Sectors

Special Report

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).  

Highlights Geopolitical conflicts point to energy price spikes and could add to inflation surprises in the near term. However, US fiscal drag and China’s economic slowdown are both disinflationary risks to be aware of.  Specifically, energy-producers like Russia and Iran gain greater leverage amid energy shortages. Europe’s natural gas prices could spike again. Conflict in the Middle East could disrupt oil flows.    President Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending bill is a litmus test for fiscal fatigue in developed markets. It could fail, and even assuming it passes it will not prevent overall fiscal drag in 2022-23. However, it is inflationary over the long run. China’s slowdown poses the chief disinflationary risk. But we still think policy will ease to avoid an economic crash ahead of the fall 2022 national party congress.  We are closing this year’s long value / short growth trade for a loss of 3.75%. Cyclical sectors ended up being a better way to play the reopening trade. Feature Equity markets rallied in recent weeks despite sharp upward moves in core inflation across the world (Chart 1). Inflation is fast becoming a popular concern and we see geopolitical risks that could drive headline inflation still higher in the short run. We also see underrated disinflationary factors, namely China’s property sector distress and economic slowdown.     Several major developments have occurred in recent weeks that we will cover in this report. Our conclusions: Biden’s domestic agenda will pass but risks are high and macro impact is limited. Congress passed Biden’s infrastructure deal and will probably still pass his signature social spending bill, although inflation is creating pushback. Together these bills have little impact on the budget deficit outlook but they will add to inflationary pressures.  Energy shortages embolden Russia and Iran. Winter weather is unpredictable, the energy crisis may not be over. But investors are underrating Russia’s aggressive posture toward the West. Any conflict with Iran could also cause oil disruptions in the near future. US-China relations may improve but not for long. A bilateral summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will not reduce tensions for very long, if at all. Climate change cooperation is an insufficient basis to reverse the cold war-style confrontation over the long run. Chart 1Inflation Rattles Policymakers The investment takeaway is that geopolitical tensions could push energy prices still higher in the short term. Iran and Russia need to be monitored. However, China’s economic slowdown will weigh on growth. China poses an underrated disinflationary risk to our views. US Congress: Bellwether For Fiscal Fatigue While inflation is starting to trouble households and voters, investors should bear in mind that the current set of politicians have long aimed to generate an inflation overshoot. They spent the previous decade in fear of deflation, since it generated anti-establishment or populist parties that threatened to disrupt the political system. They quietly built up an institutional consensus around more robust fiscal policy and monetary-fiscal coordination. Now they are seeing that agenda succeed but are facing the first major hurdle in the form of higher prices. They will not simply cut and run. Inflation is accompanied by rising wages, which today’s leaders want to see – almost all of them have promised households a greater share of the fruits of their labor, in keeping with the new, pro-worker, populist zeitgeist. Real wages are growing at 1.1% in the US and 0.9% across the G7 (Chart 2). Even more than central bankers, political leaders are focused on jobs and employment, i.e. voters. Yet the labor market still has considerable slack (Chart 3). Almost all of the major western governments have been politically recapitalized since the pandemic, either through elections or new coalitions. Almost all of them were elected on promises of robust public investment programs to “build back better,” i.e. create jobs, build infrastructure, revitalize industry, and decarbonize the energy economy. Thus while they are concerned about inflation, they will leave that to central banks, as they will be loathe to abandon their grand investment plans.  Chart 2Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Still, there will be a breaking point at which inflation forces governments to put their spending plans on hold. The US Congress is the immediate test of whether today’s inflation will trigger fiscal fatigue and force a course correction.      Chart 3Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure bill passed Congress last week and will be signed into law around November 15. Now he is worried that his signature $1.75 trillion social spending bill will falter due to inflation fears. He cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (and only three votes in the House of Representatives). Odds that the bill fails are about 35%. Democratic Party leaders will not abandon the cause due to recent inflation prints. They see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the role of government, the social safety net, and the interests of their constituents. If they miss this chance due to inflation that ends up being transitory then they will lose the enthusiastic left wing of the party and suffer a devastating loss in next year’s midterm elections, in which they are already at a disadvantage.   Biden’s social bill is also likely to pass because the budget reconciliation process necessary to pass the bill is the same process needed to raise the national debt limit by December 3. A linkage of the two by party leaders would ensure that both pass … and otherwise Democrats risk self-inflicting a national debt default. The reconciliation bill is more about long-term than short-term inflation risk. The bill does not look to have a substantial impact on the budget outlook: the new spending is partially offset by new taxes and spread out over ten years. The various legislative scenarios look virtually the same in our back-of-the-envelope budget projections (Chart 4). However, given that the output gap is virtually closed, this bill combined with the infrastructure bill will add to inflationary pressures. The fiscal drag will diminish by 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year. The deficit is not expected to increase or decrease substantially between 2023 and 2024. From then onward the budget deficit will expand. The increased government demand for goods and services and the increased disposable income for low-earning families will add to inflationary pressures. Other developed markets face a similar situation: inflation is picking up, but big spending has been promised and normalizing budgets will marginally weigh on growth in the next few years (Chart 5). True, growth should hold up since the private economy is rebounding in the wake of the pandemic. But politicians will not be inclined to renege on campaign promises of liberal spending in the face of fiscal drag. The current crop of leaders is primed to make major public investments. This is true of Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy as well as the United States. It is partly true in France, where fiscal retrenchment has been put on hold given the presidential election in the spring. The effect will be inflationary, especially for the US where populist spending is more extravagant than elsewhere. The long run will depend on structural factors and how much the new investments improve productivity. Bottom Line: A single vote in the US Senate could derail the president’s social spending bill, so the US is now the bellwether for fiscal fatigue in the developed world. Biden is likely to pass the bill, as global fiscal drag is disinflationary over the next 12 months. Yet inflation could stay elevated for other reasons. And this fiscal drag will dissipate later in the business cycle. Russia And Iran Gain Leverage Amid Energy Crunch The global energy price spike arose from a combination of structural factors – namely the pandemic and stimulus. It has abated in recent weeks but will remain a latent problem through the winter season, especially if La Niña makes temperatures unusually cold as expected. Rising energy prices feed into general producer prices, which are being passed onto consumers (Chart 6). They look to be moderating but the weather is unpredictable.   There is another reason that near-term energy prices could spike or stay elevated: geopolitics. Tight global energy supply-demand balances mean that there is little margin of safety if unexpected supply disruptions occur. This gives greater leverage to energy producers, two of which are especially relevant at the moment: Russia and Iran.      Russia’s long-running conflict with the West is heating up on several fronts, as expected. Russia may not have caused the European energy crisis but it is exacerbating shortages by restricting flows of natural gas for political reasons, as it is wont to do (Chart 7). Moscow always maintains plausible deniability but it is currently flexing its energy muscles in several areas: Chart 6Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Ukraine: Russia has avoided filling up and fully utilizing pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine, where the US is now warning that Russia could stage a large military action in retaliation for Ukrainian drone strikes in the still-simmering Russia-Ukraine war.    Belarus: Russia says it will not increase the gas flow through the major Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline in 2022 even as Belarus threatens to halt the pipeline’s operation entirely. Belarus, backed by Russia, is locked in a conflict with Poland and the EU over Belarus’s funneling of migrants into their territory (Chart 8). The conflict could lead not only to energy supply disruptions but also to a broader closure of trade and a military standoff.1 Russia has flown two Tu-160 nuclear-armed bombers over Belarus and the border area in a sign of support. Moldova: Russia is withholding natural gas to pressure the new, pro-EU Moldovan government. Russia’s main motive is obvious: it wants Germany and the EU to approve and certify the new Nord Stream II pipeline. Nord Stream II enables Germany and Russia to bypass Ukraine, where pipeline politics raise the risk of shortages and wars. Lame duck German Chancellor Angela Merkel worked with Russia to complete this pipeline before the end of her term, convincing the Biden administration to issue a waiver on congressional sanctions that could have halted its construction. However, two of the parties in the incoming German government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, oppose the pipeline. While these parties may not have been able to stop the pipeline from operating, Russia does not want to take any chances and is trying to force Germany’s and the EU’s hand. The energy crisis makes it more likely that the pipeline will be approved, since the European Commission will have to make its decision during a period when cold weather and shortages will make it politically acceptable to certify the pipeline.2 The decision will further drive a wedge between Germany and eastern EU members, which is what Russia wants. EU natural gas prices will likely subside sometime next year and will probably not derail the economic recovery, according to both our commodity and Europe strategists. A bigger and longer-lasting Russian energy squeeze would emerge if the Nord Stream II pipeline is not certified. This is a low risk at this point but the next six months could bring surprises. More broadly, the West’s conflict with Russia can easily escalate from here. First, President Vladimir Putin faces economic challenges and weak political support. He frequently diverts popular attention by staging aggressive moves abroad. There is no reason to believe his post-2004 strategy of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space has changed. High energy prices give him greater leverage even aside from pipeline coercion – so it is not surprising that Russia is moving troops to the Ukraine border again. Growing military support for Belarus, or an expanded conflict in Ukraine, are likely to create a crisis now or later.   Second, the US-Germany agreement to allow Nord Stream II explicitly states that Russia must not weaponize natural gas supply. This statement has had zero effect so far. But when the energy shortage subsides, the EU could pursue retaliatory measures along with the United States. Of course, Russia has been able to weather sanctions. But tensions are already escalating significantly.  After Russia, Iran also gains leverage during times of tight energy supplies. With global oil inventories drawing down, Iran is in the position to inflict “maximum pressure” on the US and its allies, a role reversal from the 2017-20 period in which large inventories enabled the US to impose crippling sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal (Chart 9). Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear program and a new round of diplomatic negotiations may only serve to buy time before it crosses the “breakout” threshold of uranium enrichment capability as early as this month or next. In a recent special report we argued that there is a 40% chance of a crisis over Iran in the Middle East. Such a crisis could ultimately lead to an oil shock in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz.  Chart 9Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Bottom Line: Russia’s natural gas coercion of Europe could keep European energy prices high through March or May. More broadly Russia’s renewed tensions with the West confirm our view that oil producers gain geopolitical leverage amid the current supply shortages. Iran also gains leverage and its conflict with the US could lead to global oil supply disruptions anytime over the next 12 months. Until Nord Stream II is certified and a new Iranian nuclear agreement is signed, there are two clear sources of potential energy shocks. Moreover in today’s inflationary context there is limited margin of safety for unexpected supply disruptions regardless of source. Xi’s Historical Rewrite China continues to be a major source of risk for the global economy and financial markets in the lead-up to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. While Chinese assets have sold off this year, global risk assets are still vulnerable to negative surprises from China.  The five-year political reshuffle in 2022 is more important than usual since President Xi Jinping was originally supposed to step down but will instead stick around as leader for life, like China’s previous strongmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.3 Xi’s rejection of term limits became clear in 2017 and is not really news. But Xi will fortify himself and his faction in 2022 against any opposition whatsoever. He is extremely vigilant about any threats that could disrupt this process, whether at home or abroad.  The Communist Party’s sixth plenary session this week highlights both Xi’s success within the Communist Party and the sensitivity of the period. Xi produced a new “historical resolution,” or interpretation of the party’s history, which is only the third such resolution. A few remarks on this historical resolution are pertinent: Mao’s resolution: Chairman Mao wrote the first such resolution in 1945 to lay down his version of the party’s history and solidify his personal control. It is naturally a revolutionary leftist document. Deng’s revision of Mao: General Deng Xiaoping then produced a major revision in 1981, shortly after initiating China’s economic opening and reform. Deng’s interpretation aimed to hold Mao accountable for “gross mistakes” during the Cultural Revolution and yet to recognize the Communist Party’s positive achievements in founding the People’s Republic. His version gave credit to the party and collective leadership rather than Mao’s personal rule. Two 30-year periods: The implication was that the party’s history should be divided into two thirty-year periods: the period of foundations and conflict with Mao as the party’s core and the period of improvement and prosperity with Deng as the core. Jiang’s support of Deng: Deng’s telling came under scrutiny from new leftists in the wake of Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. But General Secretary Jiang Zemin largely held to Deng’s version of the story that the days of reform and opening were a far better example of the party’s leadership because they were so much more stable and prosperous.4 Xi’s reaction to Jiang and Deng: Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has shown an interest in revising the party’s official interpretation of its own history. The central claim of the revisionists is that China could never have achieved its economic success if not for Mao’s strongman rule. Mao’s rule and the Communist Party’s central control thus regain their centrality to modern China’s story. China’s prosperity owes its existence to these primary political conditions. The two periods cannot be separated.  Xi’s synthesis of Deng and Mao: Now Xi has written himself into that history above all other figures – indeed the communique from the Sixth Plenum mentions Xi more often than Marx, Mao, or Deng (Chart 10). The implication is that Xi is the synthesis of Mao and Deng, as we argued back in 2017 at the end of the nineteenth national party congress. The synthesis consists of a strongman who nevertheless maintains a vibrant economy for strategic ends. What are the practical policy implications of this history lesson? Higher Country Risk: China’s revival of personal rule, as opposed to consensus rule, marks a permanent increase in “country risk” and political risk for investors. Autocratic governments lack institutional guardrails (checks and balances) that prevent drastic policy mistakes. When Xi tries to step down there will probably be a succession crisis. Higher Macroeconomic Risk: China is more likely to get stuck in the “middle-income trap.” Liberal or pro-market economic reform is de-emphasized both in the new historical resolution and in the Xi administration’s broader program. Centralization is already suppressing animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and the private sector.  Higher Geopolitical Risk: The return to autocracy and the withdrawal from economic liberalism also entail a conflict with the United States, which is still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. The US is not what it once was but it will put pressure on China’s economy and build alliances aimed at strategic containment. Bottom Line: China is trying to escape the middle-income trap, like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but it is trying to do so by means of autocracy, import substitution, and conflict with the United States. These other Asian economies improved productivity by democratizing, embracing globalization, and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. China’s odds of succeeding are low. China will focus on power consolidation through fall 2022 and this will lead to negative surprises for financial markets.    China Slowdown: The Disinflationary Risk While it is very unlikely that Xi will face serious challenges to his rule, strange things can happen at critical junctures. Therefore the regime will be extremely alert for any threats, foreign or domestic, and will ultimately prioritize politics above all other things, which means investors will suffer negative surprises. The lingering pandemic still poses an inflationary risk for the rest of the world while the other main risk is disinflationary:    Inflationary Risk – Zero COVID: The “Covid Zero” policy of attempting to stamp out any trace of the virus will still be relevant at least over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Clampdowns serve a dual purpose since the Xi administration wants to minimize foreign interference and domestic dissent before the party congress. Hence the global economy can suffer more negative supply shocks if ports or factories are closed.  Inflationary Risk – Energy Closures: The government is rationing electricity amid energy shortages to prioritize household heating and essential services. This could hurt factory output over the winter if the weather is bad. Disinflationary Risk – Property Bust: The country is still flirting with overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. Throughout the year we have argued that authorities would avoid overtightening. But China is still very much in a danger zone in which policy mistakes could be made. Recent rumors suggest the government is trying to “correct the overcorrection” of regulatory policy. The government is reportedly mulling measures to relax the curbs on the property sector. We are inclined to agree but there is no sign yet that markets are responding, judging by corporate defaults and the crunch in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil Evergrande, the world’s most indebted property developer, is still hobbling along, but its troubles are not over. There are signs of contagion among other developers, including state-owned enterprises, that cannot meet the government’s “three red lines.” 5 Credit growth has now broken beneath the government’s target range of 12%, though money growth has bounced off the lower 8% limit set for this year (Chart 13). China is dangerously close to overtightening.   China’s economic slowdown has not yet been fully felt in the global economy based on China’s import volumes, which are tightly linked to the combined credit-and-fiscal-spending impulse (Chart 14). The implication is that recent pullbacks in industrial metal prices and commodity indexes will continue. Chart 13China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening Chart 14China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt ​​​​​​​Until China eases policy more substantially, it poses a disinflationary risk and a strong point in favor of the transitory view of global inflation.    It is difficult for China to ease policy – let alone stimulate – when producer prices are so high (see Chart 6 above). The result is a dangerous quandary in which the government’s regulatory crackdowns are triggering a property bust yet the government is prevented from providing the usual policy support as the going gets tough. Asset prices and broader risk sentiment could go into free fall. However, the party has a powerful incentive to prevent a generalized crisis ahead of the party congress. So we are inclined to accept signs that property curbs and other policies will be eased. Bottom Line: The full disinflationary impact of China’s financial turmoil and economic slowdown has yet to be felt globally.     Biden-Xi Summit Not A Game Changer As long as inflation prevents robust monetary and fiscal easing, Beijing is incentivized to improve sentiment in other ways. One way is to back away from the regulatory crackdown in other sectors, such as Big Tech. The other is to improve relations with the United States. A stabilization of US ties would be useful before the party congress since President Xi would prefer not to have the US interfering in China’s internal affairs during such a critical hour. No surprise that China is showing signs of trying to stabilize the relationship.   The US is apparently reciprocating. Presidents Biden and Xi also agreed to hold a virtual bilateral summit next week, which could lead to a new series of talks. The US Trade Representative also plans to restart trade negotiations. The plan is to enforce the Phase One trade deal, issue waivers for tariffs that hurt US companies, and pursue new talks over outstanding structural disputes. The Phase One trade deal has fallen far short of its goals in general but on the energy front it is doing well. China will continue importing US commodities amid global shortages (Chart 15). The summit alone will have a limited impact. Biden had a summit with Putin earlier this year but relations could deteriorate tomorrow over cyber-attacks, Ukraine, or Belarus. However, there is some basis for the US and China to cooperate next year: Iran. Xi is consolidating power at home in 2022 and probably wants to use negotiations to keep the Americans at bay. Biden is pivoting to foreign policy in 2022, since Congress will not get anything done, and will primarily focus on halting Iran’s nuclear program. If China assists the US with Iran, then there is a basis for a reduction in tensions. The problem is not only Iran itself but also that China will not jump to enforce sanctions on Iran amid energy shortages. And China is not about to make sweeping structural economic concessions to the US as the Xi administration doubles down on state-guided industrial policy. Meanwhile the US is pursuing a long-term policy of strategic containment and Biden will not want to be seen as appeasing China ahead of midterm elections, especially given Xi’s reversion to autocracy. What about cooperation on climate change? The US and China also delivered a surprise joint statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Scotland (COP26), confirming the widely held expectation that climate policy is an area of engagement. These powers and Europe have a strategic interest in reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil (Chart 16). Climate talks will begin in the first half of next year. However, climate cooperation is not significant enough alone to outweigh the deeper conflicts between the US and China. Moreover climate policy itself is somewhat antagonistic, as the EU and US are looking at applying “carbon adjustment fees” to carbon-intensive imports, e.g. iron and steel exports from China and other high-polluting producers (Chart 17). While the EU and US are not on the same page yet, and these carbon tariffs are far from implementation, the emergence of green protectionism does not bode well for US-China relations even aside from their fundamental political and military disputes. Bottom Line: Some short-term stabilization of US-China relations is possible but not guaranteed. Markets will cheer if it happens but the effect will be fleeting. Chinese assets are still extremely vulnerable to political and geopolitical risks.   Investment Takeaways Gold can still go higher. Financial markets are pricing higher inflation and weak real rates. Gold has been our chief trade to prepare both for higher inflation and geopolitical risk. We are closing our long value / growth equity trade for a loss of 3.75%. We are maintaining our long DM Europe / short EM Europe trade. This trade has performed poorly due to the rally in energy prices and hence Russian equities. But while energy prices may overshoot in the near term, investors will flee Russian equities as geopolitical risks materialize. We are maintaining our long Korea / short Taiwan trade despite its being deeply in the red. This trade is valid over a strategic or long-term time horizon, in which a major geopolitical crisis and/or war is likely. Our expectation that China will ease policy to stabilize the economy ahead of fall 2022 should support Korean equities.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Over the past year President Alexander Lukashenko’s repression of domestic unrest prompted the EU to impose sanctions. Lukashenko responded by organizing an immigration scheme in which Middle Eastern migrants are flown into Belarus and funneled into the EU via Poland. The EU is threatening to expand sanctions while Belarus is threatening to cut off the Yamal-Europe pipeline amid Europe’s energy crisis. See Pavel Felgenhauer, “Belarus as Latest Front in Acute East-West Standoff,” Jamestown Foundation, November 11, 2021, Jamestown.org. 2     Both Germany and the EU must approve of Nord Stream II for it to enter into operation. The German Federal Network Agency has until January 8, 2022 to certify the project. The Economy Ministry has already given the green light. Then the European Commission has two-to-four months to respond. The EU is supposed to consider whether the pipeline meets the EU’s requirement that gas transport be “unbundled” or separated from gas production and sales. This is a higher hurdle but Germany’s clout will be felt. Hence final approval could come by March 8 or May 8, 2022. The energy crisis will put pressure for an early certification but the EU Commission may take the full time to pretend that it is not being blackmailed. See Joseph Nasr and Christoph Steitz, “Certifying Nord Stream 2 poses no threat to gas supply to EU – Germany,” Reuters, October 26, 2021, reuters.com. 3    Xi is not serving for an “unprecedented third term,” as the mainstream media keeps reporting. China’s top office is not constant nor were term limits ever firmly established. Each leader’s reign should be measured by their effective control rather than technical terms in office. Mao reigned for 27 years (1949-76), Deng for 14 years or more (1978-92), Jiang Zemin for 10 years (1992-2002), and Hu Jintao for 10 years (2002-2012).  4    See Joseph Fewsmith, “Mao’s Shadow” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 43 (2014), and “The 19th Party Congress: Ringing In Xi Jinping’s New Age,” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 55 (2018), hoover.org.  5    Liability-to-asset ratios less than 70%, debt-to-equity less than 100%, and cash-to-short-term-debt ratios of more than 1.0x.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions 

Chart 1 In June of this year, we published a Special Report on EV Revolution, recommending clients to add exposure to the structural electric vehicles (EV) theme to their portfolios. We continue to be bullish about the space and are reiterating our call. While the EV Revolution theme transcends GICS definitions, the S&P Autos & Components index remains the industry group with the highest EV exposure. It is dominated by Tesla and legacy automakers, Ford, and GM. Since our June Special Report, the sector outperformed the market by 34% (Chart 1). In the report, we posited that The Autos & Components industry group is in the middle of a momentous transition to electric and autonomous-vehicle manufacturing thanks to technological advances in battery storage, AI, and radars. Further, we noted that the entire EV ecosystem will benefit from government support for decarbonization, the preferences of millennials for green tech, and cutting-edge technological innovation. The recent passage of the Infrastructure bill with its green provisions are a certain positive for EVs. Chart 2 Tesla dominates the Auto industry group and accounts for roughly 75% of its market cap, thus dwarfing all other constituents. It had an amazing run since we made the call, doubling since June 21, 2021, when the report was published. While we are not stock-pickers, we believe that Tesla is a poster child of the theme: it sold 241,300 in the third quarter alone, which is over 100,000 than the same quarter last year - compare that to 367,500 vehicles in all of 2019. Tesla’s profitability is growing steadily (Chart 2), and so far, it was able to fend off challenges from competitors. Legacy Automakers, while crimped by the chip shortages and supply chain disruptions, are also likely beneficiaries of the theme: costs are high, but rewards are worth it: Higher earnings and greater economic visibility regarding EV transition should lead to eventual rerating of the industry group. These carmakers are also turning into Growth stocks as an expected surge in earnings is far in the future. In Table 1, we summarize the most popular EV ETFs. A more detailed description of each investment vehicle is in the appendix of the original report. Bottom Line: We believe that the EV/AV theme will continue to outperform the US equity market over the 3-12 months horizon.

Highlights There is a high risk of a global demand shortfall in 2022. This is because consumer demand for services will remain well below its pre-pandemic trend… …while the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth. Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Fractal analysis: Overweight gas distribution. Feature Chart of the WeekSpending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? With inflation surging, you would be forgiven for thinking that global demand is red-hot. Sadly, global demand is not red-hot. Two years after the pandemic began, the lynchpin of demand – consumer spending on services – remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, US consumer spending on services is around $420 billion, or 5 percent, below where it should be (Chart I-1). A similar story holds true in the UK and France (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Chart I-3...And France Still, overall US consumer spending is on trend. Just. But only thanks to an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Begging the question, what will happen when the stimulus ends? If overall stimulated spending is just on trend while spending on services is in deficit, it means that spending on goods is in a mirror-image $420 billion surplus. Which, given the smaller share of spending on goods, equates to 8 percent above where it should be. One misconception is that the surplus in goods spending is concentrated in durables. While this was true six months ago, two-thirds of the current surplus is in nondurables, dominated by clothing and shoes, food and drink at home, and games, toys and hobbies (Chart I-4). Chart I-4US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn Looking ahead, if the demand for goods crashes back to earth, as seems to be happening now, then the demand for services will have to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend. Otherwise there will be a deficit in aggregate demand. So, the crucial question for 2022 is, will services spending catch up to its pre-pandemic trend? Services Spending Will Remain Well Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Many people believe that the deficit in US services spending is due to the underspend in bars, restaurants, and hotels. In fact, this is another misconception. The underspending on ‘food services and accommodations’ is now a negligible $30 billion out of the $420 billion deficit. In which case, where is the deficit? Surprisingly, the biggest component is a $160 billion underspend on health care (Chart I-5). In particular, the spending on ‘outpatient physician services’ levelled off a year ago well below its pre-pandemic level (Chart I-6). A plausible explanation is that many doctor’s appointments have shifted to online, requiring much lower spending. The result is that health care consumption has slowed its convergence to the pre-pandemic trend, implying that a deficit could be persistent. Chart I-5US Underspend On Health Care ##br##Is $160 Bn Chart I-6US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend A second major component of the deficit is a $110 billion underspend on recreation services, as consumers have shunned the large or dense crowds in amusement parks, sports centres, spectator sports, and theatres. Some of this shunning of crowds will be long-lasting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn A third major component of the deficit is a $60 billion underspend on public transportation, as people have likewise shunned the personal proximity required in mass transit systems and aeroplanes. Some of this shunning of transport that requires personal proximity will also be long-lasting (Chart I-8). Chart I-8US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn Worryingly, the recent spending on both recreation services and public transportation has stopped converging with the pre-pandemic trend. Admittedly, this might be a blip due to the delta wave of the pandemic, and spending could re-accelerate once this wave subsides. On the other hand, it would be prudent to assume that the delta wave was not the last wave of the pandemic and that further waves could arrive in 2022. Pulling all of this together, large parts of services spending will remain persistently below their pre-pandemic trend. Eventually, new and innovative types of services will plug this deficit, but this will take time. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that, at the end of 2022, US consumer spending on services will still be below its pre-pandemic trend by at least $200 billion, or 2.5 percent. Other major economies, like the UK and France, will suffer similar deficits. Goods Spending Will Crash Back To Earth Let’s now switch to the other side of the ledger, and assess to what extent the underspend in services can be countered by an overspend in goods. Spending on durables is already crashing back to earth. A surplus of $500 billion in March has collapsed to $140 billion now, and we fully expect it to fall back to zero. The reason is that durables, by their very definition, provide long-duration utility. Meaning that there are only so many cars, smartphones, and gadgets that any person can own. But what about the current $280 billion surplus on nondurables – can that be sustained? The biggest component of the nondurables surplus is a $85 billion, or 20 percent, overspend on clothes and shoes. Some of this overspend is justified by a wardrobe transition to the post-pandemic way of working and living. But clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurable, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that once the wardrobe transition is complete, we do not expect people to spend 20 percent more on clothes and shoes than they did before the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-9US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn A second major component of the nondurables surplus is a $75 billion, or 7 percent, overspend on food and beverages at home. To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspending on eating and drinking out. But given that this underspend on eating and drinking out has almost normalised, we expect the overspend on eating and drinking at home to fade (Chart I-10). Chart I-10US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn A third major component of the nondurables surplus is a $45 billion, or 16 percent, overspend on recreational items: games, toys, hobbies, and pets and pet products (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspend on recreation services involving crowds, which will last. Hence, we expect the nondurable surplus on recreational items also to last, to the benefit of the animal care sector and the interactive (electronic) entertainment sector. Chart I-11US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn Chart I-12Spending On Pets Is ##br##Booming Pulling all of this together, we expect the $140 billion surplus on durables to disappear fully, and the $280 billion surplus on nondurables to fade to well below $200 billion. Therefore, given that the deficit on services is likely to be above $200 billion, there is a high risk of a consumer demand deficit in 2022. Four Investment Conclusions The ultra-long end of the bond market is figuring out that without sustained above-trend demand, you cannot get sustained inflation. And to repeat, if demand is barely on trend after an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus, then what will happen when the stimulus ends? All of which leads to four investment conclusions: Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Gas Distribution Is Oversold Finally, one of the paradoxes of skyrocketing natural gas prices is that it has badly hurt the gas distributors which, for the most part, have not been able to pass on the higher prices in full to end users. The resulting margin squeeze has caused a sharp recent underperformance, which is now fragile on its 65-day/130-day composite fractal structure (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Gas Distribution Is Oversold Given this fractal fragility combined with the recent correction in natural gas prices, a recommended trade would be to overweight global gas distribution versus banks, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will increase US government non-defense spending to around 3% of GDP, a level comparable to the 1980s-90s and larger than the 2010s.   Democrats are increasingly likely to pass their ~$1.75 trillion social spending bill, with odds at 65%. The budget reconciliation process necessary to pass this bill is also necessary to raise the national debt limit by December 3, so Congress is unlikely to fail.    The Democratic spending bills will reduce fiscal drag very marginally in 2022-24 and will occasionally increase fiscal thrust thereafter. Republicans are unlikely to repeal much of the spending in coming years. Limited Big Government is a new strategic theme. The federal government is permanently taking a larger role in the economy – but this role will still be limited by voters, who do not favor socialism. Biden’s approval rating will stabilize at a low level. Immigration, crime, and especially inflation will determine the Democrats’ fate in the 2022 midterms. Gridlock is likely. The stock market has already priced the infrastructure bill and it will continue to rally on the rumor that reconciliation will pass. But growth has outperformed value, contrary to expectations. Feature Democrats in the House of Representatives finally passed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which consists of $550 billion in brand new spending and $650 billion in a continuation of existing levels of spending to cover the next ten years. The legislation passed with 228 votes in the House, ten more than needed, due to 13 Republican votes, making it “bipartisan” (Chart 1). The contents of the bill are shown in Table 1. Republicans supported the bill because of its focus on traditional infrastructure – roads, bridges, ports – but they also agreed to more modern elements such as $65 billion on broadband Internet and $36 billion on electric vehicles and environmental remediation. Implementation of the bill will be felt in 2023-24, in time for the presidential election, as committees will need to be set up to identify and approve projects. Table 1Itemized Infrastructure Plan While $550 billion is not a lot in a world of multi-trillion dollar stimulus bills, nevertheless it makes for a 34% increase in federal non-defense investment to levels consistent with the 1980s-90s (Chart 2). The new government spending will amount to 3% of GDP per year over the next ten years, a non-trivial amount of stimulus even though the big picture of the budget deficit remains about the same (Chart 3). The passage of the infrastructure bill will increase, not decrease, the odds of Biden and the Democrats passing their $1.75 trillion social spending bill via the partisan budget reconciliation process. Subjectively we put the odds at 65% in the wake of infrastructure, although recent events suggest that the odds could be put even higher. While left-wing Democrats failed to link the infrastructure and social spending bills, as we argued, nevertheless the passage of infrastructure was a requirement for the key swing voter in the Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Manchin is negotiating on the reconciliation bill, suggesting he will vote for it, and he will ultimately capitulate because he will not want to be blamed for a default on the US national debt. The US will hit the national debt ceiling on December 3 and the only reliable means for the Democrats to raise the ceiling is reconciliation. The other critical moderate Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, seems to have capitulated, after securing a removal of corporate and high-income individual tax hikes from the bill. Far-left senators might make a last stand, holding up reconciliation and winning some last-minute concession. Six House Democrats refused to vote for the infrastructure bill (including New York House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). However, progressives lost leverage after the Democrats’ losses in the off-year elections. Moreover the debt ceiling will force the hand of the progressives as well as the moderates. Any such hurdles will ultimately be steamrolled by the president and Democratic Party leaders. Combined with infrastructure, the net deficit impact of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills will range from $461 billion to $1 trillion (Table 2). Our scenarios vary based on how much credence we give to Democratic revenue raisers, since many of these are gimmicks and accounting tricks to make the bill look more fiscally responsible than it really is. At the most the US is looking at an increase in the budget deficit of less than 0.5% of GDP per year in the coming years. Table 2Biden Administration Tax-And-Spend Scenarios Investors should think of Biden’s legislative efforts as very marginally reducing fiscal drag rather than increasing fiscal thrust, at least in the short run. The budget deficit is normalizing after hitting unprecedented peacetime extremes at the height of the global pandemic and social lockdowns. The shrinking deficit subtracts from aggregate demand in 2022-2024. But the new spending bills will remove a small part of that drag during these years, as highlighted in Chart 4. More importantly the US Congress is signaling that fiscal policy is back in action and that fiscal retrenchment is a long way off. Over the long run, new spending will add marginally to fiscal thrust and aggregate demand, suggesting that the US government’s contribution to the economy will grow a bit in the latter part of the 2020s, namely if Democratic legislation survives the 2024 election. For the most part it probably will, as it is very difficult to repeal entitlements or slash government spending even with Republican majorities, as witnessed with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017. Chart 5Polarization Of Economic Sentiment Declining The polarization of economic sentiment – i.e. divergence in partisan views of the economy – has fallen since the pandemic and will likely continue to fall as the business cycle continues (Chart 5). Both presidential candidates offered infrastructure packages – they only differed on how to fund it. With the government taking a larger role in the economy – and yet the Republicans likely to rebound in future elections – the result is one of our new strategic themes: limited big government. The heyday of “limited government,” from President Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, has ended. But the new popular and elite consensus in favor of “Big Government” can be overrated – the US political system is defined by checks and balances that will limit the pace and magnitude of the big government trend, and at times even seem to reverse it. Hence investors should think of US fiscal policy and government role in the economy as limited big government. Political Implications Of Bipartisan Infrastructure President Biden’s approval rating has collapsed since this summer when he suffered from perceptions of incompetence on both the delta variant of COVID-19 and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Democratic infighting, which delayed the passage of his legislation, also hurt him (Chart 6). However, these are all passing narratives, with the exception of the incompetence narrative, which could become a lasting threat to Biden if not addressed. Biden’s signing of the infrastructure bill will stabilize his approval rating. Biden will probably end up somewhere between Presidents Obama and Trump. Voters will most likely upgrade their assessment of his handling of the economy over the coming year, at least marginally. But on foreign policy he will remain extremely vulnerable since he faces numerous immediate crises in coming years. American presidential disapproval has trended upwards since the 1950s of President Eisenhower. Disapproval peaks during recessions and wars. As the economy improves, Biden’s disapproval will fall, but foreign crises and wars are likely in today’s fraught geopolitical environment (Chart 7). A few opinion polls suggest that Republicans have taken the lead over the Democrats in generic opinion polling regarding support for the parties in Congress. These polls are outliers and may or may not become the norm over the next year. Democrats have fallen from their peaks but Republicans still suffer from significant internal divisions (Chart 8). Voters continue to identify mostly as political independents, with a notable downtrend in the share of voters who see themselves as Republicans or Democrats in recent years (Chart 9). Independent voters have marked leanings, right or left. While the leftward lean of independents has peaked, they are not leaning to the right. The infrastructure bill and even reconciliation bill will support Democratic identification. But the sharp rise in immigration, crime, and potentially persistent inflation will support Republicans. These last will become the critical political issues going forward. The democratic socialist or progressive agenda has already been checked by voters and Democrats can only double down on that agenda at their own peril. The infrastructure bill’s passage may give a boost to perceptions of Democratic odds of maintaining the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections – that question is still up in the air, even as the House is very likely to return to Republican control (Chart 10). Chart 9Independent Voters Still Rule An under-the-radar beneficiary of the bipartisan infrastructure bill is Congress itself. Since 2014, public approval of Congress has gradually recovered from historic lows. The level is still low, at 27%, but the upward trend is notable for suggesting that a fiscally active Congress gains popular approval (Chart 11). New social spending will also increase Congress’s image, first for “doing something,” and second for expanding the social safety net, which more than half of voters will approve.  Partisan gridlock after 2022 could reverse the trend, as Republicans may find or invent a reason to impeach President Biden in retribution for President Trump’s impeachments. But our best guess is that Congress will remain above its low point as long as fiscal support – limited big government – remains intact. Aggressive tax hikes or spending cuts, or a national debt default, could reverse the recovery of this institution. Investment Takeaways The infrastructure bill’s passage may have supported the recent rally in stocks but it is not the main driver. Infrastructure stocks had largely discounted the bill’s passage by spring and our BCA Infrastructure Basket has underperformed the broad market since then. In absolute terms, infrastructure stocks have reached new highs and show a rising trajectory (Chart 12). The infrastructure bill has not delivered as expected when it comes to sectors or investment styles. Cyclicals have outperformed defensives, as expected. But value stocks have hit new lows relative to growth stocks, contrary to our expectation this year (Chart 13). Chart 12Infrastructure Was Already Priced Chart 13Wall Street Looks Well Beyond Infrastructure External factors – namely China’s policy tightening and bumps in the global recovery – weighed on cyclicals and value plays, especially relative to Big Tech (Chart 14). Growth stocks have surged yet again on low bond yields, positive earnings surprises, and secular trends like innovation and digitization. The American economy looks robust as the year draws to a close. The service sector is recovering smartly from the delta variant. Non-manufacturing business activity is surging and new orders are exploding upward relative to inventories (Chart 15). Service sector employment has suffered from shortages. Chart 14External Factors Weigh On Infrastructure Plays Chart 15Service Sector Recovery Underway Inflation risks are trickling into consumer and voter consciousness as Christmas approaches and prices rise at the pump (Chart 16). The Democrats’ two big bills will mitigate the damage they face in next year’s midterm elections – the Senate is still in competition. But a persistent inflation problem will overwhelm their legislative accomplishments. Voters will connect the dots between large deficit spending and inflationary surprises (not to mention any Democratic changes that reinforce the extremely dovish stance of the Fed). The normal political cycle will count heavily against the Democrats in 2022 regardless of inflation. But voters simultaneously face historic spikes in immigration and crime – and the former, at least, will get worse and not better over the next 12 months. Predicting inflation is a mug’s game but wage growth suggests it will remain a substantial risk in 2022 – and the structural shift in favor of big government, even if it is limited big government due to the political cycle, is inflationary on the margin. Chart 16Voters Awakening To Inflation   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix  

Highlights Rate Hikes Are Coming – O/W Banks And Small Caps: Rampant inflation is changing investor expectations on the timing and speed of rate hikes. At present, the market is pricing in three rate hikes in 2022. Overweight sectors that outperform in a rising rates environment. Shortages Of Goods – O/W Semis: Overweight industries which are upstream in the supply chain, such as semiconductor manufacturers. They enjoy strong pent-up demand and significant pricing power. Transportation Bottlenecks – O/W Airfreight, Road And Rail: While skyrocketing transportation costs are a boost for most, they are a boon for ocean shipping lines, and US transport companies, such as truck lines and railways. Pent-Up Demand For Services – O/W Travel Complex: The ISM PMI Non-Manufacturing composite reading indicates that demand for services still exceeds demand for goods. Stay overweight Hotels, Restaurants, Entertainment and Professional Business Services. Underweight Airlines for now. US Consumers Are Feeling Poorer – This Will Weight On Profits: Real wages are not keeping up with prices, erasing American consumer purchasing power, thus putting a lid on corporate pricing power. This will hurt profits in the Consumer Discretionary sector, in addition to causing broad-based margin compression. Fundamentals Are Strong For Now: Companies delivered blockbuster Q3 2021 earnings results and peak margins. However, an unusually high percentage of companies (52.6%) were guiding lower. Rising labor costs, reduced productivity, and loss of corporate pricing power will lead to margin compression as early as 2022. Strong Equity Inflows Into Year-End: Late-in-year catchup pension contributions translate into strong inflows into US equities after the early fall hiatus. Buying on dips still offers downward protection from a major market pullback. Buybacks vs Dividends: Share buybacks are on the rise, seemingly displacing dividends as a means of returning cash to shareholders. For cash yield, focus on sectors known for using buybacks to disburse cash to shareholders: Technology and Financials. Reiterating Investment Positioning Overarching Macroeconomic Themes Rate Hikes Are Coming Taper Tantrum 2.0 rotation is running its course: Sectors and styles most adversely affected by rising rates, such as Consumer Staples, Communications, Services and Health Care have underperformed in October (Chart 1), while cyclicals, geared to rising rates, have outperformed. Growth/Technology has benefited from recent rate stabilization. Chart 2Market Is Pricing In Three Rate Hikes in 2022 Market now expects three rate hikes by the end of 2022: Rampant inflation is changing investor expectations on the timing and the speed of rate hikes. A month ago, the probability of two rate hikes in 2022 stood at around 55%. Now, the probability of three rate hikes is roughly 64% (Chart 2). The BCA house view is that the Fed will raise rates once in December 2022 – an outlook much more temperate than the market’s. Investment Implication: Banks, Small Caps and Cyclicals outperform in a rising rates environment (Table 1). Table 1Recent Performance Of Sectors In A Rising Rates Regime Shortages Of Goods   Shortages are ubiquitous. How do we make money from this theme? We choose industries that are positioned upstream in the supply chain; for example, we prefer Semis to Durable Goods (Chart 3). Manufacturers of chips face strong demand and significant pricing power, while durable goods manufacturers face shortages and have to pass higher input costs on to their customers, which constrains demand and sales growth. Of course, there is also another aspect contributing to the underperformance of durables: Purchases of goods have exceeded the pre-pandemic trend and turned. Over the past three months, semis outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 5%, while durables underperformed by 12%. Investment Implication: Stay overweight Semiconductors and Semiconductor Equipment, underweight Durable Goods (Table 2). Chart 3Demand for Chips Is BoomingTable 2Sectors Affected By Shortage: Recent Performance Pent-Up Demand for Services The ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI for October has come in at a record 66.7 (62 expected) (Chart 4A), and new orders are soaring at 70. These readings exceed the ISM Manufacturing PMI (60.8), suggesting that demand for services still exceeds demand for goods. Furthermore, spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, and the rebound is running its course (Chart 4B). We conclude that our “pent-up demand for services” investment theme still has legs. Chart 4AISM Services Is Soaring Chart 4BStill Strong Pent-up Demand For Services Investment Implication: Stay overweight Hotels, Restaurants, Entertainment and Professional Business Services (Table 3). Stay away from Airlines for now. Table 3Travel Complex: Recent Performance Transportation Bottlenecks Shipping costs continue their ascent (Chart 5). Over 100 ships are currently anchored in LA/Long Beach ports compared to almost immediate unloading before the pandemic. While rising transportation costs are denting the profit margins of a wide range of companies, from retailers to manufacturers, they are a boon for ocean shipping lines, and US transport companies, such as truck lines and railways. Case in point: A.P. Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest boxship operator, delivered $5.44B in quarterly profits last week – doubling its entire 2020 income, on the heels of the unprofitable years of 2018 and 2019.1 Profits of other freight operators are also surging. Investors take notice: After a stretch of underperformance, the S&P 500 Transportation Index outperformed the S&P 500 by 6.55% in October. Chart 5Shipping Costs Still Exorbitant Investment Implication: Continue overweight of Transportation Services, specifically Air Freight and Logistics, and Road and Rail (Table 4). Table 4Transportation: Recent Performance US Consumers Are Feeling Poorer Consumers are right to worry about inflation: Nominal wages increased by 4.5% Year-on-Year in October, the highest reading over the past 40 years. However, real wage growth is negative, i.e. it is not keeping up with prices, erasing American consumers’ buying power (Chart 6). According to a Gallup survey, upticks in citations of the deficit and inflation are largely responsible for an increase in mentions of any economic issue – from 16% in September to 24% in October.2 According to the Conference Board survey, consumers expect prices to rise by 7% over the next 12 months. Loss of purchasing power is bound to dampen consumer demand, as we have seen with demand for Consumer Durables and Autos which has collapsed due to shortages and sky-high prices. Corporate pricing power is waning: As a result of pressures on consumer purchasing power, US producers are reporting that they find it harder to raise prices. Looking ahead, companies will have to absorb price increases (Chart 7). Chart 6Wage Increases Are Not Keeping Up With Inflation Chart 7Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Investment Implication: Erosion of consumer pricing power will eventually harm the Consumer Discretionary sector and will lead to a broad-based margin compression. Fundamentals Peak margins are here: The confluence of rising wages, falling productivity, and reduced ability to raise prices translates into an impending margin squeeze. We forecast that the year-over-year margin change will be negative in 2022 (Chart 8). The Q3 2021 earnings season delivered blockbuster results so far with roughly two-thirds of the companies reporting, and results are striking. 83% of companies have beaten the street expectations with the average earnings surprise standing at 11% (Chart 9). Sales beats are only marginally worse: 77% of the companies have exceeded expectations with an average sales surprise of 3%. Quarter-on-quarter earnings growth is 0.25%, exceeding an expected 6% contraction. Compared to Q3 2019, EPS CAGR is 12%. These results indicate that street expectations were a low bar to clear. Forward guidance is concerning: Most companies commented that supply chain bottlenecks and soaring shipping costs are the major headwinds. Most companies have navigated a challenging economic environment swimmingly so far. However, looking ahead, waning pricing power, falling productivity, and rising costs will weigh on profitability. These factors are the ubiquitous reasons for negative guidance: 52.6% of companies are guiding lower for Q4 2021 (compare that to 32.7% in the previous quarter). Investment Implication: It is likely that the Q4 2021 earnings season disappoints. Sentiment Strong inflows into US equities after early fall hiatus. This can be explained by FOMO (fear of missing out), and lots of cash sitting on the sidelines, which many retail investors aim to park in US equities (Chart 10). Furthermore, historically, November and December have been characterized by robust equity inflows: Retail investors wait until the end of the year to reach clarity on their financial situation and to allocate funds to 401Ks, IRAs, and 529s. Investment Implication: Buying on dips still offers downward protection from a major market pullback. Chart 10Strong Inflows Into US Equities: Buying On Dip Is Still En Vogue Uses Of Cash Buybacks Replace Dividends: Share buybacks are on the rise again (Chart 11, Panel 1), seemingly displacing dividends as a means of returning cash to shareholders: The dividend payout ratio is flagging (Chart 11, Panel 2). From a corporate standpoint, dividends require a long-term commitment, while buybacks can be a “one-off,” lending more flexibility to corporate treasurers. Corporations also prefer buybacks as they reduce their share count and inflate earnings per share. Investment Implication: For cash yield, focus on sectors known for using buybacks to disburse cash to shareholders: Technology and Financials. Chart 11Buybacks Are Replacing Dividends   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   S&P 500 Chart 12Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 13Profitability Chart 14Valuations And Technicals Chart 15Uses Of Cash Cyclicals Vs Defensives Chart 16Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 17Profitability Chart 18Valuation And Technicals Chart 19Uses Of Cash Growth Vs Value Chart 20Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 21Profitability Chart 22Valuations And Technicals     Small Vs Large Chart 23Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 24Profitability   Chart 25Valuations and Technicals Chart 26Uses Of Cash       Footnotes 1     WSJ, Supply-Chain Pain Is Maersk’s Gain as $5.44 Billion Profit Dwarfs Amazon, UPS, November 2, 2021. 2     Job Market Ratings Set Record, but Economic Confidence Slides (gallup.com), October 27, 2021.   Recommended Allocation

Special Report

Highlights We introduce our rotation graphs to assess the evolution of the relative trend and momentum of various assets. US equities remain on firm footing, but their weakening relative momentum suggests that investors may soon begin to rotate away from this market in favor of the Eurozone and EM. Cyclicals continue to dominate defensives, globally and in Europe. European value stocks are experiencing improving momentum, which suggests that a rotation out of growth equities is afoot. While European small-cap equities sport attractive fundamentals, rotational dynamics indicate it is still too early to overweight them aggressively. The energy crisis is a dominant driver of the relative sector performance in Europe and resulted in a massive shift in leadership from industrials to energy. As long as oil and natural gas act as a drag, industrials will lag. Financials are well supported. Swedish stocks have borne the brunt of the energy price spike, while Norwegian equities have been its main beneficiaries. The improvement in momentum of German stocks suggests that their relative underperformance will soon end. Spanish shares look attractive from a tactical perspective. Swiss industrials will need a recovery in EUR/CHF to outperform other European industrials. UK industrials will continue to outperform their continental competitors, while Spanish industrials have a window through which to shine. A rotation into UK financials may soon begin as their momentum improves. The darkest days for German financials are ending, while Spanish, Italian, and Swedish financials may soon witness a wave of underperformance. Spanish consumer discretionary equities are becoming more attractive compared to their European counterparts. While Dutch names continue to outperform other European tech equities, their softening momentum suggests investors are beginning to rotate out of this country. Spanish and German tech names offer an attractive diversification opportunity within the industry. Feature Methodology The combination of excess liquidity, large pools of fast money, elevated valuations across most securities, and the existence of the near-term momentum reversal effect encourage investors to rotate from one asset to the next in the hope of rapid profits. Measures to assess where each market stands in this rotational pattern can be useful for investors to catch these swings. In this optic, we introduce our rotation screener focused on equities. It is a simple tool that looks at whether a sector or a country is strengthening relative to its benchmark and whether this strength is happening at a faster or slower momentum. To measure each dimension, we use proprietary indicators of relative strength and momentum. Once each asset’s relative strength and relative momentum are established, we can position them in quadrants. We follow traditional terminology. The upper right quadrant denotes “Leading” assets, or securities that are outperforming their benchmark with strengthening momentum. The bottom right quadrant denotes “Weakening” assets, or securities that are outperforming their benchmark but with a deteriorating momentum. The bottom left quadrant denotes “Lagging” assets, or securities that are underperforming with decreasing momentum. Finally, the top left quadrant indicates “Improving” assets, or securities that are underperforming but with increasing momentum. Investors should move to overweight assets that are in the Improving quadrants and to underweight assets that are inching toward the “Lagging” from the “Weakening” quadrants. This method is very flexible and can be applied to sectors, countries, styles, and so on, as long as a benchmark is available to generate comparisons. In this report, we will analyze the following from a rotational perspective: global national markets, global cyclicals vs global defensive’s, European cyclicals vs European defensives, European sectors, European national markets, European financials, European consumer discretionaries, and European tech stocks. Global National Markets US equities have moved from the Leading quadrant to the Weakening one as they continue to outperform the global benchmark but with a decelerating momentum (Chart 1). This locates the US market in a risky position that could herald a period of underperformance, especially if global economic surprises accelerate. From a rotational perspective, US stocks could still experience another wave of outperformance over the coming weeks, as momentum has been firming over the past four weeks.   The Euro Area benchmark has fully moved from the Weakening quadrant in August to the Lagging one today. Investors should monitor Europe’s relative momentum closely, because a pick-up from here would push the Eurozone into Improving territory, a warning of an imminent trend change in European relative stock prices. Emerging markets have exited the Lagging zone and moved into the Improving quadrant. The move is far from decisive and remains at risk with Chinese credit growth still decelerating. The recent decline in steel prices in China suggests that construction activity in that economy continues to slow. Thus, as long as Chinese credit flows deteriorate, EM stocks will have trouble moving into the Leading quadrant. Cyclicals Vs Defensives Global defensive equities tried to move into the Leading quadrant at the end of the summer, but, ultimately, they plunged back into Lagging territory as global stocks recovered in October (Chart 2). Meanwhile, global cyclicals moved in the opposite trajectory, shifting from the Lagging quadrant to the Leading one over the past three months. Cyclicals continue to benefit from the general uptrend in the market. Even the recent decline in yields is doing little to boost the performance of defensive equities. The biggest risk to these stocks remains the Chinese economic slowdown. For now, this deterioration has not been large enough to compensate for the general vigour in profits and consumption in advanced economies. However, if inflation worries do not abate, then the Chinese slowdown will become more problematic for global cyclicals as it will raise the spectre of stagflation.  The rotational pattern for European cyclicals vs defensive stocks mimics that of global equities (Chart 3). However, European cyclicals are somewhat softer than their global equivalents, hurt by Europe’s greater exposure to the Chinese business cycle compared to the US’s exposure. European Investment Styles Over the past three months, European investment styles have begun a major shift. Value has moved from the Lagging quadrant to the Improving one, which suggests that flows could push value into the Leading quadrant (Chart 4). Moreover, growth has moved from the Leading quadrant to the weakening one, which created a similar dynamic as the decline in performance of the quality factor. This confirms that the rise in yields is beginning to favour a shift in style from growth to value. Meanwhile, small-cap stocks have tumbled into the Lagging quarter. We do expect attractive returns for European small-cap names over an 18- to 24-month investment horizon. However, we have not moved yet to overweight this sector of the market and rotational patterns confirm it is too early to do so safely. European Sectors Sectors have begun to make some important shifts in European markets (Chart 5). Tech has moved from the Leading quadrant to the weakening one. While the sector continues to outperform, it is doing so with a declining momentum, and it could soon move to the Lagging quadrant. This deteriorating price action must be monitored closely. Consumer discretionary names, which were strong performers that have become increasingly weak, have moved from the Weakening quadrant to the lagging one. However, their momentum is not deteriorating as much as it did nine weeks ago, which suggests a move to the Improving quadrant could soon be in the offing. Financials have greatly enjoyed the uptick in global yields. After a short passage through the Lagging quadrant, they have shifted into the Leading one. This suggests that the winds remain behind this sector, which we continue to overweight. Industrials and energy have become mirror images of one another, highlighting the negative impact on European economic activity and profitability of the recent surge in energy prices. The industrials have moved from the Leading quadrant to the lagging one, as the energy sector experienced the opposite direction of travel. This suggests that industrials will only recover their shine once the energy crisis abates, which will also hurt energy stocks. European National Markets The rotational pattern exhibited by European national markets bears their respective sectoral footprints (Chart 6). The tech-heavy Dutch market has moved from the Leading quadrant to the Weakening one, the industrials-focused Swedish market has fallen into the Lagging quadrant from the Weakening one and the Norwegian market has leapt out of Lagging into Leading territory. Hence, if the rotation out of tech deepens, The Netherlands will tumble directly into the Lagging zone, while an easing in energy prices will force Norway and Sweden to switch places on the back of a rotation out of energy into industrials. Germany is of particular interest. It is a well-diversified market that has become oversold. Moreover, as we wrote in September, its relative performance exhibits a significant discount to relative earnings. From a rotational perspective, Germany is moving to leave the Lagging quadrant; a durable shift into the Improving quadrant will sufficiently assuage traders into buying this market. This process will support our overweight position in German equities. Spain is another market we like on a tactical basis. Over the course of the past three months, it moved out of Lagging territory into the Improving zone. This price action supports our thesis that the large country-discount embedded across Spanish equity sectors is excessive and should soon dissipate. The main risk to this view would be another down leg in bond yields, which would hurt financials—a major weight in this market. Italy, too, is in the process of executing a full rotation, having exited the Weakening quadrant and moved into the Lagging one. Italian stocks have tried to punch their way into the Improving zone but have failed to do so. They will require higher yields to move out into the Improving zone durably because of the heavy financials weighting of Italian stocks. European Industrials Within European industrials, a rotational pattern is also evident (Chart 7). Swiss industrials have moved out of the Leading quadrant into the Lagging one as the Swiss franc continues to appreciate against the euro. The rising CHF imparts deflationary pressures into Switzerland and the SNB continues to build up its reserves. As a result, EUR/CHF will appreciate once EUR/USD finds a firmer footing. Thus, while it is too early to overweight Swiss industrials relative to those of the Eurozone, their oversold nature suggests that a rotation in favour of Swiss manufacturing businesses will soon take place. At the current juncture, Spanish industrials look appealing. They have moved out of the Lagging quadrant into the Improving one as the momentum of their relative performance improves. Additionally, they are close to moving into the leading territory. This picture is consistent with a narrowing of the discount embedded in all Spanish sectors since the pandemic broke out. Swedish industrials are also trying to exit the Lagging territory; their elevated RoE, and heavy sensitivity to the DM capex cycle indicate that they should move into the Leading quadrant in the coming weeks. UK industrials have remained in the Leading zone for the past three months, but their relative momentum is softening, which risks them being placed in the Weakening zone. The recent deterioration in GBP/EUR could provide a breath of fresh air, as it will improve the competitiveness of UK industrials compared to continental firms. Even then, for now, rotational dynamics do not flag an imminent problem for UK industrials. European Financials The clearest rotational pattern within European financials may be found in Sweden and the UK (Chart 8). Over the past three months, Swedish financials have fallen out of the Leading quadrant into the Weakening one, and they are inching closer toward the Lagging zone. This suggests that they could soon begin to underperform. Meanwhile, UK financials offer a mirror image as they exited the Lagging quadrant and moved into the improving one. They have yet to enter Leading territory, but seem close to doing so. The pessimism toward the UK is overdone right now. BCA’s Global Fixed-Income Strategy team expects the UK yield curve to steepen anew. UK financials would be prime beneficiaries of this dynamic. Italian and Spanish financials are also exhibiting some concerning moves lately. Both were in the Leading quadrant, but they have since shifted to the lagging one as peripheral spreads widened. Meanwhile, money seems to be moving into German financials, which have advanced from the Lagging quadrant to the Improving quadrant. While they are not as close to the Leading quadrant as their UK competitors, this shift warrants monitoring. European Consumer Discretionary Within the consumer discretionary space, most European countries have remained in their quadrant (Chart 9). Nonetheless, Spanish CD stocks have moved out of the Lagging zone into the Leading quadrant, while their Italian counterparts have recently entered the Weakening quadrant where they have joined French CDs. While both these countries’ consumer discretionary firms are witnessing weakening momentum, they remain in an upward trend against their European competitors. It is therefore too early to sell these countries within this industry. German Consumer discretionary equities are still in the Lagging quadrant, but they are trying to move into the Improving one, where UK CD names have remained for the past three months. European Tech The European tech sector is very much a story about The Netherlands versus the rest, due to the large size of the Dutch tech sector (Chart 10). For now, rotational patterns remain in favour of Dutch names; they have exited the Leading quadrant, but, while their momentum is weakening somewhat, they remain in a pronounced relative uptrend. A few small markets offer some promise. Over the past three months, both Spanish and German tech names have shifted from the Lagging quadrant into the Improving one. Their elevated momentum measures suggest that a shift into the Leading quadrant is imminent. As such, investors should consider switching some of their tech holdings into these two countries to diversify away from the Dutch behemoth.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. Unlike in the late 1990s, when rising wages were counterbalanced by robust productivity gains, most of the recent rebound in US productivity growth will prove to be illusory. US inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory. We are currently at the top of those two steps, but rising unit labor costs will eventually drive inflation higher. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted. Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. Go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world. The Bank of England will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer. The eventual re-emergence of supply-side pressures will catalyze more investment spending. This will bolster industrial stocks. The Supply Side Matters, Again Savings glut, secular stagnation; call it what you will, but for the better part of two decades, the global economy has faced a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand. Times are changing, however. The predominant problem these days is not a lack of spending; it is a lack of production. Unlike during the Global Financial Crisis – when worries about moral hazard complicated efforts to bail out homeowners and banks – the victims of the pandemic elicited sympathy. As a result, governments in developed economies rolled out a slew of measures to support workers and businesses. Thanks to bountiful fiscal transfers, households in the US have accrued $2.2 trillion in income since the start of the pandemic, about $1.2 trillion more than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 1). With many services unavailable, consumers diverted spending towards manufactured goods. At first, sellers were able to dip into their inventories to meet rising demand. By early this year, however, inventories had been depleted (Chart 2). Shortages began to pop up across much of the global supply chain. Chart 1Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Chart 2The Pandemic Depleted Inventories While today’s empty warehouses can be largely attributed to surging demand for goods, supply-side disruptions have also played an important role. Four disruptions stand out: 1) semiconductor shortages; 2) transportation bottlenecks; 3) inadequate energy supplies; and 4) reduced labor force participation. Let us examine all four in turn. Semiconductor Shortages Chart 3Car Prices Have Jumped The global supply chain was not equipped to handle the dislocations caused by the pandemic. The combination of just-in-time inventory systems and far-flung supplier networks ensured that bottlenecks in one part of the global economy quickly filtered down to other parts of the economy. Few industries are as important as semiconductors. The auto sector has felt the brunt of the chip shortage. Both new and used vehicle prices have soared as dealer lots have emptied out (Chart 3). The drop in vehicle spending alone shaved 2.4 percentage points off US real GDP growth in the third quarter. Semiconductor makers have ramped up production to meet growing demand. The US Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization showed that semiconductor plants operated an average of 73 hours per week in the first half of this year, up from around 45-to-50 hours prior to the pandemic (Chart 4). Chip production in Northeast Asia has rebounded (Chart 5). Southeast Asian production dropped in August due to Covid lockdowns, with semiconductor exports falling by over a third in Malaysia and Vietnam. Fortunately, since then, a decline in Covid cases and rising vaccination rates have spurred a recovery throughout the region. Chart 4Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chart 5Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Chart 6Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Commentary from semiconductor companies and automakers suggest that the chip shortage will ease over the coming months. In an auspicious sign, US auto sales jumped to 13.1 million in October from 12.3 million in September. Memory chip prices are also falling (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall chip market is unlikely to return to balance until 2023. Transportation Bottlenecks Unlike semiconductors and high-end electronics, which usually arrive by air, bulkier items such as furniture, sporting goods, and housing appliances typically arrive by sea. Port congestion, insufficient warehouse capacity, and a lack of truck chassis on which to place containers have all contributed to transportation bottlenecks. Chart 7Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? As with the semiconductor shortage, we are probably past the worst point in the shipping crisis. Drewry’s composite World Container Index has edged down 11% from its highs, although it is still up more than three-fold from mid-2020 levels (Chart 7). The easing in container shipping costs follows a dramatic 47% decline in the Baltic Dry Index since early October. The number of ships waiting to unload cargo off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach remains near record highs (Chart 8). Port congestion should ease over the next few months. US port throughput usually falls starting in the late fall and remains weak during the winter months, bottoming shortly after the Chinese New Year. If throughput remains elevated near current levels this year, this should be enough to clear much of the backlog. Looking further out, shipping costs could face additional downward pressure. Chart 9 shows that the number of container ships on order has risen to a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Chart 8Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Chart 9Shipbuilders Are Busy Inadequate Energy Supplies After a torrid rally since the start of the year, energy prices have come off their highs. The price of Brent oil has dipped 6% from its October peak. US natural gas prices have retreated 11%. Natural gas prices in Europe have fallen 37%. The biggest move has been in coal prices, which have dropped 36% over the past two weeks alone. Futures curves are pricing in further declines in key energy prices (Chart 10). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service expects energy prices to soften over the next 12 months, but not as much as markets are discounting. Their latest forecast calls for the price of Brent crude to average $81/bbl in 2021Q4, $80/bbl in 2022 (versus market expectations of $77/bbl), and $81/bbl in 2023 (versus market expectations of $71/bbl). As we discussed a few weeks ago, years of underinvestment have led to tight supply conditions across the entire energy complex (Chart 11). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade. Gas reserves followed a similar trajectory, increasing by only 5% between 2010 and 2020 compared to 30% over the prior ten years (Chart 12).   With little spare capacity, energy markets have become increasingly vulnerable to shocks. A cold snap across the Northern Hemisphere this spring depleted natural gas supplies, while a lack of wind reduced energy production by European wind farms. Increased gas imports from Russia could have mitigated the problem, but the dispute over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline prevented that from happening. The pipeline is popular with German voters (Chart 13). BCA’s geopolitical team expects it to be approved, a welcome development given that La Niña is highly likely to lead to colder-than-normal temperatures across northern Europe this winter. China has also restarted 170 coal mines and will probably begin re-importing Australian coal. Beijing is also allowing utilities to charge higher prices, which should help stave off bankruptcies across the sector. These measures should help mitigate China’s energy crisis. Chart 14US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels A bit more oil production will also help. The US rig count, while still far below its 2014 highs, has doubled since last year (Chart 14). BCA’s commodity strategists expect output in the Lower 48 states to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. Nevertheless, shale producers are a lot more disciplined these days. Debt reduction and cash flow generation are now the top priorities. This implies that fairly high oil prices may be necessary to catalyze additional investment in the industry.  Reduced Labor Force Participation Despite the rapid economic recovery, US employment remains 5 million below its pre-pandemic peak. One would not know this from the survey data, however. A record 51% of small businesses expressed difficulty finding qualified workers in the October NFIB survey. The share of households reporting that jobs are plentiful versus hard-to-get has returned to its 2000 highs. Both the quits rate and the job openings rate are well above their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 15). A wave of early retirement accounts for some of the apparent labor market tightness. About 1.3 million more workers have retired since the pandemic began than one would have expected based on demographic trends. Yet, there is more to the story than that. The labor force participation rate for workers aged 25-to-54 has not fully recovered; the employment-to-population ratio for that age cohort is still 2.5 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise   There is considerable uncertainty about how many workers will re-enter the labor force over the coming months. On the one hand, the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits could prod more workers into the job market. Diminished anxiety about the virus should help. While the number has fallen by half, there are still 2.5 million people not working due to concerns about getting or spreading Covid-19 (Chart 17). According to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, the retirement rate rose more for older lower-income workers than higher-income workers (Chart 18). Some of these retirees may decide to re-enter the labor force. Chart 17Less Anxiety About The Coronavirus Should Increase Labor Supply   On the other hand, the imposition of vaccine mandates could reduce labor supply. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether the pandemic will lead to permanent changes in peoples’ perspectives on the optimal work/life balance. High burnout rates (especially in the health care sector), a reluctance to restart the daily commute to the office, and the desire to spend more time with family have all contributed to what some commentators have dubbed The Great Resignation. Ultimately, the deciding factor may be wages. Wage growth accelerated during the late 1990s as the labor market tightened (Chart 19). This drew a lot of people – especially less-skilled workers – into the labor force. Recently, wage growth has exploded at the bottom end of the income distribution, and our guess is that this will entice more people to seek employment (Chart 20). Chart 19Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Chart 20Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly     Will Higher Productivity Growth Mitigate Supply-Side Pressures? The late 1990s saw a resurgence in productivity growth. This helped restrain unit labor costs in the face of rising wages. While US productivity did jump during the pandemic, we are sceptical of claims that this can be attributed to efficiency gains from digitalization and work-from-home practices. A recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. It is telling that productivity outside of the US generally declined during the pandemic (Chart 21). This suggests that last year’s productivity gains stemmed mainly from increased operating leverage, a common feature of post-recession US recoveries (Chart 22). Supporting this view is the fact that productivity growth slowed from 4.3% in Q1 to 2.4% in Q2 on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis. Productivity declined by 5% in Q3, leading to an 8.3% increase in unit labor costs. Chart 22US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions Chart 23Capital Goods Orders Have Soared The only saving grace is that core capital goods orders have soared (Chart 23). This should translate into increased business capital spending next year and higher productivity down the road. Investment Implications Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. This is consistent with our “two steps up, one step down” projection for US inflation. We are probably near the top of those two steps at present. This implies that the next move for inflation is to the downside, even if the longer-term trend is still to the upside. The US 10-year Treasury yield should stabilize at around 1.8% in the first half of 2022, before moving higher later in the year. As we discussed last week, markets are understating the true level of the neutral rate of interest. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted (Chart 24). Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, as of this week, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. We would also go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. The Bank of England’s “surprising hold” knocked the yield down 14 basis points to 0.93%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world (Chart 25). Growth is strong and will remain buoyant as Brexit headwinds fade. The BoE will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Chart 24Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Chart 25UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World   Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 26 shows that there has been a close correlation between the US 30-year Treasury yield and the relative performance of global value versus growth stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer (Chart 27). Chart 26Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks     The re-emergence of supply-side pressures could affect companies in a variety of unexpected ways. For example, Facebook and Google both rely heavily on revenue from advertising. But what is the point of trying to boost demand for your product if you already cannot produce enough of it? Companies such as Hershey and Kimberly-Clark are already cutting ad spending in response to supply-chain bottlenecks. Finally, tight supply conditions will catalyze more investment spending. This will benefit industrial stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

  Nearly two-thirds of the S&P 500 companies reported their Q3 earnings, and the earnings season is drawing to a close. 83% of companies have beaten the street expectations with an average earnings surprise standing at 11% (40% earnings growth vs. 29% expected on October 1, 2021). Sales beats are only marginally worse: 77% of the companies have exceeded expectations with an average sales surprise of 3%. Quarter-on-quarter earnings growth is 0.25% exceeding expected 6% contraction. Compared to Q3-2019, eps CAGR is 12%. Chart 1 Financials, Energy, and Health Care have delivered the largest earnings surprises. Financials have done well on the back of the robust M&A activity, while the unfolding energy crisis has lifted the overall S&P 500 Energy complex. Pent-up demand for the elective medical procedures has translated into strong Health Care earnings.   Industrials and Materials were amongst the worst: China-related headwinds continue to weigh on both of these sectors. However, some analysts expect China to ease in Q1-2022, providing a tailwind for these sectors.  Most companies commented that supply chain bottlenecks and soaring shipping costs are the major headwinds. However, as we see, most have navigated a challenging economic environment swimmingly. Strong pricing power and operating leverage have preserved margins and earnings so far. Looking ahead, companies’ ability to raise prices further is waning (Chart 1), while costs continue marching up. These factors are the ubiquitous reasons for a negative guidance – 52.6% of companies are guiding lower for Q4-2021 (compare that to 32.7% previous quarter). Bottom Line: Companies are exceeding analysts’ expectations both in terms of sales and earnings growth.