trojan Horse” that will increase the odds that Democrats will move toward a single-payer system in 2024 or thereafter. Thus the risk/reward ratio skews further to the downside for the S&P health care sector. Will Technology Escape Unscathed? In the wake of COVID-19, and facing geopolitical competition in cyber space, a Biden administration will also seek a much stronger regulatory handle on Big Tech. Social media companies are already buttering up to the Democrats to ensure that Biden maintains the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley and does not pursue extensive anti-monopoly and anti-trust investigations. Yet the tech sector cannot avoid heightened scrutiny due to its conspicuous gains in the midst of an economic bust – this is what normally prompts anti-trust actions (Chart 24). The Democrats will pursue probes into data privacy and excessive market concentration and will demand stricter patrolling of the ideological space in battles that will be adjudicated by the courts. Chart 24How Much Is Too Much? Should the monopolistic tech stocks – including FB and GOOGL, which are now classified under the GICS1 S&P communication services index – be forced to sell their crown jewel assets, then a hit to earnings is a given. The S&P technology sector plus FB & GOOGL commands more than one third on the SPX index, meaning that a dent in tech earnings will have negative ramifications for the entire market. In previous research, we drew a parallel with the chemicals industry and the regulatory shock that came in 1976 when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was introduced.The bill pushed chemical stocks off the cliff as investments in the index became dead money for a whole decade – until 1985 when chemicals finally troughed (Chart 25) In the near future, a similar shock might come as a result of privacy-related regulation. A series of anti-monopoly or anti-trust probes, whether by the US or the EU, would make investors cautious about their tech exposure. While the probes may not result in a break-up, the heightened uncertainty would dampen the allure of tech stocks. The pattern of anti-trust probes in US history is that a probe first causes a selloff in the stock of the company investigated; then another selloff occurs when it is clear that a break-up is a real option under consideration; then a buying opportunity emerges either when the company is cleared or when the long dissolution process is completed. Bottom Line: While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Chart 25Will History Rhyme?     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten YearsTable A2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years   Footnotes 1     Republicans have 13 Senate seats at risk this cycle while Democrats have only four. More conservatively, Republicans have nine at risk while Democrats have two. Opinion polling has Democrats leading in seven out of nine top races, and tied in the other two – including states like Kansas where Democrats should have zero chance. Most of these races are tight enough that they will hinge on whether the election is a referendum on Trump. If so, Democrats will likely win the net three seats they need to control the chamber. Most likely they will have a 51-49 majority if Biden wins, though a 52-48 balance is possible.   2     The Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017 but success in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reflects the fact that political constraints are higher on taking away an entitlement than they are on giving benefits (tax cuts). 3    As noted above, however, investors today cannot be assured that Republicans will come roaring back in 2022 to impose constraints. Trump’s populism threatens to divide the party if he loses and delay its ability to regroup and recover.