Sectors

HighlightsSince 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance.There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon.In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples.Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US.The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.Feature Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis  The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities.In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar.We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are:Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency termsThe change in profit marginsThe impact of changes in capital structure and index compositionThe change in the trailing P/E ratioThe income return from dividendsThe impact of changes in foreign exchangeThe sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021  Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends.Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects.Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021  Box II-1Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares OutstandingWe proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects.However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021  Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period.What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021  The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services.Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion.Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021  Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension...   Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition   Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally  The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally.The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US StocksWe present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis.Profit MarginsChart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks  Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021  Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.1 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation.But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.”On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors.Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems.In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive).Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021  Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize.Capital Structure And Index CompositionAs noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US.In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments.However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates.Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks?   Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years.Equity MultiplesThere are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade  Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity  Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close.Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated  The Foreign Exchange EffectAs a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance.The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance...   Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US StocksOver a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall.For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade  Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021  Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%.One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship  Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium.In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History...  The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields.This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades   Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.2In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021  Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors  Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks  Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US.Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era.Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements.Jonathan LaBerge, CFAVice PresidentThe Bank Credit AnalystFootnotes1  Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story October 2021 October 2021 Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021 Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021 The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021 Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021 Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021 Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021 Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021 Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Evergrande has not only crossed regulatory gridlines but also regulators’ bottom lines; the government will use the example of Evergrande to impose discipline on real estate developers. The policy response will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers to minimize systemic risks and damage to the real economy. However, a bigger risk stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy. The existing policy restrictions on China’s housing sector will not be reversed; the sector is on a structural downshift and will face risks of further consolidation and profit growth compression. Feature China Evergrande Group continues to stir up the global markets. Last Thursday the company missed a deadline to pay USD $83.5m in bond interest. The firm has now entered a 30-day grace period; it will default if that deadline also passes without payment. Chart 1Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Evergrande has not remarked on the potential default nor have China’s authorities or state media offered any clues about a potential rescue package. Meanwhile, the PBoC injected large amounts of liquidity into the banking system of late, a clear sign of support for the markets. Evergrande share prices continued their roller-coaster ride (Chart 1). Evergrande’s tumult is indicative of an industry-wide problem.  Real estate developers have expanded their businesses and profits through high-debt growth models. China’s policymakers have been trying to crack down on this business practice since 2017 and their clampdown has significantly intensified since August 2020. In this report, we follow up on last week’s Special Alert and share our thoughts on the potential market implications and policy response to the evolving Evergrande situation. The “Three Red Lines” Versus The “Bottom Lines” Evergrande has not only crossed the “three red lines” – three debt metrics China’s authorities laid out a year ago to reduce the housing sector’s leverage – but it has also crossed the bottom lines of policymakers. Therefore, we do not expect the government to lend a financial hand to bail out the corporation and its shareholders. Meanwhile, as discussed in our Special Alert, we expect that there will be some kind of a rescue plan to help onshore homebuyers and suppliers recover their losses. The authorities’ silence in the past three months as investors’ concerns about Evergrande’s debt situation escalated speaks volumes about plans for the overleveraged company. The Evergrande episode is not idiosyncratic; it represents an industry-wide problem linked to the sector’s high-debt growth model.  However, Evergrande has become China’s and the world’s most indebted property developer; the “three red lines” policy last year has pushed the company into a severe liquidity crunch.  Evergrande not only borrowed heavily to pursue an aggressive expansion strategy (“disorderly expansion of capitals”), but did so as President Xi Jinping famously remarked “houses are for living, not for speculation” in late 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, Evergrande’s total liabilities almost doubled and its stock prices jumped by 460%. Evergrande’s founder was ranked the richest man in China in 2017, building his company’s fortune on excessive leverage. The way that the company accumulated wealth conflicts with the government’s new mantra of building “common prosperity”, a policy shift to reduce income and wealth inequality. Furthermore, Evergrande paid its offshore investors in June this year while it continued to borrow from onshore banks and offload its onshore assets. This move did not bode well for China’s domestic stake- and shareholders, along with policymakers. Chart 2Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities In contrast with policymakers’ silence about the future of Evergrande and its shareholders, the authorities have reportedly urged the company to finish and deliver its housing projects.  Evergrande’s projects are mostly in tier-three cities where post-pandemic home price inflation has been subdued compared with top-tier cities (Chart 2). As such, policymakers will be less concerned about fueling home prices in these cities and more willing to work out a plan to finish and deliver those housing projects. Bottom Line: Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande rather than its shareholders. Contagion Risks We discussed our baseline scenario for Evergrande’s bankruptcy and restructuring in last week’s Special Alert. Our message has been that the well-telegraphed Evergrande default might not create an imminent systemic crisis or crash in China’s financial markets. However, it will likely reinforce the credit tightening that has been underway in China over the past 12 months.  This will delay and weaken the transmission of liquidity easing into the real economy. So far things are not bad enough for policymakers to reflate the economy in any meaningful way. Since the contagion risks from Evergrande’s debt crisis to China’s onshore financial markets seem to be contained, policy easing in the coming months will likely be gradual. Regulators have shown no sign of reversing the existing policy restrictions. Therefore, a bigger risk to China’s financial markets stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a spillover to other segments in the economy. Real estate activity and investment in China are set to slow structurally (discussed in the section below). If policymakers allow a disruptive deceleration in the sector's growth while being reluctant to ramp up support in other industries, China’s economic growth could downshift much more than policymakers would like to see. A rapid deceleration in the real economic activity and jitters in the financial markets could reinforce each other and spiral out of control. The facts below explain why risks of an imminent systemic crisis in China’s and global financial markets are limited (Table 1): The exposure of China’s banks to real estate developers is small relative to the banks’ total lending.  Although about 40% of total bank loans are property-related, only 6% are in loans to real estate developers. The majority of the 40% is in mortgage loans, construction loans and other loans collateralized by land and property. Evergrande’s outstanding bank debt accounts for less than 0.1% of China’s total onshore loan balances. The company owes about 1% of China’s existing trust loans and 0.04% of domestic bonds. The company has quality assets, as we discussed in last week’s report, that could cover most of its onshore outstanding debt. Widespread mortgage loan defaults are unlikely to happen, even if Evergrande does not strike a debt restructuring deal with the government. Strict housing and home-sale regulations cap the upside and limit the downside in home prices. Moreover, conservative loan-to-value ratio requirements have contributed to China’s low default rates on mortgage loans.1 Evergrande’s overseas liabilities are more significant, with its USD $20 billion bonds accounting for about 10% of China's corporate USD bonds issued by real estate developers. On the other hand, major US financial institutions have minimal direct exposure to China and Hong Kong SAR. Table 1Evergrande Debt, An Overview* The Evergrande Saga Continues The Evergrande Saga Continues Despite limited systemic risks to the financial markets, a lack of government intervention could result in a disruptive bankruptcy of the company, risking substantial ripple effects on other parts of the economy. Evergrande’s accounts payable and bills amount to nearly RMB 700 billion, owed to companies in the upstream and downstream industry supply chains.  In addition, Evergrande’s contract liabilities are as high as RMB 170 billion and are associated with the pre-sold but unfinished residential units in more than 200 cities. We think policymakers and Evergrande will ultimately agree on a debt restructuring plan. Evergrande could transfer some of its hard assets to state-owned banks or enterprises and the banks could either extend or restructure Evergrande’s existing loans to help finish and deliver the company’s housing projects. Regardless of how the debt is restructured, a government-led rescue will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers. Evergrande shareholders and investors in offshore, USD-denominated corporate bonds will suffer large losses. Bottom Line: Our base case scenario is that the government will restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. Will Policymakers Reverse Restrictive Housing Policies? Even though China’s monetary and fiscal policies have eased at margin, policy restrictions on the property market remain in place. The bar for regulators to significantly ease or to reverse policy tightening in the real estate industry is much higher than in past cycles. Furthermore, the government’s efforts to contain the sector’s leverage and home price inflation are structural rather than cyclical. Our view is based on the following observations: Chart 3China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China’s housing demand is on a structural downshift due to China’s falling birthrate and working-age population.  The decline in demand will likely accelerate in the next four to five years (Chart 3). Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the growth in real estate investment in the coming years will continue growing at the same rate as in the past cycles.  The government is determined to improve housing affordability by capping home prices in the coming years while increasing lower-income household wage growth. Previous “big bang” stimulus and soaring home prices have widened rather than narrowed income and wealth inequality. Beijing’s current primary focus is “common prosperity,” which aims to reduce inequality. This overarching policy initiative will prevent policymakers from backtracking on reforms in the property sector. Things are not bad enough for a major shift in policy direction. Demand for housing is down, but from a very elevated level (Chart 4). The growth of home sales is now reverting to its pre-pandemic rate. In a previous report we pointed out that the current policy backdrop resembles that of 2H2018 and 2019, when the stimulus was very measured despite a slowing economy and an escalating trade war with the US. Demand for housing in the first eight months of this year is stronger than in 2018/19, thus policymakers may not feel pressure to loosen restrictions in the housing sector.  Chart 4Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Chart 5Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Growth in real estate investment has been steady despite contracting housing starts (Chart 5).  The government’s deleveraging pressure on the sector since August last year has forced developers to hurry and finish their existing projects (Chart 5, bottom panel). This has helped to reduce developers’ project inventories and discourage them from hoarding land reserves, and the policy intention is unlikely to change (Chart 6). Additionally, the government has prioritized home price stability by capping prices and fine-tuning the supply of land (Chart 7). In other words, housing starts have become less market-driven and weaker readings may reflect regulators’ policy intentions to rein in land supplies.2 Local governments may increase the supply of land when real estate investment softens too fast, but home sales and project completions will have to decelerate more significantly. Chart 6Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Chart 7Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Funding constraints will not be removed soon and restrictive policies apply to both developers and banks. Banks need to meet the “two red lines” while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. The “two red lines”, which the PBoC unveiled in January this year, set the upper limit on the portion of household mortgages and real estate loans in banks’ total lending.  Despite aggressively scaling back lending to the housing sector, the lending ratio in many banks – including China’s six large banks and various medium-sized banks – still exceeded the upper limit. These banks will have to continue to reduce their property-related lending while the other banks will maintain a lower percentage of loans to the housing sector than in the past. Consequently, binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years, suggesting that the property market downturn will last longer than in previous cycles. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to have much appetite for more robust construction activity in the current environment with supply-side constraints for both raw materials and energy. More than 10 provinces in China are currently under power rationing and have cut factory production amid electricity supply issues and a push to enforce environmental regulations. We expect supply shortages and production decreases to continue through the winter, limiting the upside potential of the country’s economic activity. Bottom Line: China’s reforms in the property sector are structural and the leadership is much less likely to use housing as counter-cyclical policy support to the economy than in previous cycles. Investment Implications China’s growth and its ever-important property market activity have slowed. Given the policymakers’ higher pain threshold for a slower economy and lower appetite for leverage, policy easing will likely be gradual and piecemeal in the near term. The current monetary, fiscal, and industry policy backdrops resemble China’s response in H2 2018 and early 2019. Chinese stock prices rose briefly in early 2019 on the expectation of a sizable stimulus, but the rally was short-lived (Chart 8). Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility that policymakers will be overconfident in their capability to stabilize the economy as they balance structural reforms against growth volatility. They may choose to wait until there are signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy before backtracking the deleveraging campaign in the property sector and lending more support to the market/economy. In this scenario, the near-term response in the equity market will likely be very negative. China-related asset prices will not stabilize until policymakers decisively and significantly dial-up their reflationary response. Property sector stocks in China’s on- and offshore markets have been beaten down by policy tightening and lately the Evergrande saga (Chart 9). We maintain our view that these stocks have not reached their bottom. The property downturn in China is a structural change and authorities are unlikely to reverse current restrictions on the sector to support the economy. Chart 8Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chart 9Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom The real estate sector’s contribution to China’s economic growth is expected to gradually decline in the medium to long term. The industry will be further reformed and consolidated, and more developers will be forced to abandon their high-leverage, high-growth business expansion model. The outlook for the real estate industry’s profit growth will become less certain.  Investors will require higher risk premiums for real estate sector stocks, which means that these stocks’ valuations will be further compressed.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Chinese homeowners’ down payment ratios on a first property is 30% and 50% on a second property. 2Land auctions were delayed in July and August due to overwhelming demand from developers in the first half of the year. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

August PPI reading came in at 8.3%. Naturally, many investors are wondering whether the companies will be able to pass their soaring input costs to the customers. An in-depth analysis of margins and pricing power requires a significant research effort. However, below are some examples illustrating our thinking process on the topic. We also included pricing power sector charts in the Appendix.   Companies’ ability to hike prices is a function of the elasticity of demand, which is heterogeneous across industries and products. It also depends on product differentiation and competition in the industry. For some categories, such as consumer durables, pricing power has declined as prices reached the upper limit of affordability (Chart 1). As a result, durables goods manufacturers’ pricing power has peaked, and this sector is at a higher risk of margin squeeze. Margins of the Health Care sector have been under pressure for years (Chart 2). This can be tied back to Pharma being under perennial pressure from both politicians aiming to lower prescription drug prices, and from competition from the generics. Meanwhile, the Consumer Discretionary sector is in better shape thanks to pent-up demand for services and discretionary goods – consumers are in good financial health and are able to tolerate marginal prices increases. We expect discretionary and services industries to be able to maintain their margins. Bottom Line: The ability to exert pricing power and pass on costs to customers is highly industry-specific and can not be generalized. CHART 1 CHART 1 CHART 1 CHART 2 CHART 2 CHART 2 Appendix CHART 3 CHART 3 CHART 4 CHART 4  

Highlights This is the second part of the publication, in which we provide an in-depth overview of Hotels, Restaurants, and Airlines, or the “travel complex” as we dubbed it. In last week’s report, we provided an overview of the macroeconomic backdrop, the Delta variant trajectory, and a “deep dive” into the hotel industry. We concluded Hotels is a sound tactical and cyclical investment, and we recommended an overweight. Airlines Less profitable trip mix and excess capacity: Domestic travel has rebounded to 2019 levels, while international and corporate travel are still lagging due to government and corporate restrictions (Chart 1). Some of the excess capacity is being redirected to domestic leisure travel, which has higher volume but is far less profitable. Airline cargo growth is a saving grace. The cost side of the airline business has its own challenges. Airlines have high fixed costs as they own or lease aircraft fleets. This creates a heavy financial burden during downturns. The price of jet fuel has increased to pre-pandemic levels. Labor costs are high due to the unionized work force and rising wages. Profitability is elusive: With airline revenues down 27% YoY in August 2021, and costs on the rise, it is hard to envision profitability without a return of international and business travel. Too much debt: Airlines’ net debt has risen significantly since the pandemic. Without positive cash flow generation, it will become harder and harder for them to meet their debt obligations. We have a negative outlook for airlines and are underweight the S&P Airlines index. Restaurants Defensive: Although the S&P Restaurant Industry resides within the pro-cyclical S&P Consumer Discretionary Index, its composition is nothing but defensive as it is dominated by fast-food chains. Profitable and resilient: Despite the havoc wreaked by Covid, the restaurant industry has not stopped being profitable (Chart 2). With any new Covid variant scare, restaurants will just go back to their “drive-throughs” playbook. Over the course of 2021, restaurant spending has risen by more than 40%. We have a positive outlook for fast-food chains and are overweight the S&P Restaurant index. Feature This is the second part of the publication, in which we provide an in-depth overview of Hotels, Restaurants, and Airlines, or the “travel complex” as we dubbed it. These industries share many drivers of profitability as each provides in-person experiences. They are also highly dependent upon public sentiment regarding the potential dangers and likelihood of Covid infections. Further, consumer confidence and financial wellbeing are at the core of this group’s profitability, as the travel complex is a quintessential discretionary spending category. The recovery of the group was coming along quite well until the Delta variant derailed it in late summer, with reports pouring in about dining rooms closing, airline bookings flagging, and hotel occupancy dipping. What is next? In last week’s report, we provided an overview of the macroeconomic backdrop, the Delta variant trajectory, and a “deep dive” into the hotel industry. We concluded that the Hotels, Resorts, and Cruise Lines industry has significant potential to return to its former “glory”: Delta is cresting, financially healthy US consumers are choosing to spend their money on services and experiences, sell-side forecasts are pointing to surging sales, and hotels have substantial pricing power. The industry is a sound tactical and cyclical investment, and we recommend an overweight. This week we will continue with a deep dive into the Restaurant and Airline industries. Sneak Preview: We like restaurants (overweight) but airlines, not so much (underweight). Chart 1Airline Majors' Traffic Still Has Not Recovered To 2019 Level Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Chart 2Profitability Is Resilient To Downturns Profitability Is Resilient To Downturns Profitability Is Resilient To Downturns Airlines “To suggest that the airlines should have better prepared for this environment seems akin to suggesting Pompeii should have invested more heavily in firefighting technology.” (JP Morgan, Mar. 22, 2020) Having avoided bankruptcy in 2020 thanks to federal payout support, US passenger airlines recorded $4.3 billion more in pre-tax losses in the first half of 2021. Clearly, this industry’s woes are far from over. Unsurprisingly, airlines have had the worst performance of any industry in the travel complex, underperforming the S&P 500 by 5% over the past year (Chart 3 & Table 1). Importantly, the performance of the industry slumped at the end of the summer, triggered by the Delta variant scare: After several months of steady increases, new ticket sales have dipped. As we noted last week, several major airlines have warned in regulatory filings that their third quarter may not look as rosy as was hoped. American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United all noted a deceleration in near-term customer bookings in August and elevated trip cancellations, even in leisure.1 All three have suggested that the Delta variant is having a dampening effect on business. We believe that the Delta variant is cresting. Our base case is that herd immunity is not far off. Of course, the travel complex is vulnerable to any new virus scare (Table 2), and this is a risk that investors need to keep in mind. However, unlike hotels, airlines face multiple other challenges. Chart 3The S&P Airline Industry Index Is Still Under the Pre-pandemic Level The S&P Airline Industry Index Is Still Under the Pre-pandemic Level The S&P Airline Industry Index Is Still Under the Pre-pandemic Level Table 1Performance Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Table 2Airline Industry Composition Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Competitive Landscape The US airline industry generated total operating revenues of $92.7 billion in 2020, down 48.3% from $179.4 billion in 2019. The industry is dominated by five majors, that are included in the S&P 500 index). Macroeconomic Backdrop For Airlines The airline industry is highly cyclical, and its wellbeing is tightly tied to economic growth. As economic activity improves, business travel tends to increase (except when Covid-related restrictions change the normal course of things). As economic growth translates into higher wages and stronger employment gains, leisure travel also takes off. So does the transportation of goods. As we discussed in Part 1 of the report, the economy is currently in a slowdown stage of the business cycle: Growth is slowing but off high levels. As such, even in the absence of Covid-19 or the Delta variant, Airline sales would continue to grow but at a slow pace. US consumers are financially healthy, and while most of the stimulus money has been spent, more and more people are returning to work. Recently, consumer confidence has soured on the back of a resurgence in Covid infections and rising prices (Chart 4, panel 2). However, domestic airline tickets are still cheap, and only fear of infection is keeping Americans grounded. With Delta cresting, people will go back to flying. Chart 4Airlines Are Highly Cyclical Airlines Are Highly Cyclical Airlines Are Highly Cyclical Key Drivers Of Profitability: Revenue Vs Expenses Revenue While many industries have been hit hard by the pandemic (brick-and-mortar retail, hotels, restaurants) most have turned the corner and are now profitable. Airlines, however, are still struggling (Chart 5). The good news is that losses have been declining, but the bad news is that the financial situation of most airlines is still precarious. Airlines rely on diverse sources of revenue, and thanks to that, business is starting to recover. The following are the key streams: Fares charged to customers In-flight entertainment, food, and beverages Sales of frequent-flyer credits to hotels, auto rental agencies, credit card issuers Auxiliary charges: Baggage checks, choice of seat, extra leg room Cargo and mail Chart 5Airlines' Revenue Remain Airlines' Revenue Remain Airlines' Revenue Remain Chart 6Airline Majors' Traffic Still Has Not Recovered To 2019 Level Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Traffic Recovery: Domestic Travel Has Rebounded, While International And Corporate Travel Are Still Lagging Budget airlines are pandemic winners: As of October 2021 compared to October 2019, scheduled available seat miles are down for all the airlines in the S&P 500 index (AAL, LUV, DAL, UAL, and ALK) (Chart 6). Only the budget airlines such as Allegiant, Spirit, and Frontier have a scheduled number of flights above the 2019 watermark. The underlying reason for such a dichotomy is easy to explain. The successful rollout of Covid-19 vaccines in the US has unleashed material pent-up demand for domestic leisure travel, benefiting domestic budget airlines. US domestic seat miles and load factors have recovered to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 7) as consumers have eagerly spent their stimulus checks on travel within the US. Chart 7Domestic Load Factor Has Fallen Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Major airlines are bleeding cash due to high exposure to international and business travel segments: In the meantime, many government and company-imposed restrictions on international and business flights are still in place. Companies are taking a very cautious approach to office re-openings and employee travel, and Zoom has become embedded as a viable corporate communications alternative and a cost-saving tool. As a result, the airline traffic of the majors with high exposure to international (Chart 8) and business travel (Chart 9), is still below the pre-pandemic level. Some of that capacity is being redirected to domestic leisure travel, which has higher volume but is far less profitable. Chart 8In August 2021, US-International Air Travel* Fell 54% Below 2019 Levels Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Chart 9Since Mid-July, Growth Of Overall And Corporate Ticket Sales Has Slowed Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Corporate and international travel are the most lucrative revenue segments and are significant in size: Before the pandemic, business travel constituted 30% of all trips. The industry can hardly recover without these segments rebounding. Until that happens, companies will stay unprofitable, and cash burn will continue. Business travel is projected to recover in 2022 at best and 2024 at worst: The US Travel Association projects US business travel to return to the 2019 level in 2024. The Airlines for America Association (A4A) concurs. It projects that airline passenger volumes will return to the 2019 level in 2022 in the best-case scenario and in 2024 in the worst. Airline cargo is a saving grace: With passenger revenues still lagging 2019 levels, many airlines are focusing on the capacity of their cargo units. With global supply chains clogged and shipping costs increasing five-fold over the past few months, this is a profitable niche. Air cargo demand reached its all-time high in 2020 and continues to grow in 2021: US airlines posted a 20.5% increase in demand for international air cargo in July 2021 from the July 2019 actuals (Chart 10). Chart 10For US Airlines, Growth In Air Cargo Continues To Outpace Air Travel By A Large Margin Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Airlines Compete On Volume: Airfares Are Low Despite the inflationary environment, the price of airfares is still 18% below its 2019 level (-10% annualized), and that is after 7% YoY price increases in 2021 (Chart 11). These are price levels not seen since the 1990s. With all the spare capacity, former international and business travel is now competing to attract domestic leisure passengers. Making things worse, due to prior commitments, airlines continued to grow their fleets throughout the pandemic closures (Chart 12), further increasing capacity and exacerbating competition for passengers as business and international travel are likely to lag, making peak ticket prices and peak revenue elusive (Chart 13). There is also another matter to consider, which is hardly minor. Airline taxes and fees constitute about a quarter of the price of a ticket. According to an example put together by A4A, the base airline fare of $236 has $64 in multiple taxes and fees, making tickets less affordable. Chart 11Airfares Have Fallen by 10% A Year Since The Beginning Of The Pandemic Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Chart 12Capacity Continues To Increase Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Chart 13Airfares Are Down 18% From 2019 And 29% From 2014 Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Sales Growth Analysts expect airline sales growth to stabilize at 60% over the next 12 months. The base effect certainly plays a significant role, but this rate will help the industry to recover. Expenses Airlines have high fixed costs as they own or lease aircraft fleets. This creates a heavy financial burden during downturns, as costs can hardly be cut. Other expenses such as labor and fuel are also sticky. Price Of Jet Fuel Has Increased To Pre-pandemic Levels The cost of jet fuel is one of the most significant input costs for airlines, constituting anywhere between 10% and 30% of revenue (Chart 14). The price of fuel can make a significant difference for an airline’s razor-thin margins. Airlines therefore tend to hedge their fuel exposure. Jet-fuel prices have rebounded to their pre-pandemic level and are up 49% from January 2021 (Chart 14), no longer giving the airline any slack on the cost side. According to Zach Research, at United Airlines the average aircraft fuel price per gallon increased by 66.9% year-over-year to $1.97 in the June quarter. Owing to the uptick in air travel demand witnessed in the June quarter following increased vaccinations, fuel gallons consumed were up 206.4%. Chart 14Price Of Jet Fuel Has Increased To The Pre-pandemic Levels Price Of Jet Fuel Has Increased To The Pre-pandemic Levels Price Of Jet Fuel Has Increased To The Pre-pandemic Levels Chart 15Labor Costs Increased Again Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Labor Costs Are Fixed Due To The Unionized Work Force Labor is another significant line item on the expense side of the airline’s income statement. Normally labor costs constitute 30-40% of sales. During the darkest days of the lockdowns, labor expense soared to 60% of sales (Chart 15). With a highly unionized labor force, layoffs and furloughs require significant payouts. There are also many other conditions in the labor contract that must be met. As a result, as sales tanked, labor costs did not change in the same proportion. Even so, airlines reduced their workforce from 458,000 people in 2019 to 363,000 in November 2020 (Chart 15). Now, with sales growing again, airlines have started rehiring. However, with recent wage rises, new employees are more expensive. Profitability With revenue challenged by a less profitable trip mix, excess capacity, and rising fuel and labor costs, airlines have been losing money for over a year now (Chart 16). While the increase in leisure travel and cargo units is helping, it is hard to envision profitability without a return of international and business travel. With airline revenue down 27% YoY in August 2021, and costs on the rise, profitability is still a long way off (Chart 17). Chart 16Airlines Are Unprofitable… Airlines Are Unprofitable… Airlines Are Unprofitable… Chart 17…And Are Burning Cash …And Are Burning Cash …And Are Burning Cash Net Debt Airlines’ net debt has risen significantly since the pandemic, driven by their need to support fixed costs (Chart 18). The increase in net debt was also stimulated by large government support and a low interest-rate environment. The problem is that since airlines are unprofitable, and are burning cash, it is becoming harder and harder for them to meet their debt obligations (Chart 19). While there have not been any high-profile bankruptcies in the US, some European and Asian carriers, such as Norwegian Air and AirAsia Japan Co., had to file for bankruptcy protection. As airlines are expected to continue to burn cash through 2022 their credit ratings have been downgraded (Table 3). We would not be surprised if more bankruptcies or industry consolidations take place in the near term. Chart 18Debt Levels Have Increased Significantly Debt Levels Have Increased Significantly Debt Levels Have Increased Significantly Chart 19Airlines Have Difficulty With Interest Payments Airlines Have Difficulty With Interest Payments Airlines Have Difficulty With Interest Payments Table 3All Airlines Credit Ratings Have Been Downgraded Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) When Will Airlines Thrive Again While revenue lags, the industry will remain vulnerable to shocks and cost headwinds. However, once international and business travel recovers, sales will pick up, and companies will generate positive cash flow. Cash generation is a necessary condition for financial recovery – once airlines arrest the cash burn, they can shift their efforts towards rebuilding profitability and, eventually, repairing their balance sheets. Valuations And Technicals Airlines are trading at 36x forward earnings, which is optically high. However, the Valuations Indicator suggests that airlines are not expensive relative to their own history (Chart 20). The industry is also modestly oversold (Chart 21). Chart 20Airline Are Not Expensive Relative To Own History… Airline Are Not Expensive Relative To Own History… Airline Are Not Expensive Relative To Own History… Chart 21…And Are Oversold …And Are Oversold …And Are Oversold  Investment Implications Airlines are slowly recovering from a malaise induced by the pandemic lockdowns. However, the road to recovery will be long. While domestic leisure and cargo traffic has picked up, it will be another couple of years before international and business travel rebounds to the pre-pandemic levels. With fuel and labor costs on the rise, profitability is elusive without those segments. And, even when airlines return to profitability, it will take them years to repair their indebted balance sheets. What is worse, with current levels of debt burden and negative interest coverage, bankruptcies may not be out of the question for some. While airlines may rally with rates rising and cyclicals outperforming, we are negative on the industry on both a cyclical and structural basis. However, if any of our clients wish to trade this industry, there are several liquid ETFs that represent this space (Table 4). If investors chose to be granular and pick individual stocks in this space, they need to be aware of the individual challenges of each airline and their levels of indebtedness vs cash burn. In short, we have a negative outlook for airlines and are underweighting the industry. Table 4Airline ETFs Are Readily Available Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Restaurants: Defensive Cyclicals Industry Composition Although the S&P Restaurant Industry resides within the pro-cyclical S&P Consumer Discretionary Index, its composition is nothing but defensive. In fact, a more appropriate name would have been the S&P Fast-Food Industry, with MCD and SBUX accounting for 70%+ of the industry market cap (Table 5). Table 5Industry Composition Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Performance Restaurant Industry performance has been tracking the performance of the S&P 500, lagging the benchmark by only 8% since January 2020 (Chart 22) Chart 22Restaurant Performed Almost In Line With The S&P 500 Restaurant Performed Almost In Line With The S&P 500 Restaurant Performed Almost In Line With The S&P 500 Restaurants Are “Defensive Cyclicals” Since fast-food prices are generally low, fast-food restaurants tend to be what economists call “inferior” goods, i.e., goods whose sales rise when the economy is in a downward spiral. Restaurants tend to outperform in the slowdown stage of the business cycle (Chart 23), are flat during contraction, and underperform during expansions. Consistent with these expectations, fast-food restaurants also came out as winners of Covid lockdowns: Although sales initially dipped, they quickly recovered as fast-food chains reoriented their business toward drive-throughs and other forms of take-out (Chart 24). Chart 23Fast-Food Restaurants Are Defensive Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Travel: Airlines Are Not Ready To Take Off (Part 2) Chart 24Sales Growth Is Recovering Sales Growth Is Recovering Sales Growth Is Recovering Covid While the restaurant business was coming along quite well, concerns emerged at summer’s end that the Delta variant would further delay industry recovery. Chains like McDonald’s and Chick-fil-A announced that they are slowing their dining room re-openings. As data from restaurant analytics firm Black Box Intelligence demonstrates, sales that had grown steadily earlier this summer have fallen.2 We believe that the reaction to the Delta variant is transitory as new infections are cresting. And, in the worst-case scenario, fast-food restaurants in the index will just switch back to their Covid “drive-through playbook,” and will maintain their level of profitability. Restaurant Spending And Profitability Over the course of 2021, US retail sales releases reveal that restaurant spending rose by more than 40%, outpacing the headline number (13%) by a wide margin (Chart 25). While restaurant spending is likely to decelerate over the coming months as pent-up demand for services is satisfied, earnings will continue to improve. This is in line with analyst expectations (Chart 26). Chart 25Restaurant Sales Skyrocketed In 2021 Restaurant Sales Skyrocketed In 2021 Restaurant Sales Skyrocketed In 2021 Chart 26Earnings Will Continue to Grow But At A Slower Pace Earnings Will Continue to Grow But At A Slower Pace Earnings Will Continue to Grow But At A Slower Pace Despite the havoc wreaked by Covid, the restaurant industry has not stopped being profitable, and although margins dipped in the midst of the lockdown, they swiftly rebounded. The 83% YoY print in restaurants FCF is nearly an all-time high reading since the history of the data going back to the 1990s (Chart 27). Debt Is Low Net debt to total assets also echoes the upbeat message highlighting that US dining stocks remain in good financial health (Chart 28). Chart 27Free Cash Flow Is At All-Time High Free Cash Flow Is At All-Time High Free Cash Flow Is At All-Time High Chart 28Debt Is Low Debt Is Low Debt Is Low Valuations And Technicals Valuations are not demanding while technicals suggest that the industry is oversold (Chart 29). Chart 29Restaurants Are Oversold & Undervalued Restaurants Are Oversold & Undervalued Restaurants Are Oversold & Undervalued Investment Implications The current slowdown stage of the business cycle is favorable for the fast-food industry. This industry is profitable and resilient in downturns. It is also attractively valued. The industry is oversold, which represents a favorable entry point for an overweight position. In short, fast-food restaurants are a sound “cyclical defensive”: They are resilient to downturns, highly profitable, and have healthy balance sheets. We have a positive outlook on the industry and are overweight. A Quick Aside: Toast IPO Before we conclude, a brief note on the new Toast (TOST) IPO is in order. While the stock became public only last week and is not a part of the S&P 500, it is an important newcomer to the stock market. The company is a market leader in cloud-based restaurant management software. Toast’s performance is tied to the health of the overall US restaurant industry. Many of the popular restaurants and fast-food chains are among Toast’s clients. Bottom Line We have a negative outlook for Airlines: This highly cyclical industry is on a long-winding path towards recovery, profitability, and deleveraging. Airlines face multiple challenges and headwinds: Fuel and labor costs are rising, while their most profitable revenue segments, international and business travel, are missing in action. Cash burn is still acute, and profitability is elusive despite all the progress made. We are much more positive on the outlook for the Restaurant Index, which represents some of the largest fast-food chains in the nation. This industry thrives during economic slowdown, is resilient to shocks, and is highly profitable.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Travel Investors Need More Drive, WSJ, Sep 12, 2021 2     Restaurants Close Dining Rooms Again as Delta-Driven Infections Spread, WSJ, Sep 13, 2021.     Recommended Allocation

Highlights The Evergrande crisis is not China’s Lehman moment. Nonetheless, Chinese construction activity will decelerate further in response to this shock. Global equities are frothy enough that a weaker-than-expected Chinese construction sector will remain a near-term risk to stocks prices. European markets are more exposed to this risk than US ones. Tactically, this creates a dangerous environment for cyclicals in general and materials in particular. Healthcare and Swiss stocks would be the winners. Despite these near-term hurdles, we maintain a pro-cyclical portfolio stance, which we will protect with some temporary hedges. We will lift these hedges if the EURO STOXX corrects into the 430-420 zone. A busy week for European central banks confirms our negative stance on EUR/GBP, EUR/SEK, and EUR/NOK. While EUR/CHF has upside, Swiss stocks should outperform Euro Area defensives. Stay underweight UK Gilts in fixed-income portfolios. Feature The collapse of property developer Evergrande creates an important risk for European markets. It threatens to slow Chinese construction activity further, which affects European assets that are heavily exposed to the Chinese real estate sector, directly and indirectly. This risk is mostly frontloaded, as Chinese authorities cannot afford a complete meltdown of the domestic property sector. Moreover, this economy has slowed significantly and more policy support is bound to take place. Additionally, forces outside China create important counterweights that will allow Europe to thrive despite the near-term clouds. While we see more short-term risk for European stocks and cyclical sectors, the 18-month cyclical outlook remains bright. Similarly, European stocks will not outperform US ones when Chinese real estate activity remains a source of downside surprise; but they will afterward. China’s Construction Slowdown Is Not Over The Evergrande crisis is not China’s Lehman moment. Beijing has the resources to prevent a systemic meltdown and understands full well what is at stake. At 160% of GDP, China’s nonfinancial corporate debt towers well above that of other major emerging markets and even that of Japan in the 1980s (Chart 1). If an Evergrande bankruptcy were allowed to topple this debt mountain, China would experience the kind of debt-deflation trap that proved so disastrous in the 1930s. A further deterioration of conditions in Chinese real estate activity is nonetheless in the cards, even if the country avoids a global systemic financial shock. First, the inevitable restructuring of Evergrande will result in losses for bond holders, especially foreign ones. Consequently, risk premia in the Chinese off-shore corporate bonds market will remain wide following the resolution of the Evergrande debacle. While Chinese banks are likely to recover a large proportion of the funds they lent to the real estate giant, they too will face higher risk premia. At the margin, the rising cost of capital will curtail the number of projects real estate developers take on over the coming two to three years. Second, the eventual liquidation of Evergrande will hurt confidence among real estate developers. This process may take many forms, but, as we go to press, the most discussed outcome is a breakup and restructuring where state-owned enterprises and large local governments absorb Evergrande’s operations. Evergrande’s employees, suppliers, and clients who have deposited funds while pre-ordering properties will be made whole one way or the other. However, shareholders and management will not. Wiping out shareholders and senior management will send a message to the operators of other developers, which will negatively affect their risk taking (Chart 2). Chart 1China Cannot Afford A Lehman Moment China Cannot Afford A Lehman Moment China Cannot Afford A Lehman Moment Chart 2Downside To Chinese Construction Activity Downside To Chinese Construction Activity Downside To Chinese Construction Activity   Third, one of President Xi Jinping’s key policy objectives is to tame rampant income inequality in the Chinese economy. Rapidly rising real estate prices and elevated unaffordability only worsen this problem. Hence, Beijing wants to avoid blind stimulus that mostly pushes house prices higher but that would have also boosted construction activity. Thus, if credit growth is pushed through the system, the regulatory tightening in real estate will not end. This process is likely to result in further contraction in floor space sold and started. Bottom Line: The Evergrande crisis is unlikely to morph into China’s Lehman moment. However, its fallout on the real estate industry means that Chinese construction activity will continue to contract in the coming six to twelve months or so. Chinese Construction Matters For European Equities The risk of further contraction in Chinese construction activity implies a significant near-term risk for European equities, especially relative to US ones. Even after the volatility of the past three weeks, global equities remain vulnerable to more corrective action. Speculative activity continues to grip the bellwether US market. Our BCA Equity Speculation Index is still around two sigma. Previous instances of high readings did not necessarily herald the end of bull markets; however, they often resulted in sideways and volatile trading, until the speculative excesses dissipated (Chart 3). The case for such volatile trading is strong. The Fed is set to begin its taper at its November meeting. Moreover, an end of the QE program by the middle of next year and the upcoming rotation of regional Fed heads on the FOMC will likely result in a first rate hike by the end of 2022. Already, the growth rate of the global money supply has declined, and the real yield impulse is not as supportive as it once was. Therefore, the deterioration in our BCA Monetary Indicator should perdure (Chart 4), which will heighten the sensitivity of global stocks to bad news out of China. Chart 3Rife With Speculation Rife With Speculation Rife With Speculation Chart 4Liquidity Deterioration At The Margin Liquidity Deterioration At The Margin Liquidity Deterioration At The Margin Chart 5Still Too Happy Still Too Happy Still Too Happy Investor sentiment is also not as washed out as many news stories ascertain. The AAII survey shows that the number of equity bulls has fallen sharply, but BCA’s Complacency-Anxiety Index, Equity Capitulation Indicator and Sentiment composite are still inconsistent with durable market bottoms. Moreover, the National Association of Active Investment Managers’ Exposure Index is still very elevated. When this gauge is combined with the AAII bulls minus bears indicator, it often detects floors in the US dollar-price of the European MSCI index (Chart 5). For now, this composite sentiment measure is flashing further vulnerability for European equities, especially if China remains a source of potential bad news in the coming months. Economic linkages reinforce the tactical risk to European stocks. Chinese construction activity affects the Euro Area industrial production because machinery and transportation goods represent 50% of Europe’s export to China (Chart 6). This category is very sensitive to Chinese real estate activity. Moreover, Europe’s exports to other nations are also indirectly affected by the demand from Chinese construction. Financial markets bear this footprint. Excavator sales in China are a leading indicator of construction activity. Historically, they correlate well with both the fluctuations of EUR/USD and the performance of Eurozone stocks relative to those of the US (Chart 7). Hence, if we anticipate that the problems Evergrande faces will weigh on excavator sales in the coming months, then the euro will suffer and Euro Area stocks could continue to underperform. Chart 6Europe's Exports To China Are Sensitive To Construction Activity Europe's Exports To China Are Sensitive To Construction Activity Europe's Exports To China Are Sensitive To Construction Activity Chart 7A Near-Term Risk To European Assets A Near-Term Risk To European Assets A Near-Term Risk To European Assets   Similarly, the fallout from Evergrande’s problem will extend to the performance of European equity sectors. The sideways corrective episode in cyclical relative to defensive shares is likely to continue in the near term. This sector twist remains frothy, and often declines when Chinese credit origination is soft (Chart 8). Materials stocks are the most likely to suffer due to their tight correlation with Chinese excavator sales (Chart 9); meanwhile, healthcare equities will reap the greatest benefit as a result of their appealing structural growth profile and their strong defensive property. Geographically, Swiss stocks should perform best (Chart 9, bottom panel), because they strongly overweigh healthcare and consumer staple names. Moreover, as we recently argued, the SNB’s monetary policy is an advantage for Swiss stocks compared to Eurozone defensives.1 Additionally, Dutch equities, with their 50% weighting in tech and their small 12% combined allocation to industrials and materials, could also enjoy a near-term outperformance as investors digest the sectoral impact of weaker Chinese construction activity. Chart 8The Vulnerability Of Cyclicals/Defensives Remains The Vulnerability Of Cyclicals/Defensives Remains The Vulnerability Of Cyclicals/Defensives Remains Chart 9Responses To Weaker Construction Responses To Weaker Construction Responses To Weaker Construction   Bottom Line: No matter how the Evergrande story unfolds, its consequence on Chinese construction activity may still cause market tremors. Global equity benchmarks may be rebounding right now, but, ultimately, they remain vulnerable to this slowdown. Any negative surprise out of China is likely to cause Europe to underperform because of its greater exposure to Chinese construction activity. Investment Conclusion: This Too Shall Pass The risks to the European equity market and its cyclicals sectors will prove transitory and will finish by the end of the year. Beijing will tolerate some pain to the real estate sector, but the stakes are too high to let the situation fester for long. The main problem is China’s large debt. Already sequential GDP growth in the first half of 2021 was worse than the same period in 2020, and credit accumulation is just as weak as in early 2018 (Chart 10). In this context, if real estate activity deteriorates too much, aggregate profits will contract and, in turn, will hurt the corporate sector’s ability to service its debt. Employment and social tensions create another stress point that will force Beijing’s hand. At 47, the non-manufacturing PMI employment index is already well into the contraction zone (Chart 11). Weakness in construction activity will hurt the labor market further. In an environment where protests have been springing up all over China, the Communist Party does not want to see more stress applied to workers. Chart 10In The End, Stimulus Will Come In The End, Stimulus Will Come In The End, Stimulus Will Come Chart 11Worsening Chinese Employment Conditions Worsening Chinese Employment Conditions Worsening Chinese Employment Conditions   These two constraints will force Beijing to alleviate the pain caused by a weaker construction sector. As a result, we still expect the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse to re-accelerate by Q2 2022. Developments outside of China will create another important offset that will allow risk assets to thrive once their immediate froth has receded. Strong DM capex will be an important driver of global activity next year. As Chart 12 shows, capex intentions in the US and the Euro Area are rapidly expanding, which augurs well for global investments. Moreover, re-building depleted inventories (Chart 13) will be a crucial component of the solution to global supply bottlenecks. Both activities will add to global demand. As an example, ship orders are already surging. Chart 12DM Capex Intentions Are Firming DM Capex Intentions Are Firming DM Capex Intentions Are Firming Chart 13Don't Forget About Inventories Don't Forget About Inventories Don't Forget About Inventories     We maintain a pro-cyclical stance in European markets after weighing the near-term negatives against the underlying positive forces. For now, hedging the tactical risk still makes sense and our long telecommunication / short consumer discretionary equities remain the appropriate vehicle – so does being long Swiss stocks versus Euro Area defensives. However, we will use any correction in the EURO STOXX (Bloomberg: SXXE Index) to the 430-420 zone to unload this protection. Bottom Line: The potential market stress created by a slowdown in Chinese construction activity will be a temporary force. Beijing will not tolerate a much larger hit to the economy, especially as tensions are rising across the country. Thus, even if the stimulus response to the Evergrande crisis will not be immediate, it will eventually come, which will support Chinese economic activity. Additionally, the capex upside and inventory rebuilding in advanced economies will create an offset for slowing Chinese growth. Consequently, while we maintain a pro-cyclical bias over the medium term, we are also keeping in place our hedges in the near term, looking to shed them if SXXE hits the 430-420 zone. A Big Week For Central Banks Chart 14The BoE's Is Listening To The UK's Economic Conditions... The BoE's Is Listening To The UK's Economic Conditions... The BoE's Is Listening To The UK's Economic Conditions... Last week, four European central banks held their policy meetings: The Riksbank, the Swiss National Bank, the Norges Bank, and the Bank of England. No major surprises came out of these meetings, with central banks discourses and policy evolving in line with their respective economies. The BoE veered on the hawkish side, highlighting that rates could rise before its QE program is over. This implies a small possibility of a rate hike by the end of 2021. However, our base case remains that the initial hike will be in the first half of 2022. The BoE is behaving in line with the message from our UK Central Bank Monitor (Chart 14). Moreover, the combination of rapid inflation and strong house price appreciation is incentivizing the BoE to remove monetary accommodation, especially because UK financial conditions are extremely easy (Chart 14, bottom panel). One caution advanced by the MPC is the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the end of the job furlough scheme this month. However, the global economy will be strong enough next spring to mitigate the risks to the UK. The results of last week’s MPC meeting and our view on the global and UK business cycles support the short EUR/GBP recommendation of BCA’s foreign exchange strategist,2 as well as the underweight allocation to UK Gilts of our Global Fixed Income Strategy group.3 The Norges Bank is the first central bank in the G-10 to hike rates and is likely to do so again later this year. While Norwegian core inflation remains low, house prices are strong, monetary conditions are extremely accommodative, and our Norway Central Bank Monitor is surging (Chart 15). The Norwegian central bank will continue to focus on these positives, especially in light of our Commodity and Energy team’s view that Brent will average more than $80/bbl by 2023.4 In this context, we anticipate the NOK to outperform the euro over the coming 24 months. Nonetheless, the near-term outlook for Norwegian stocks remains fraught with danger. Materials account for 17% of the MSCI Norway index and are the sector most vulnerable to a deterioration in Chinese construction activity. The Riksbank continues to disregard the strength of the Swedish economy. Relative to economic conditions, it is one of the most dovish central banks in the world. The Swedish central bank is completely ignoring the message from our Sweden Central Bank Monitor, which has never been as elevated as it is today (Chart 16). Moreover, the inexpensiveness of the SEK means that Swedish financial conditions are exceptionally accommodative. At first glance, this picture is bearish for the SEK. However, easy monetary conditions will cause Sweden’s real estate bubble to expand. Expanding real estate prices and transaction volumes will boost the profits of Swedish financials, which account for 27% of the MSCI Sweden index. Moreover, Swedish industrials remain one of our favorite sectors in Europe, and they represent 38% of the same index. As a result, equity flows into Sweden should still hurt the EUR/SEK cross. Chart 15...And The Norges Bank, To Norway's ...And The Norges Bank, To Norway's ...And The Norges Bank, To Norway's Chart 16The Riksbank Is Blowing Real Estate Bubbles The Riksbank Is Blowing Real Estate Bubbles The Riksbank Is Blowing Real Estate Bubbles Chart 17The CHF Still Worries The SNB The CHF Still Worries The SNB The CHF Still Worries The SNB Finally, the SNB proved reliably dovish. Our Switzerland Central Bank Monitor is rising fast as inflation and house prices improve (Chart 17). However, the SNB is rightfully worried about the expensiveness of the CHF, which generates tight Swiss financial conditions (Chart 17, bottom panel). Consequently, the SNB will keep fighting off any depreciation in EUR/CHF. Thus, the SNB will be forced to expand its balance sheet because the ECB is likely to remain active in asset markets longer than many of its peers. This process will be key to the outperformance of Swiss stocks relative to other European defensive equities.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see European Investment Strategy “The ECB’s New Groove,” dated July 19, 2021, available at eis.bcarsearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy “Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?,” dated March 10, 2021, available at fes.bcarsearch.com 3 Please see European Investment Strategy “The UK Leads The Way,” dated August 11, 2021, available at eis.bcarsearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy “Upside Price Risk Rises For Crude,” dated September 16, 2021, available at fes.bcarsearch.com   Tactical Recommendations Europe’s Evergrande Problem Europe’s Evergrande Problem Cyclical Recommendations Europe’s Evergrande Problem Europe’s Evergrande Problem Structural Recommendations Europe’s Evergrande Problem Europe’s Evergrande Problem Closed Trades Europe’s Evergrande Problem Europe’s Evergrande Problem Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Highlights Asian and European natural gas prices will remain well bid as the Northern Hemisphere winter approaches. An upgraded probability of a second La Niña event this winter will keep gas buyers scouring markets for supplies (Chart of the Week). The IEA is pressing Russia to make more gas available to European consumers going into winter. While Russia is meeting contractual commitments, it is also trying to rebuild its inventories. Gas from the now-complete Nord Stream 2 pipeline might not flow at all this year. High natgas prices will incentivize electric generators to switch to coal and oil. This will push the level and costs of CO2 emissions permits higher, including coal and oil prices. Supply pressures in fossil-fuel energy markets are spilling into other commodity markets, raising the cost of producing and shipping commodities and manufactures. Consumers – i.e., voters – experiencing these effects might be disinclined to support and fund the energy transition to a low-carbon economy. We were stopped out of our long Henry Hub natural gas call spread in 1Q22 – long $5.00/MMBtu calls vs short $5.50/MMBtu calls in Jan-Feb-Mar 2022 – and our long PICK ETF positions with returns of 4.58% and -10.61%. We will be getting long these positions again at tonight's close. Feature European natural gas inventories remain below their five-year average, which, in the event of another colder-than-normal winter in the Northern Hemisphere, will leave these markets ill-equipped to handle a back-to-back season of high prices and limited supply (Chart 2).1 The probability of a second La Niña event this winter was increased to 70-80% by the US Climate Prediction Center earlier this week.2 This raises the odds of another colder-than-average winter. As a result, markets will remain focused on inventories and flowing natgas supplies from the US, in the form of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) cargoes, and Russian pipeline shipments to Europe as winter approaches. Chart of the WeekSurging Natural Gas Prices Intensify Competition For Supplies Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten Chart 2Natgas Storage Remains Tight Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten US LNG supplies are being contested by Asian buyers, where gas storage facilities are sparse, and European buyers looking for gas to inject into storage as they prepare for winter. US LNG suppliers also are finding ready bids in Brazil, where droughts are reducing hydropower availability. In the first six months of this year, US natgas exports averaged 9.5 bcf/d, a y/y increase of more than 40%. Although Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been completed, it still must be certified to carry natgas into Germany. This process could take months to finish, unless there is an exemption granted by EU officials. Like the US and Europe, Russia is in the process of rebuilding its natgas inventories, following a colder-than-normal La Niña winter last year.3 Earlier this week, the IEA called on Russia to increase natgas exports to Europe as winter approaches. The risk remains no gas will flow through Nord Stream 2 this year.4 Expect Higher Coal, Oil Consumption As other sources of energy become constrained – particularly UK wind power in the North Sea, where supplies went from 25% of UK power in 2020 to 7% in 2021 – natgas and coal-fired generation have to make up for the shortfall.5 Electricity producers are turning more towards coal as they face rising natural gas prices.6 Increasing coal-fired electric generation produces more CO2 and raises the cost of emission permits, particularly in the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS), which is the largest such market in the world (Chart 3). Prices of December 2021 ETS permits, which represent the cost of CO2 emissions in the EU, hit an all-time high of €62.75/MT earlier this month and were trading just above €60.00/MT as we went to press. Chart 3Higher CO2 Emissions Follow Lower Renewables Output Higher CO2 Emissions Follow Lower Renewables Output Higher CO2 Emissions Follow Lower Renewables Output Going into winter, the likelihood of higher ETS permit prices increases if renewables output remains constrained and natgas inventories are pulled lower to meet space-heating needs in the EU. This will increase the price of power in the EU, where consumers are being particularly hard hit by higher prices (Chart 4). The European think tank Bruegel notes that even though natgas provides about 20% of Europe's electricity supply, it now is setting power prices on the margin.7 Chart 4EU Power Price Surge Is Inflationary Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten Natgas Markets Continue To Tighten Elevated natgas prices are inflationary, according to Bruegel: "On an annual basis, a doubling of wholesale electricity prices from about €50/megawatt hour to €100/MWh would imply that EU consumers pay up to €150 billion (€50/MWh*3bn MWh) more for their electricity. … Drastic increases in energy spending will shrink the disposable income of the poorest households with their high propensity to consume." This is true in other regions and states, as well. Is the Natgas Price Surge Transitory? The odds of higher natgas and CO2 permit prices increase as the likelihood of a colder-than-normal winter increases. Even a normal winter likely would tax Europe's gas supplies, given the level of inventories, and the need for Russia to replenish its stocks. However, at present, even with the odds of a second La Niña event this winter increasing, this is a probable event, not a certainty. The global natgas market is evolving along lines similar to the crude oil market. Fungible cargoes can be traded and moved to the market with the highest netback realization, after accounting for transportation. High prices now will incentivize higher production and a stronger inventory-injection season next year. That said, prices could stay elevated relative to historical levels as this is occurring. Europe is embarked on a planned phase-out of coal- and nuclear-powered electricity generation over the next couple of years, which highlights the risks associated with the energy transition to a low-carbon future. China also is attempting to phase out coal-fired generation in favor of natgas turbines, and also is pursuing a buildout of renewables and nuclear power. Given the extreme weather dependence on prices for power generated from whatever source, renewables will remain risky bets for modern economies as primary energy sources in the early stages of the energy transition. When the loss of wind, for example, must be made up with natgas generation and that market is tight owing to its own fundamental supply-demand imbalance, volatile price excursions to high levels could be required to destroy enough demand to provide heat in a cold winter. This would reduce support for renewables if it became too-frequent an event. This past summer and coming winter illustrate the risk of too-rapid a phase out of fossil-fueled power generation and space-heating fuels (i.e., gas and coal). Frequent volatile energy-price excursions, which put firms and households at risk of price spikes over an extended period of time, are, for many households, material events. We have little doubt the commodity-market effects will be dealt with in the most efficient manner. As the old commodity-market saw goes, "High prices are the best cure for high prices, and vice versa." All the same, the political effects of another very cold winter and high energy prices are not solely the result of economic forces. Inflation concerns aside, consumers – i.e., voters – may be disinclined to support a renewable-energy buildout if the hits to their wallets and lifestyles become higher than they have been led to expect. Investment Implications The price spike in natgas is highly likely to be a transitory event. Another surge in natgas prices likely would be inflationary while supplies are rebuilding – so, transitory.  Practically, this could stoke dissatisfaction among consumers, and add a political element to the transition to a low-carbon energy future. This would complicate capex decision-making for incumbent energy suppliers – i.e., the fossil-fuels industries – and for the metals suppliers, which will be relied upon to provide the literal building blocks for the renewables buildout.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US crude oil inventories fell 3.5mm barrels in the week ended 17 September 2021, according to the US EIA. Product inventories built slightly, led by a 3.5mm-build in gasoline stocks, which was offset by a 2.6mm barrel draw in distillates (e.g., diesel fuel). Cumulative average daily crude oil production in the US was down 7% y/y, and stood at 10.9mm b/d. Cumulative average daily refined-product demand – what the EIA terms "Product Supplied" – was estimated at 19.92mm b/d, up almost 10% y/y. Brent prices recovered from an earlier sell-off this week and were supported by the latest inventory data (Chart 5). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices have fallen -55.68% since hitting an all-time high of $230.58/MT in May 12, 2021 (Chart 6). This is due to sharply reduced steel output in China, as authorities push output lower to meet policy-mandated production goals and to conserve power. Even with the cuts in steel production, overall steel output in the first seven months of the year was up 8% on a y/y basis, or 48mm MT, according to S&P Global Platts. Supply constraints likely will be exacerbated as the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by China in early February approach. Authorities will want blue skies to showcase these events. Iron ore prices will remain closer to our earlier forecast of $90-$110/MT than not over this period.8 Precious Metals: Bullish The Federal Open Market Committee is set to publish the results of its meeting on Wednesday. In its last meeting in June, more hawkish than expected forecasts for interest rate hikes caused gold prices to drop and the yellow metal has been trading significantly lower since then. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues expect an announcement on asset purchase tapering in end-2021, and interest rate increases to begin by end-2022.9 Rate hikes are contingent on the Fed’s maximum employment criterion being reached, as expected and actual inflation are above the Fed criteria. Tapering asset purchases and increases in interest rates will be bearish for gold prices. Chart 5 BRENT PRICES BEING VOLATILE BRENT PRICES BEING VOLATILE Chart 6 BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING       Footnotes 1     Equinor, the Norwegian state-owned energy-supplier, estimates European natgas inventories will be 70-75% of their five-year average this winter.  Please see IR Gas Market Update, September 16, 2021. 2     Please see "ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions," published by the US Climate Prediction Center 20 September 2021.  Earlier this month, the Center gave 70% odds to a second La Niña event in the Northern Hemisphere this winter.  Please see our report from September 9, 2021 entitled NatGas: Winter Is Coming for additional background. 3    Please see IEA calls on Russia to send more gas to Europe before winter published by theguardian.com, and Big Bounce: Russian gas amid market tightness.  Both were published on September 21, 2021. 4    Please see Nord Stream Two Construction Completed, but Gas Flows Unlikely in 2021 published 14 September 2021 by Jamestown.org. 5    Please see The U.K. went all in on wind power. Here’s what happens when it stops blowing, published by fortune.com on 16 September 2021.  Argus Media this week reported wind-power output fell 56% y/y in September 2021 to just over 2.5 TWh. 6    Please see UK power firms stop taking new customers amid escalating crisis, published by Aljazeera; Please see UK fires up coal power plant as gas prices soar, published by BBC. 7     Please see Is Europe’s gas and electricity price surge a one-off?, published by Bruegel 13 September 2021. 8    Please see China's Recovery Paces Iron Ore, Steel, which we published on November 5, 2020. 9    Please see 2022 Will Be All About Inflation and Talking About Tapering, published on September 22, 2021 and on August 10, 2021 respectively.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades