Sectors

Highlights The greatest legislative battle of the Biden presidency will unfold between now and the end of the year.   Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure deal is likely to pass the Senate soon but will have to cross several hurdles before passage in the House of Representatives. We maintain our 80% subjective odds that it will pass one way or another. Assuming the infrastructure bill does not fall apart, we will upgrade the odds that Biden’s budget reconciliation bill will pass this fall from 50% to 65%. The latter comprises a nominal $3.5 trillion in social spending and tax hikes that will be watered down and revised heavily by the time it passes, which may take until Christmas. Uncertainty about passage will cause volatility to rise in financial markets. Democrats left the debt ceiling out of their fiscal 2022 budget resolution, which ostensibly means they cannot raise the debt limit via a simple majority but will need 10 Republican senators to join. A bruising standoff will ensue that will add to volatility. Ultimately Republicans will comply as they cannot afford to be held responsible for a default on the national debt. The party is currently unpopular and tarred with accusations of insurrection. If Biden succeeds in passing both bills, US fiscal policy will be frozen in place through at least 2025, though endogenous disinflationary fears will largely be dispelled. Feature The biggest domestic political battle of the Joe Biden presidency is likely to occur between now and Christmas. With a one-seat de facto majority in the Senate, and a four-seat majority in the House, Biden is barely capable of passing his two outstanding legislative proposals. The first of these is the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure deal, which we have given an 80% subjective chance of passing and which passed the Senate on a 69-30 vote margin as we went to press. The second is the $3.5 trillion partisan reconciliation package, based on the remainder of Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plan, which we have given a 50% chance of passage. We will upgrade these odds to 65% if bipartisan infrastructure does not fall through in the House. Next year will be consumed by campaigning for the 2022 midterms so it will be hard to pass any major legislation with such thin majorities (though bipartisan anti-trust legislation could pass and poses a risk to the equity market). The midterms are likely – though not guaranteed – to result in Republicans taking at least the House. The result will be gridlock in which only the rare bipartisan bill can pass. In other words, after Christmas, Biden’s domestic legislative capability and hence US fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place through 2025. In this report we provide a road map for the budget battle that will define the Biden presidency. Buy The Dip … Unless New Variants Change The Game First, a brief word regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delta variant is ramping up, particularly in states where vaccination rates have lagged and social restrictions are minimal (Chart 1). The new lambda variant is also causing concerns that vaccines may be inadequate. Equity markets could easily suffer more downside in the near term but US-dedicated investors should consider the following: Scientists have created one vaccine for COVID-19 and can create others. There has been a concrete reduction in uncertainty since November 2020. Vaccination rates will never be perfect – many people smoke cigarettes and refuse to wear seat belts! – but greater infection rates and hospitalizations are leading to improvements in vaccination coverage. While new lockdowns are not impossible, the public will only support them as a last resort. Not only is the White House still officially opposed to new lockdowns but also the authority to impose lockdowns rests with governors. If hospital systems are crashing then even Republican governors will endorse new social restrictions. Otherwise, restrictions will not be draconian unless a much more virulent variant emerges (one that is more deadly or that has a worse impact on children). Monetary and fiscal stimulus will ramp up if a new variant is more deadly or the economy otherwise starts to slide back. In the US, additional fiscal stimulus will come faster than in other countries because new short-term measures can easily be tacked onto major bills that are already coming down the pike. Chart 1Stay Constructive Amid Delta Jitters The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Might the White House leverage a renewed sense of crisis to get its main fiscal bills passed? We can see that. The last thing Biden needs is a sluggish recovery to translate into congressional gridlock in the 2022 midterms – the bane of the Obama administration. Rather, the goal is to harness the sense of crisis to pass stimulus. Biden’s approval rating is falling, as is the norm with modern presidents. However, it is still “above water” (net positive) and still sufficient to get his legislative initiatives across the line. Biden’s forthcoming bills will reinforce economic recovery and sentiment (Chart 2) Chart 2Biden’s Approval Comes Down To Earth The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency What if a variant evades vaccination? Especially if it is more deadly and/or more harmful to children? That would be a game changer and would cause at least a market correction. Still, investors would want to buy the dip given what they know today relative to what they knew in early 2020 (and given that they bought the dip in March 2020 even not knowing what they know today). Bipartisan Structural Reform Our second key view for 2021 – “bipartisan structural reform” – is coming to fruition with the Senate’s 69-30 vote passage of the American Infrastructure and Jobs Act as we go to press. Major bipartisan deals are rare in highly polarized America but we have given an 80% subjective chance of passage to this bill. Passage in the Senate reinforces that view, though the odds of final passage remain the same as there will be hurdles in the House. We include infrastructure as a “structural reform” because of its ability to increase the productivity of an economy. The bill contains funding for traditional infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and ports, as well as non-traditional infrastructure such as subsidies for electric vehicles and high-speed internet (Table 1). Table 1What’s In The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal? The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table 2 shows the 19 Republican senators who voted in favor of this bipartisan deal, along with their ideological ranking and state support rates. This tally provides a nine-seat buffer in case the House version of the bill requires another Senate vote. It also provides a measure of the support that might be brought to bear for bipartisan causes later, such as funding the government, suspending the debt ceiling, or passing bills on popular issues (such as regulating Big Tech) in 2022-24. All Democrats voted in unison for the bill. Table 2Republican Senators Who Voted For Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Our high confidence on infrastructure spending stems both from its popular support (Chart 3) and from the fact that even if bipartisanship fails, there remains a partisan option: budget reconciliation. This is still true today. The bipartisan infrastructure bill could still die in the House, given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination to make its passage contingent on the success of the larger reconciliation bill, which is anathema to Republicans. But if it dies, Democrats would take up the key provisions in the reconciliation bill – and the odds of that bill passing would go up, not down, since Democrats would need to close ranks to clinch a legislative victory ahead of the midterms. Chart 3Popular Support For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Thus the real risk is not that infrastructure spending will fail but that its success will reduce the political capital needed to pass the more controversial reconciliation bill, which we discuss below. Over the short and medium term, this bipartisan infrastructure deal emblematizes the sea change in US fiscal policy – the shift against austerity – and thus serves to dispel fears of disinflation. At the same time, the deal epitomizes America’s long-term fiscal predicament. Democrats only want to increase spending while Republicans only want to decrease taxes. The former will not make budget cuts while the latter will not hike taxes. The result, inevitably, is higher budget deficits. This is precisely what occurred with the latest agreement: tax measures to pay for new infrastructure spending are mostly chimerical – the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only $200 billion of the new spending will be offset with new revenue. The other $350 billion will add directly to deficits and debt. The difference is small but the political signal is notable. Chart 4 highlights the increase in the deficit likely to occur, with the CBO’s more realistic assessment delineated from the nominal bill. From a macro point of view, the takeaway is that the US economy faces a stark withdrawal of government support in 2022 but this bill slightly cushions the blow. Continued recovery will depend on consumers and businesses (which look to be in good shape). Beginning in 2025 deficits will start to rise again and hence the overall picture is one in which US government support for the economy has taken a step up for the decade. Chart 4Bipartisan Deal Not Paid For = Fiscal Stimulus The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Side note: Chart 4 is worrisome for President Biden if his reconciliation bill fails, as it points to fiscal drag through 2024, the election year. Bottom Line: We still see an 80% chance that Biden’s infrastructure proposals will pass, as the Democrats have a backup plan if the bipartisan deal somehow collapses in the House. Biden’s Greatest Legislative Battle Up till now we have assigned 50% odds of passage to the subsequent part of the Biden agenda, the American Families Plan, which covers social spending and tax hikes (corporate and individual). If bipartisan infrastructure passes promptly, we would upgrade the reconciliation bill’s odds of passing to 65%. The reason is twofold: first, reconciliation only requires a simple majority consisting of all 50 Senate Democrats plus the vice president; second, hesitant moderate senators ultimately will be forced to recognize that sinking the bill would render the Biden presidency defunct and fan the flames of populist rebellion on both sides of the political spectrum. And yet, since Biden cannot spare a single vote, conviction levels cannot be high. Therefore 65% seems appropriate. On August 9 Senate Democrats presented a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will form the basis of the reconciliation bill this fall. The bill contains a wish list of spending priorities, as outlined in Table 3. Most of these are familiar from last month when the Senate Budget Committee first put forward its framework. The hang-up stems from House Speaker Pelosi. Knowing that infrastructure’s passage will suck away political capital from social spending, Pelosi is attempting to link the two bills. If the Senate fails to pass the reconciliation bill, the House will not pass the infrastructure bill. This gambit will create a big increase in uncertainty this fall as the legislative battle heats up. Republicans cannot support the infrastructure bill if it is directly tied to the Democrats’ “Nanny State” debt blowout, which will be the basis for their campaign against Democrats in future. They need plausible deniability. If Pelosi insists on linking the two bills, Republican support will evaporate. True, Democrats would then proceed to partisan reconciliation – but they would need to sacrifice other agenda items, such as subsidies for green tech, college, health care, and manufacturing (see Table 3 above). Table 3Senate Democratic FY22 Budget Resolution (July 2021) The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Biden and the Senate are now united on the infrastructure bill. Biden and Democrats in marginal seats need a legislative victory ahead of the midterms – and a bipartisan victory on a popular policy like infrastructure is critical. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, Pelosi will probably have to concede, after gaining assurances from moderate Senate Democrats that they will not sink reconciliation. Moderate Democrats, in turn, will need to see the reconciliation bill watered down, both on spending and taxes. Table 4 shows both bills together, as Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, with a baseline net deficit impact. Budget deficit scenarios are then updated in Chart 5. Once again what stands out is the large fiscal drag in 2022, the fiscal thrust for the remainder of the decade, and (in this case) minimal fiscal drag for 2024. Table 4Face Value Impact Of Biden’s Spending Proposals Before Congress (Baseline) The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart 5Deficit Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency This is true even if tax hikes fail to make it into the final reconciliation bill. We still maintain that the corporate tax rate will rise above Senator Joe Manchin’s ideal 25% rate (if not all the way to Biden’s 28%) while individual tax rates will return to pre-Trump levels. It is not clear if capital gains tax hikes will make the final cut. Most likely some tax hikes will occur but they will fall short of Biden’s plan, producing, at most, a one percentage point increase in the budget deficit relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline estimate (Chart 6). Chart 6What Happens If Tax Hikes Fail To Pass Congress? The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency In Table 5 we update our various legislative scenarios, each consisting of different mixes of spending and tax hikes. We assume that the size of the bipartisan infrastructure deal will not be reduced in the House; that the revenue offsets of that deal will be $200 billion maximum; that moderate Senate Democrats will have greater success in watering down tax hikes than spending programs; and that the government overestimates its ability to collect revenue through tougher tax enforcement. Finally we assume that Senate Democrats’ spending proposals will not be cut – an extremely generous assumption that will not hold up in practice. Table 5Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Each legislative scenario’s impact on the deficit is shown in Table 6. The result is a wide range of deficit impacts, from the baseline of $588 billion to Scenario 6, with $2.59 trillion (zero tax offsets). The more realistic range is from $1 trillion to $2.3 trillion (i.e. all scenarios except the baseline and Scenario 5). Within this range the result depends on the moderate senators’ negotiation skills. Conservatively, the impact will range from $1-$1.5 trillion (Scenarios 1, 2, 4), with moderate senators preventing a $2 trillion price tag as politically impracticable (e.g. Scenario 3). Table 6Scoring Of Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency There are two other aspects of Biden’s massive legislative battle this fall: regular government budget appropriations and the debt ceiling. Government appropriations are supposed to be passed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, but often run over and likely will this time. Republicans will not support regular spending increases given that Democrats will ram through a partisan spending blowout. Therefore Congress will have to settle for a continuing resolution (a stop-gap measure) that keeps spending levels the same. Otherwise a government shutdown will occur. A shutdown is possible but would weigh heavily on Republicans’ public image, which is already at a low point in recent memory following the scandals of the Trump presidency. That is not all – there is also the debt ceiling (limit on national debt). Democrats made a major gambit by not including a suspension or increase of the debt ceiling in their fiscal 2022 budget resolution. If they had included it, then they could have raised the debt ceiling on their own with a simple majority when they passed their reconciliation bill. Instead they are attempting to make Republicans share the blame. Republicans, however, will mount an aggressive resistance, as they do not want to be seen as authorizing the debt increase necessary to accommodate the Democrats’ “socialist” spending spree. The “X date,” when the Treasury Department runs out of the ability to use extraordinary measures to make payments due on US debt, is expected sometime in October or November, though Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns it could come sooner and will try to pressure lawmakers. After this date the US would technically default on national debt obligations, triggering financial turmoil and potentially a global crisis. A debt ceiling showdown is virtually inevitable and volatility will rise – but ultimately a default will be averted, as we outlined in a recent report. First, Democrats still have the ability to revise the budget resolution so as to include a debt ceiling suspension in their final reconciliation bill. While Republicans could arguably block this attempt via a filibuster in the Budget Committee, they would have no interest in doing so (they could abstain and thus keep their hands clean of any debt ceiling increase). Second, Republicans can be forced to agree to a suspension of the debt ceiling when they fund the government, since it is necessary to do so anyway to fund their own infrastructure deal. Suspending the debt ceiling is not the same as raising it. New battles would be set up for later, in 2022 and beyond. But Republicans do not have the political ability to force a default on the public debt of the United States in the same year that Democrats accuse them of raising an insurrection against its Congress. Bottom Line: This fall will see the great legislative battle of the Biden presidency. Infrastructure spending has an 80% chance of passing. Pelosi will not be able to withstand Biden and the Senate in passing this deal separately from the more partisan reconciliation bill. If it passes, then Biden’s reconciliation bill will rise from 50% to 65% odds of passage. The latter will be watered down to a net deficit impact of $1-$1.5 trillion to secure the votes of moderate Senate Democrats, who ultimately will not betray their party to neuter Biden’s presidency. Thin margins in the House and Senate do not permit higher odds of passage or a high level of confidence. Investment Takeaways Political polarization has fallen sharply (Chart 7). This is connected to our view that the Republican Party is split, while Biden’s key initiative (infrastructure) has bipartisan support. However, Biden’s bipartisanship has resulted in a larger loss of Democratic support than a gain of Republican support (Chart 7, bottom panel). And the upcoming reconciliation bill will reignite Republican opposition. Moreover, polarization will remain at historically elevated levels, even to the point of generating domestic terrorist attacks, as we have argued. Biden’s approval rating has fallen but not enough to sink his legislative proposals. The overall economy is strong judging by both consumer confidence (Chart 8) and capital spending (Chart 9). Any soft patch in the economy in the near term will assist Biden in his legislative battles. Passage of either or both major bills will boost his approval rating, potentially ameliorating the Democrats’ challenging situation in the 2022 midterms. Chart 7Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Chart 8US Consumer Confidence Soars US Consumer Confidence Soars US Consumer Confidence Soars Chart 9US Capital Spending At Peak Levels US Capital Spending At Peak Levels US Capital Spending At Peak Levels Still, we expect investors to “buy the rumor and sell the news” of Biden’s upcoming stimulus bills. After the Senate passes the reconciliation measure, investors will have to look forward to the combined impact of tax hikes, the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and eventual rate hikes, and the various troubles with global growth and geopolitical risk. Until that time, investors must weigh the risks of the COVID-19 variants against actions by both American and Chinese policymakers to dispel deflationary tail risks. Thus for now we are sticking with our key trades of the year: value stocks, materials, and infrastructure plays (Chart 10). After Biden wins his big legislative battles, we will reassess.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A2Political Risk Matrix The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart A1Presidential Election Model The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart A2Senate Election Model The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A3Political Capital Index The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Footnotes    

In this Sector Insight report, we come back to the issue of “how much inflation is too much” for equities. The short answer is – equities don’t mind inflation as long as the Fed does not mind it either. Chart 1 shows historical analysis of forward SPX returns (both real and nominal) using different inflation ranges as a starting point.  Empirically, CPI prints of below 3% do not weigh on market performance.  However, once inflation rises above the 3-4% range, it causes a notable slowdown in returns, and above the 4% mark, it results into negative expected forward returns. Chart 2 is a scatterplot of trailing PE multiples vs core CPI prints.  This chart confirms our initial conclusion that an inflation sweet spot for the equity market is around 2-3% core CPI range: this is the range where equity multiples expand the most. It is also clear from the chart that any higher core CPI values become a headwind for equities. The implication is that the negative forward expected return that we showed on Chart 1 comes from the multiple contraction. Chart 1Moderate Inflation Does Not Have An Adverse Effect On The Performance Of Equities How Much Is Too Much? How Much Is Too Much? Chart 2High Levels Of Inflation Are Associated With Multiple Contraction How Much Is Too Much? How Much Is Too Much? Equities are a real asset, and rising inflation does not have a negative effect on the earnings, as most companies are able to pass cost increases to their customers, and strong earnings growth translates into robust equity returns. Inflation is a concern for equity investors only from one angle: higher inflation may provoke the Fed to raise rates, and higher rates do have an adverse effect on the performance of equities. Bottom Line: Our view remains that inflation surge was transitory, but we do believe that the inflation will stay elevated for a while. Yet, if it does not exceed the 3% mark, there will be no negative repercussions for equities if the Fed stays patient.

Foreword Today we are publishing a charts-only report focused on the S&P 500 and its sectors. Many of the charts are self-explanatory; to some we have added a short commentary.  As with the styles Chart Pack, published a month ago, the sector charts cover macro, valuations, fundamentals, technicals, and the uses of cash.  Our goal is to equip you with all the data you need to underpin sector allocation decisions.  We also include performance, valuations, and earnings growth expectations tables for all the styles, sectors, industry groups, and industries (GICS 1, 2 and 3). We hope you will find this publication useful. We plan to update it monthly, alternating sector and style coverage. Overarching Investment Themes Macro Economic surprise index is flagging while Q2-21 earnings surprises are unprecedented.  Much of the good economic news has been priced in and the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index is hovering around zero (Chart 1A).  Most of the economic indicators have turned, confirming that the surge in growth has run its course and the macroeconomic environment is normalizing. Covid-19 fears are resurfacing:  The spread of the Delta variant is unlikely to trigger another lockdown, but consumers may curtail their activities out of fear of infection, adversely affecting demand for goods and services.  However, for now, we are sanguine about this risk. Investors expect inflation to roll over: Investors’ inflation fears are dissipating, attested by the falling 5Y/5Y inflation breakevens (Chart 1B).  Indeed, it appears that the debate on the persistence of inflation has been won by the “inflation is transitory” camp.  Yet, we won’t be surprised if inflation surprises on the upside (no pun intended).  Chart 1AGood Economic News Has Been Priced In Good Economic News Has Been Priced In Good Economic News Has Been Priced In Chart 1BMost Investors Are Now Convinced That Inflation Will Be Transitory Most Investors Are Now Convinced That Inflation Will Be Transitory Most Investors Are Now Convinced That Inflation Will Be Transitory Labor shortages are starting to dissipate: On the labor front, companies are still struggling to fill job openings.  However, there are signs that the labor market is healing, with more and more workers interested in returning to the labor force  (Chart 2). Inventories will be replenished, spurring investment: Post-pandemic economic recovery is still plagued by the mismatch between supply and demand. Supply-chain disruptions and shortages fail to meet pent-up demand of consumers eager to spend “helicopter drop cash” and accumulated savings.  As a result, inventories have been drawn down, chipping away 1.1% from GDP growth. In fact, they are at all-time lows: Non-farm inventories to final sales have dropped lower than they were during the GFC (Chart 3).  Low inventories will have to be replenished, resulting in further gains in investment and providing a boost to industrial activity going forward. Chart 2More Workers Are Interested In Returning To The Labor Force US Equity Chart Pack US Equity Chart Pack Demand for services will continue to exceed demand for goods: Last, but not least, consumers have money to spend but are shifting away from goods and toward services and experiences.  Consumer expenditure on goods is above trend and has recently turned down, while spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, and rebound is still running its course (Chart 4). Chart 3Inventories Are At All Time Low Inventories Are At All Time Low Inventories Are At All Time Low Chart 4Real Spending On Services Is At PrePandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Real Spending On Services Is At PrePandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Real Spending On Services Is At PrePandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Valuations And Profitability The US stock market remains expensive: The S&P 500 is trading more than two standard deviations above the long-term average.  However, there are pockets of reasonably priced, albeit unloved, stocks within the S&P 500: Telecom (11x forward earnings), Health Care (17x), Energy (14x), and Financials (14x).  Earnings continue to crush expectations: While equities are expensive, they are redeemed by the strong showing of earnings and sales growth reported for Q2-2021.  The scale of earnings beats relative to analyst expectations is spectacular: Running at nearly 20%, or more than two standard deviations above the historical average (Chart 5). Chart 5Earnings Surprises Are Unprecedented US Equity Chart Pack US Equity Chart Pack Earnings growth is normalizing: Earnings have increased 90% over the lackluster Q2, 2020.  Compared to Q2-2019 as a baseline quarter, earnings are up 22%, pointing to normalization going forward.  Earnings growth will become a tailwind for the outperformance of equities into the balance of the year and will help the S&P 500 to grow into its big valuation “shoes”. Margins are expanding despite inflation:  Many sectors are able to grow earnings and recover margins despite increases in costs of raw materials and labor, thanks to their strong pricing power, i.e., ability to pass on higher input costs to their customers (Chart 6A).  Sectors with the highest pricing power are: Communications Services, Consumer Discretionary, Industrials, Energy and Materials.  They are the best inflation hedges. Chart 6ACompanies' Profitability Is Improving To Pre-Pandemic Levels Companies' Profitability Is Improving To Pre-Pandemic Levels Companies' Profitability Is Improving To Pre-Pandemic Levels Uses Of Cash Cash to be disbursed to shareholders: Share buybacks and other shareholder-friendly activities are on the rise again and are expected to gain steam this year and next.  This is supported both by strong earnings growth, healthy balance sheets, and regulatory headwinds to any potential M&A activity due to the anti-trust stance of the current administration Capex is about to make a comeback: Capex is still lagging across most sectors.  A pickup in capex will signal that the post-pandemic recovery is firmly on track, and companies are comfortable investing in future growth.  However, there are early signs that that is about to change.  Philly Fed survey shows that over 40% of respondents are planning to increase their capex expenditure  (Chart 6B). Chart 6BCapex Increases Are On The Way Capex Increases Are On The Way Capex Increases Are On The Way Investment Implications Overweight sectors and industry groups exposed to consumer services spending (airlines, hotels, leisure) and be selective about consumer goods and retailing industry groups: Real PCE for goods has turned down toward the trend line.  Exceptions are areas of the market with well-publicized shortages such as Autos and Parts. Overweight Industrials – US manufacturing has limited capacity, onshoring is a new trend, inventories need to be replenished, and capex intentions are on the rise. Overweight Health Care – growth slowdown favors this defensive sector, which also benefits from a backlog of demand for medical procedures and services. Reflation trade is out of the picture, now that inflation fears have abated and the Delta variant preoccupies investors.  For that, we still favor Growth over Value.  Yet, we watch this allocation closely, to time rotation once Covid-19 fears dissipate, rates pick up and inflation surprises on the upside. With valuations high, and forward returns expectations lackluster, we favor sectors likely to delivery healthy cash yield: Financials, Health Care, Energy, and Technology.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   S&P 500 Chart 7Macroeconomic Backdrop And Earnings Surprise Macroeconomic Backdrop And Earnings Surprise Macroeconomic Backdrop And Earnings Surprise Chart 8Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 9Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 10Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Communication Services Chart 11Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 12Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 13Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 14Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Consumer Discretionary Chart 15Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 16Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 17Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 18Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Consumer Staples Chart 19Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 20Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 21Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 22Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Energy Chart 23Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 24Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 25Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 26Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Financials Chart 27Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 28Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 29Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 30Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Health Care Chart 31Health Care: Sector vs Industry Groups Health Care: Sector vs Industry Groups Health Care: Sector vs Industry Groups Chart 32Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 33Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 34Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Industrials Chart 35Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 36Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 37Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 38Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Information Technology Chart 39Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 40Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 41Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 42Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Materials Chart 43Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 44Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 45Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 46Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Real Estate Chart 47Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 48Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 49Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 50Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Utilities Chart 51Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 52Profitability Profitability Profitability Chart 53Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Chart 54Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash Uses Of Cash  Table 1Performance US Equity Chart Pack US Equity Chart Pack Table 2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth US Equity Chart Pack US Equity Chart Pack Recommended Allocation   Footnotes  

Highlights Investors have grown enamored with online retailers (AMZN), payment processing companies (V, MA, PYPL, SQ), and social media companies (FB, SNAP). All three sectors are likely to experience headwinds over the next 12 months as life returns to normal following the pandemic. Looking further out, market saturation, increased competition, and heightened regulation all pose risks to these sectors. Internet companies in general, and social media firms in particular, will face increased scrutiny not just for their monopolistic practices, but for the mental harm they are causing young people. Just like cigarettes are heavily regulated due to their addictive qualities, the same could happen to social media. We think there is a 50/50 chance that governments will start restricting social media usage only to adults over the age of 18 by the end of the decade, a move that could decimate the sector. Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Investors are worried about growth again. Globally, the number of Covid cases is on the rise due to the proliferation of the Delta variant (Chart 1). The ISM manufacturing index dropped to 59.5 in July, down from a high of 64.7 in March. Both of China’s manufacturing PMIs have fallen, with the new orders component of the Caixin index dipping below the 50 line. The European PMIs have also come off their highs (Chart 2). Chart 1Number Of Covid Cases On The Rise Globally Due To The Delta Variant These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 2Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs     Growth concerns have registered in financial markets (Chart 3). After climbing to 1.74% in March, the US 10-year Treasury yield has fallen back to 1.22%. Cyclical equity sectors have underperformed defensives. Growth-sensitive currencies such as the Swedish krona and the Australian dollar have weakened. We are more upbeat about global growth prospects than the consensus. As the experience of the UK demonstrates, there is little will to impose lockdowns in countries with ample access to vaccines. Strict social distancing restrictions remain a fact of life in countries lacking adequate vaccine supplies. However, the situation should improve later this year as vaccine production increases (Chart 4). Chart 3Financial Markets Trim Growth Expectations Financial Markets Trim Growth Expectations Financial Markets Trim Growth Expectations Chart 4Over 10 Billion Vaccine Doses Will Be Produced This Year These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth   Households in developed economies are sitting on US$5 trillion in excess savings, half of which reside in the United States (Chart 5). Inventories are at record low levels, which should support production over the coming quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Households Flush With Excess Savings Households Flush With Excess Savings Households Flush With Excess Savings Chart 6Record Low Inventories Will Provide A Boost To Production Record Low Inventories Will Provide A Boost To Production Record Low Inventories Will Provide A Boost To Production     Chinese policy should turn more stimulative, as the recent cut to bank reserve requirements foreshadows. With credit growth back down to 2018 lows, policymakers can afford to give the economy some juice. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 7). From Goods To Services While global growth should remain well above trend for the next 12 months, the composition of that growth will shift in ways that could meaningfully affect equities. As Chart 8 illustrates, aggregate US consumption has returned to its pre-pandemic trend. However, spending on goods is 11% above trend while spending on services is still 6% below trend. Chart 7Chinese Policy Is Turning More Stimulative Chinese Policy Is Turning More Stimulative Chinese Policy Is Turning More Stimulative Chart 8The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending   Households typically cut spending on durable goods during recessions, while services serve as the ballast for the economy. The opposite happened during the pandemic. As the global economy recovers, goods spending will slow while services spending will stay robust. This is critical for online retailers such as Amazon, which derive the bulk of their e-commerce revenue from selling goods. Even after its disappointing Q2 earnings report, analysts still expect Amazon to grow e-commerce sales by 17% in 2022 (Chart 9). Such a goal may be difficult to achieve, given that core US retail sales currently stand 13% above their trendline (Chart 10). Chart 9AAnalysts’ Great Expectations May Be Dashed (I) These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 9BAnalysts’ Great Expectations May Be Dashed (II) These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 10AUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) Chart 10BUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) Chart 11Screen Time Is Moderating These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth If e-commerce spending slows, shares of payment processing companies could disappoint. Likewise, social media companies could suffer as people start going out more often. After spiking during the height of the pandemic, growth in data usage has returned to normal (Chart 11). Long-Term Risks Looking beyond the post-pandemic recovery, all three equity sectors face structural challenges that are not being fully discounted by investors. The first is market saturation. Close to three-quarters of US households have Amazon Prime accounts. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Competition is another challenge. Companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google dominate their respective markets. As they look for further growth, they will invariably invade each other’s turf. The result might benefit consumers, but it is unlikely to help the bottom line if it means more competitive pressures. Moreover, it is not just competition from within the tech industry that may disrupt incumbent firms. Consider payment processors. Like most other central banks, the Fed is planning to launch its own digital currency. Widely available, free-to-use Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could thwart the ability of Visa and MasterCard to skim 2%-to-3% off of every transaction. Regulatory Pressures In recent years, tech companies have faced increased scrutiny over their alleged monopolistic practices. In contrast to Chinese tech firms, which have fallen under the thumb of the authorities, US companies have been able to evade harsh measures. Just last month, a US federal court judge dismissed a case filed by more than 40 state attorneys general arguing that Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp had harmed competition. In the past, evidence that companies were setting prices well above marginal costs could be used to build a case for anti-trust enforcement. Such cases are more difficult to argue today because so many online services are given away for free. Nevertheless, governments are likely to become more adept in pursuing regulatory actions. Rather than focusing simply on pricing policies, regulators are increasingly looking at the ways big tech companies use vendor data in the case of Amazon and user data in the case of Facebook and Google to maintain market dominance. Public contempt for tech companies is fueling a political backlash. According to a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year, only 34% of Americans held a favorable view of tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, down from 46% in 2019; 45% had an unfavorable opinion, up from 33% in 2019. The shift in public sentiment over the past two years has been entirely driven by Independent and Republican voters, many of whom feel that tech companies are unfairly censoring their opinions (Table 1). The same poll revealed that the majority of Americans – including the majority of Republicans – now favor increased regulation of tech companies. Table 1American Views On Big Tech These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth A Drug Worse Than Nicotine? Social media companies are among the most loathed within the tech sector. A Pew Research Center study conducted last year revealed that more than six times as many Americans had a negative opinion of social media as a positive one (Chart 12). The public’s disdain for social media is increasingly going beyond traditional concerns over privacy. As psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge recently argued in the New York Times, there is growing evidence that the pervasive use of social media is harming the mental health of the nation’s youth. The share of students reporting high levels of loneliness has more than doubled in both the US and abroad over the past decade (Chart 13). Chart 12Social Media Increasingly Vilified These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 13Alone In The Crowd These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth In 2019, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, nearly a quarter of girls between the ages of 12 and 17 reported experiencing a major depressive episode over the prior year, up from 12% in 2011 (Chart 14). Academic studies have shown that adolescents who use Facebook and Instagram frequently feel greater anxiety and unease than those who do not. Just like cigarettes are heavily regulated due to their addictive qualities, the same could happen to social media. Facebook and most other social media companies already restrict access to those under the age of 13, although enforcement is generally spotty. We assign a 50/50 chance that governments start restricting social media usage only to adults over the age of 18 by the end of the decade, a move that could decimate the sector. Priced For Perfection The seven companies in the three high-flying sectors mentioned in this report trade at 91-times forward earnings compared to the S&P 500’s aggregate multiple of 22. They also trade at an average price-to-sales ratio of 16 compared to 3.2 for the broader market (Chart 15). Chart 14The Rise In Depression Rates Coincided With Increased Social Media Usage These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 15Trading At A High Multiple To Sales These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth   Such valuations can be justified only if these companies grow earnings-per-share by nearly 30% per year over the next five years, as analysts currently expect (Chart 16). However, as noted above, that may be too high a hurdle to clear. Higher bond yields represent another threat to valuations. Growth stocks are much more sensitive to changes in discount rates than value stocks. Chart 17show that tech stocks have generally outperformed the S&P 500 over the past four years whenever bond yields were falling. We expect bond yields to rebound over the coming months, with the 10-year yield rising to 1.8% by early next year. Tech is likely to lag the market in that environment. Chart 16Long-Term Growth Estimates May Be Too Optimistic For These High-Fliers These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Chart 17Higher Bond Yields Could Hurt Tech Stocks Higher Bond Yields Could Hurt Tech Stocks Higher Bond Yields Could Hurt Tech Stocks   Trade Update Our long EM equity trade got stopped out last Tuesday before recouping some of its losses in subsequent days. We continue to expect EM stocks to bounce back later this year. That said, in keeping with this report, we see more upside for “traditional” EM sectors such as banks, industrials, energy, and materials than for EM tech (especially Chinese tech). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth Special Trade Recommendations Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth These Three High-Flying Equity Sectors Could Come Crashing Back Down To Earth

Beats Remain Strong Beats Remain Strong With two thirds of the S&P 500 companies reported Q2-2021 earnings, it becomes abundantly clear that the US experienced a rigorous economic revival in the second quarter of this year. Combination of loose fiscal and monetary policy, economic reopening, pent up demand and well-to-do US consumer and global growth acceleration are just some of the factors underpinning robust top- and bottom-line growth. Analysts keep revising their forward estimates higher, not lower as earnings season was rolling on – a rather unusual phenomenon (see chart). Zooming into the sector data is also instructive. On the earnings’ front, the Consumer Discretionary and the Financials sectors are leading the market surprise factor higher with 31% and 25% growth respectively. 96% of the technology companies and 95% of the financial companies have beaten the analyst targets, suggesting that expectations were rather low despite the upgrades. In comparison, 78% and 73% of companies beating expectation in the Materials and Energy sectors, look measly. At the same time, Materials are the clear cyclical laggards with a surprise factor of 7%. These results are consistent with our equity investment themes: China slowdown: Underweight Materials as demand for metals is waning Consumers flush with cash: Overweight the Consumer Discretionary sector Rate stabilization: Overweight growth sectors and underweight value (growth sectors, such as Technology and Communications Services are ahead of the value sectors, such as Materials, Energy and Utilities) Economic growth peaking at the end of Q2-2021: Financials outperforming as geared to economic growth acceleration. Beats Remain Strong Beats Remain Strong Bottom Line: With more than 2/3 of S&P 500 reported, the earnings season will likely finish on a high note.

In yesterday’s Sector Insight report we looked at the implications of the termination of the US national eviction ban. However, just as we went to print, the news has hit the tape that the CDC announced a new 60-day eviction moratorium in the areas with high levels of COVID-19 infections. These areas, covered by the eviction ban, account for 80% of the US counties and 90% of the US population. De facto, this moratorium is national, just as the one before.  While there are doubts about the legitimacy of this new law, it will take a while to dispute it in courts. Also, while time will tell if there are extensions of this eviction ban, for now, all the benefits of ending the moratorium that we outlined in the previous report, are on hold.

Last weekend, the national eviction moratorium, put in place during the pandemic, expired. While our hearts go out for the affected families, wearing our economists’ hats, we consider the termination of the eviction ban a likely positive for the US economy, and the US equities. The US is experiencing a red-hot job market with companies struggling to fill positions. End of eviction moratorium may be a necessary catalyst for more workers joining the work force. Indeed, interest in online recruitment postings is picking up (see chart). Ability to fill in open positions will put a lid on the rising wages and contain a vicious cycle of inflation. Investment implication of this development is a further boost to home improvement stocks (HD, LOW) and residential REITS. Evictions will help vulnerable landlords, responsible for real estate taxes, mortgage payments, utilities, and repairs, avoid bankruptcies by finding solvent tenants. Landlords will spend again preparing houses and apartments for a changeover, contributing to the economic growth. Rent prices will increase, in response to ubiquitous housing shortages, and boosting performance of REITs. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a larger infrastructure-and-social-welfare bill through Congress will expand the social safety net, supporting victims of evictions. Bottom Line: The termination of the national eviction ban is a small net positive for the home improvement and residential REITs equity industries. On Evictions On Evictions

Highlights Last week’s market gyrations do not mark the end of China’s structural reforms. The country’s macro policy setting has shifted to allow a higher tolerance for short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Chinese policymakers will temporarily put the brakes on its reform agenda if policy measures threaten domestic economic stability; a spillover from the equity market rout to the currency market and private-sector investment will be a pressure point for the authorities. Messages from last week’s Politburo meeting were only marginally more positive than in April. While policymakers seem to be paying more attention to the economic slowdown, they do not appear to be in a rush to rescue the economy. We present three scenarios describing how the equity markets and policy may develop in the coming months. In all the scenarios, investors should avoid trying to catch a falling knife. Feature July was an extraordinarily difficult time for Chinese stocks and last week’s steep slide intensified as a slew of announced regulatory changes spooked market participants (Chart 1). Chart 1Chinese Stocks Had A Tough Month Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip We have repeatedly outlined the risks to Chinese equities in the past month. Since the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio in early July, the negative impact on the financial markets from tightening industry policies has outweighed the limited positive effects from a slightly more dovish central bank policy stance.  Chart 2Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Is now a good time to buy Chinese stocks? Multiple compressions have made Chinese equities, particularly the hard-hit technology, media & telecom (TMT) stocks in the offshore market, appear cheap compared with their global counterparts (Chart 2). In this report we present three scenarios how China’s equity market and policies will likely evolve. In our view, more than a week of stock selloffs will be needed for policymakers to halt reforms. Furthermore, even if the pace of reforms eases and policymakers start to reflate the economy, it will likely take between 6 and 12 months for stock prices to find a bottom.  In light of escalating uncertainty over China’s financial market performance, the China Investment Strategy and Global Asset Allocation services will jointly publish a Special Report on August 18. We will examine how global investors can improve the risk-reward profile of their multi-asset portfolios with exposure to Chinese assets.   Three Scenarios While the regulatory landscape is unclear, we can draw on previous experience to analyze how China’s equity market and policy directions may evolve. In the first scenario, which is our baseline case, the economy would weaken, but would not cross policymakers’ pain threshold. There would be marginal policy easing action to alleviate market anxiety and monetary policy would be slightly loosened along with polices on some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment. In this scenario, structural reforms could continue for another 6 to 12 months, as suggested by colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy services. Investors should resist the urge to buy on the dip. Investors would be kept on edge by a confluence of a slowing economy (even though the slowdown is measured) and heighted regulatory oversight. The market would oscillate between technical rebounds when macro policy eases and selloffs when industry regulations tighten. There are two reasons why the pace of regulatory tightening will not moderate in the near term. First, China’s economic policy has shifted from setting an annual economic growth target to multi-year planning. This allows policymakers to have a higher tolerance for near-term distress in exchange for long-term benefits. Despite a deep dive in stock prices last week, China’s bond and currency markets have been stable relative to the market gyrations in both 2015 and 2018 (Chart 3A and 3B).  Furthermore, the newly released PMIs and recent economic data show that the China’s economic activity is weakening, but the speed of softening seems to be within the policymakers’ comfort zone (Chart 4). Chart 3AChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 3BChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 4Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Secondly, the new rules imposed on industries - ranging from internet, property, education, healthcare to capital markets - are part of China’s long-term structural reform agenda outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP).  As China transitions from building a "moderately prosperous society" by 2020 to becoming a "great modern socialist nation" by 2049, the country’s policy priority has shifted from a rapid accumulation of wealth to addressing income inequality and social welfare for average households.  The policy objective is not only to close regulatory loopholes and end the disorderly expansion of capital and market shares, but also assign a larger weight of social equality and responsibility to the private sector’s business practices. The pace in achieving this overarching goal will only moderate when China’s economy and financial markets show meaningful signs of stress. The second possibility would be if policymakers fail to restore investors’ confidence. Foreign and domestic investors would reassess China’s policy directions and reprice the outlook for corporate profit growth. Market selloffs would continue, like in 2015 and 2018 following policy shocks,1 equity market gyrations would spill over to the currency market through capital outflows and real economic sectors through dwindling investment (Chart 5). In this scenario, Chinese policymakers would likely abandon their reform agenda, at least temporarily, and decisively shift policy to reflate the economy (Chart 6). Chart 5Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Chart 6...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses ...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses ...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses A third scenario would be if China is challenged by the external environment, either due to a significant increase in geopolitical conflicts or a widespread resurgence of new COVID cases. Both aspects would pose sizable downside risks to China’s economic activity. The risks would force authorities to shift to an easier stance and slow the pace of domestic reforms. Chart 7It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out In the second and third scenarios, the rout in the equity market would likely deepen in the near term, before prices bottom in response to a halt in regulatory crackdowns and a decisive turn to reflationary measures. As illustrated in Chart 7, in both 2015 and 2018, it took 6 to 12 months and significant stimulus for Chinese stock prices to bottom in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Our baseline scenario suggests a continuation of structural reforms. Investors should refrain from jumping into the market until there are firm signs that regulatory tightening is over and reflationary measures have started. Key Messages From The Politburo Meeting Last week’s much-anticipated Politburo meeting, chaired by President Xi Jinping, adopted a slightly more dovish tone towards macroeconomic policy than in April, but also indicated that the leadership will stick to its long-term reform agenda. The stance was mildly positive for the overall economy and financial markets. Macro policies in some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment, will likely ease at the margin during the rest of the year. However, the meeting’s statement warned “a more complex and challenging external environment” lies ahead, which indicates that heightened concerns over geopolitical tensions will only exacerbate regulatory oversights in data and national security.  Regarding fiscal policy in 2H21, the authorities seem to be growing more concerned about growth outlook.  The meeting mentioned that fiscal support should make “reasonable progress” later this year and early next year. The pace of local government special purpose bond (SPB) issuance will pick up in Q3 and into Q4. However, we maintain our view that without a significant rise in bank credit growth, an acceleration in SPB issuance will only provide a moderate boost to local infrastructure spending. The reference to cross-cycle policy adjustment from the meeting readout is also in line with our view that policymakers may save their fiscal ammunition for next year when the economy comes under greater downward pressure. Odds are rising that the authorities will allow a frontloading of SPBs in Q1 2022 before the National People’s Congress in March next year. The statement also notably mentioned that government officials shall “ensure the supply of commodities and stabilize prices" and called for a more rational pace in carbon reduction. We think this message implies a temporary easing of production curbs in some heavy industries, such as steel, coal, and possibly a further release of strategic reserves of industrial metals (Chart 8A and 8B). The supply-side policy shift should add downward pressure on global industrial prices in addition to the ongoing slowdown in demand from China (Chart 9). Chart 8ASome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 8BSome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 9Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Meanwhile, the meeting repeated the "three stabilization” policy, which targets stabilizing land prices, housing prices and property market expectations. This sends a strong signal that policymakers are unwilling to soften the tone on restrictions in the housing market. Bottom Line: The July Politburo meeting’s messaging was only modestly more dovish than three months ago. Investment Implications Chinese offshore stocks have fallen by 26% from their February peak, compared with approximately 14% for onshore stocks. The offshore TMT stocks are approaching their long-term technical resistance, measured by the three-year moving average in prices (Chart 10). While the magnitude of last week’s stock price decline seems excessive relative to previous market selloffs, the multiple compression reflects considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook for China’s policy direction. New antitrust regulations in China are intended to limit the monopolistic business practices of internet companies. As a result, these companies’ operational costs will rise and profit growth will decline, and their valuations will converge with those of non-TMT companies. The trailing P/E ratio in Chinese investable TMT stocks is still elevated, making the equities vulnerable to further regulatory tightening and multiple compressions (Chart 11). Chart 10Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chart 11...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression ...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression ...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression     Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1On August 11, 2015, the PBOC surprised the market with three consecutive devaluations of the Chinese yuan, knocking over 3% off its value. On April 3, 2018 former US President Donald Trump unveiled plans for 25% tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, I am sending you a special report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge, chief strategist of our flagship The Bank Credit Analyst service. Jonathan argues that investors should see social media as a technological innovation that harms productivity. While Jonathan concedes that social media was not the main driver of policy uncertainty and political risk over the past decade, he makes a good case that it plays an aggravating role. He warns that social media and political polarization still pose risks to the macroeconomic outlook in the coming years, while also highlighting idiosyncratic risks threatening social media stocks. We trust that you will find this report insightful. We will resume regular publication next week. All very best, Matt Gertken   Vice President Geopolitical Strategy US Political Strategy BCA Research Highlights Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Feature Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts 1 and 2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart 3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart 4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart 1Facebook: Monthly Active Users The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart 4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart 5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. Chart 5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart 6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table 1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart 6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table 1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.1 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart 7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart 7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart 7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart 8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. Chart 8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart 9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart 10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Chart 9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart 10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart 11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart 12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart 11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart 13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Chart 13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart 14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart 14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart 15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart 15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart 15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. But Chart 16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Chart 16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart 17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. Chart 17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Chart 18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart 18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,2 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart 19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart 20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart 19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.3 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart 21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart 22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart 21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart 23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart 22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart 22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart 24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart 21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. Chart 24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,4 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.5 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart 25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart 25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart 25. Chart 25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?”,IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 4    Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5    “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights The countertrend yield rally is near its end. Despite the deteriorating Chinese credit impulse, the outlook for global growth remains robust. An ample global liquidity backdrop, an inventory restocking cycle, and an upbeat capex outlook will increase aggregate demand and global capacity utilization. In this context, safe-haven bonds have sufficiently rallied. German yields will rise too, because the European yield curve will steepen. European banks will benefit from this trend. Investors should buy European momentum stocks and sell growth stocks. Investors should favor industrial equities and Sweden. Feature On April 12 of this year, we warned that a countertrend rally in bonds was increasingly likely. The decline in the Chinese credit impulse and the increasingly oversold state of Treasuries created the perfect conditions to generate disappointments in a lopsided market. As a corollary, we grew worried about our equity positioning, which calls for a large exposure to pro-cyclical stocks. Consequently, we recommended investors hedge this portfolio bias with some defensive bets. On July 20, Treasury yields fell to as low as 1.13%. Did this level mark the end of the Treasury rally? The bulk of the decline is behind us, and investors with a 12- to 18-month investment horizon should resume shortening portfolio duration. In Europe too, German yields are likely to trend higher. As a result, European financials and momentum stocks should generate significant outperformance in the coming quarters. Industrial equities are also set to shine, which will benefit the Swedish market, our favorite. Should I Stay Or Should I Go? The near-term outlook for Treasuries is currently more complex than it was in April, when forces lined up neatly to warn of an imminent pullback in yields. Technical indicators show that the oversold conditions that prevailed this spring have mostly cleared up. In April, the BCA Composite Technical Indicator for Treasuries reached its most oversold level in more than 20 years, which provided a very reliable buy signal (Chart 1). Now that the 10-year yield has reclaimed its 40-week moving average, the technical indicator is back to neutral. Normally, when bonds are in a cyclical bear market, which is BCA’s House View, the indicator rarely dips significantly into overbought territory. Meanwhile, the Marketvane Bullish Sentiment survey stands at 60%, which indicates that bonds are once again favored by many newsletters, traders, and investors. Chinese credit growth continues to send a bond-bullish signal (Chart 2). Slowing credit growth could hurt Chinese capex, which in turn has the potential to slow the demand for capital at the global level. This risk could still decrease global yields. Chart 1Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Chart 2...But China Still Consistutes A Risk ...But China Still Consistutes A Risk ...But China Still Consistutes A Risk Chart 3A Synchronous Global Upswing A Synchronous Global Upswing A Synchronous Global Upswing The global economic recovery remains sufficiently broad-based to compensate for the risk of a Chinese slowdown. Our Global Synchronicity Indicator shows that manufacturing PMIs among the world’s major economies are all expanding (Chart 3), which usually elevates yields. This is especially important today, because the far-reaching and generalized nature of the current recovery gives more scope to the global economy to withstand a Chinese economic deceleration. Bottom Line: The variables that called for lower yields in early April are currently sending a mixed message. “Go!” The Global Business Cycle Responds Outside of China’s TSF impulse, most economic variables point toward higher yields. Chart 4Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Global liquidity conditions remain consistent with higher growth and thus also with rising global interest rates. BCA’s US Financial Liquidity Index still stands near record highs and confirms that the Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) will remain at elevated levels (Chart 4). As a result, we expect the current fall in the Global LEI Diffusion Index to be short lived. Any softening in global growth, therefore, will prove to be transitory. Markets are forward looking. The recent decline in yields anticipated the deceleration in the Global LEI. Long-term rates will also increase before the LEI firms anew.  Excess money growth tells a similar story. Historically, an expansion of the global money supply in excess of the demand for credit sends a strong signal that global economic activity is well supported by reflationary policies. It forecasts above-trend industrial production growth, robust international trade and rising global export prices. Currently, excess money growth in the US, Eurozone and Japan has overtaken its post-GFC high and is consistent with higher US and German yields (Chart 5). Global capacity utilization also points toward higher yields. Our US Composite Capacity Utilization indicator is back in the neutral zone after a steep decline in 2020. Furthermore, US industrial capacity utilization is currently back above its structural trend. Most importantly, capacity utilization should be evaluated at the global level. Even when slower-growing economies such as the Euro Area and Japan are included, global capacity utilization is improving enough to be consistent with rising yields (Chart 6). Chart 5Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Chart 6Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Capacity utilization should climb higher in the coming quarters as the world experiences an inventory re-stocking cycle. The US, with its rich data, provides a good example. The sales-to-inventory ratio is at an extremely elevated level and is climbing very rapidly (Chart 7). Meanwhile, the level of inventories is still 1% below its pre-pandemic peak, while GDP overtook it previous high in the second quarter, and business sales are 11% above their 2018 high. The recent rise in inflation highlights the inability of companies to fulfil demand for their goods and services and, consequently, the need to restock. Hence, we expect companies to increase their inventory spending, which will add to demand and to capacity utilization as the adjustment process takes place. Capex will also lift capacity utilization and put upward pressure on yields. US capex intentions are rising swiftly as firms are unable to meet demand (Chart 8, top panel). Our Japanese Capex Indicator reiterates this message, while the European Commission’s Investment Surveys are also recovering (Chart 8 bottom panels). Historically, capex intentions are an excellent, leading indicator of actual investments, hence, the recent poor capex numbers will not last. Chart 7Restocking Ahead! Restocking Ahead! Restocking Ahead! Chart 8Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Greater global cash flow growth is also consistent with higher capex. The growth in EBITDA among global companies has bottomed, and it is currently around 14%. Incidentally, this suggests that capex among quoted firms around the world should expand in the second half of the year by a similar amount (Chart 9). Ultimately, robust cash flows finance expansion plans and also send a strong signal to corporate boards that the environment is ripe for investment spending. Already, capital goods orders are strengthening, which confirms the signal from both the capex surveys and profits. This strength portends very strong private capex numbers in the coming quarters and thus, a greater level of demand in the economy (Chart 10). Chart 9Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Chart 10Strong Global Orders Strong Global Orders Strong Global Orders Public infrastructure plans will create the final boost to global capex. $550 billion of the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan is getting close to bipartisan approval, and the budget reconciliation process might still result in an even bigger package before yearend. In Europe, the EUR800 billion NGEU plan that has been approved by all the EU’s national parliaments also includes large infrastructure spending envelopes to deploy over the coming five years. This context suggests that yields are unlikely to decline much further from current levels, since the oversold conditions that prevailed in March have been purged. Chart 11 shows that specific events are needed to prompt a greater 90-trading day collapse in yields than the one just registered. In 2019 and 2020, the Fed was cutting rates. Today, it is gearing up to raise them. In 2010 and 2011, the European sovereign debt crisis was hurting global growth and creating massive deflationary risks. In 2015, China was mired in deep deflation and devalued the RMB, which exported these negative pressures around the world and lowered yields. By late 2018, the yield curve was moving toward an inversion, which signaled that monetary policy was too tight. Today, none of these conditions are present and, consequently, the odds of a greater decline in yields are low. Chart 11Yields Have Moved Enough Yields Have Moved Enough Yields Have Moved Enough Bottom Line: The broad-based nature of the global recovery will limit the decline in yields. Global liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative, global capacity utilization is improving, and inventories and capex spending will add to demand in the coming quarters. In this context, the recent decline in yields corrected this spring’s oversold condition in the bond market sufficiently. Investment Implications Bonds Investors with an investment horizon of more than six months should reduce their portfolio duration and remove hedges protecting against higher yields. The low in Treasury yields is likely to stay around 1.1%. The exact timing of the rebound is imprecise, and yields could churn for a brief period and retest their recent lows, but the balance of risks points toward a much greater probability of higher yields in the coming six to twelve months, and a limited probability of significantly lower yields from current levels. In fact, the CRB-to-gold ratio, often shown by BCA’s US bond strategists, clearly favors higher yields (Chart 12). Higher yields are not inconsistent with BCA’s view that the current inflation spike is transitory. TIPS yields are at a record low. As global growth recovers and the Fed moves closer to removing some accommodation, real yields will increase (Chart 13, top panel). Meanwhile, 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rates remain well below the 2.5%-to-3% zone that prevailed prior to 2014, when long-term inflation expectations were still well anchored (Chart 13, bottom panel). The Fed is actively aiming to push this inflation expectation measure higher. Chart 12The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields Chart 13TIPS Yields Will Rise TIPS Yields Will Rise TIPS Yields Will Rise Chart 14The European Yield Curve Will Steepen The European Yield Curve Will Steepen The European Yield Curve Will Steepen German yields have some upside too, even if the ECB will lag well behind the Fed in terms of both ending its QE program and lifting interest rates. The ECB policy rate mostly anchors the short end of the curve, and the large European excess savings warrant lower Bund yields than those of T-Note. However, the nominal and real terminal rates embedded in the German curve remain lower than at the apex of the European sovereign debt crisis and are extremely low compared to the US. As a result, the European yield curve will steepen, which is confirmed by the comparative strength of the earnings revisions of Europe’s cyclical equity sectors (Chart 14). Equities An environment in which yields rise again should favor financials, industrials, and momentum stocks at the expense of growth stocks. In Europe, banks and financials will be the prime beneficiaries of higher yields. Historically, higher German Bund yields are associated with an outperformance of banks relative to the broad market, because a steeper yield curve boosts net interest margins (Chart 15). European banks also have scope for some re-rating. There is little case to significantly upgrade the sectors’ expected long-term profitability significantly, considering that the European economy remains replete with an excessively large capital stock. Nonetheless, at a price-to-book ratio of 0.6 or 55% below that of US banks and 67% below the European broad market, European banks are also priced as risky investments. However, European NPLs have declined significantly, and the public sector support during the pandemic will limit how high NPLs can rise (Chart 16, top panel). Moreover, European banks are much better capitalized than they once were, which further decreases their riskiness (Chart 16). Additionally, the ECB has allowed banks to pay dividends again. Finally, the fiscal risk sharing created by the NGEU funds and continued bond purchases by the ECB will cap the upside for peripheral yield spreads, which will limit the odds of the emergence of the kind of doom-loop that once plagued the European banking system. UK bank stocks look particularly attractive.   Chart 15European Banks Have Upside European Banks Have Upside European Banks Have Upside Chart 16Less Risky Less Risky Less Risky The massive underperformance of European momentum stocks relative to growth stocks is also likely to reverse (Chart 17). As Chart 18 shows, momentum stocks currently trade at an exceptionally large discount to both growth stocks and the European broad market. Most importantly, momentum equities tend to outperform growth stocks in the wake of a rise in German yields (Chart 19). This sensitivity to yields is currently accentuated by the sector bias of momentum stocks. Relative to growth stocks, momentum equities greatest overweights are financials, industrials and materials (Table 1), three sectors that thrive on higher interest rates. Meanwhile, their largest relative underweights are consumer staples and healthcare, two sectors with strong defensive characteristics that benefit from lower yields.  Chart 17Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Chart 18...Have Become Very Cheap ...Have Become Very Cheap ...Have Become Very Cheap Chart 19Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Table 1Sector Biases: Momentum Vs Growth Stocks The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Chart 20The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials Finally, we recommend investors move more aggressively into industrial equities. Industrials are the best-placed sector to benefit from the rise in global capex and the excess money supply growth. As Chart 20 highlights, even if the rate of growth of global capital goods orders decelerates, industrials should outperform the European broad market as long as the rate of growth remains positive. Nonetheless, the sector’s outperformance could moderate because it has become more expensive than the broad market. However, a stronger profitability compensates for this negative. As a corollary, we continue to favor Swedish equities because of their 38% weight in industrials and 27% allocation to financials. Moreover, their superior return on equity and profit margins, as well as the EUR/SEK’s downside potential, add to Sweden’s allure. The largest risk for industrials remains the slowdown in the Chinese credit impulse. However, the upbeat picture for DM capex and inventory growth counters this negative side. We continue to recommend some hedges against this risk. When it comes to our Sweden overweight, we still advise selling Norway, a position that has worked out well. We also still like selling consumer discretionary equities / long European telecoms to protect portfolios against a greater-than-anticipated global slowdown. Bottom Line: Global safe-haven yields are unlikely to decline significantly from current levels. Instead, they will rise meaningfully in the coming quarters, even in Germany. Consequently, investors with an investment horizon greater than six months should curtail their portfolio duration once again. Higher yields will also benefit European bank equities. We also recommend investors buy European momentum stocks and sell growth stocks. Finally, European industrials are set to shine compared to the rest of the European market, which will give a fillip to Swedish stocks, our favored European market.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Currency Performance Currency Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Corporate Bonds The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Equity Performance Major Stock Indices The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Geographic Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Sector Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally