Financial Markets
Highlights Every year we review our best and worst calls – both in terms of geopolitics and markets. This year our geopolitical forecasting and strategic market recommendations performed well, given the COVID-19 shock, but our tactical trades often went awry. We correctly forecast the presidency, Senate, Democratic nomination, and impeachment outcome. We anticipated “stimulus hiccups” but expected them to be resolved by November 3. The Georgia runoff on January 5 presents a 30% risk to our Senate prediction. In the main, we were right on Chinese politics, EU politics, US-Iran tensions, and Russian politics. US-China tensions kept rising, as expected, but the market ignored it. We missed the Saudi-Russia cartel break-up in Q1. The jury is still out on Brexit. Strategically, we got the big market moves right, but we were too risk-averse during the summer and after the election. Stay long cyber-security stocks in general, but close the pair trade versus Big Tech. Close the 10-year Treasury hedge. Feature Chart 1The Black Swan The COVID-19 pandemic took investors by surprise, defined the year 2020, and caused the shortest bear market in history, lasting 33 days (Chart 1). On the whole this year’s crisis illustrates how geopolitical analysis is not primarily concerned with “black swan” events, which are inherently unpredictable. Rather the wholly unexpected pandemic reinforced several of our pre-existing geopolitical themes and trends: de-globalization, American sociopolitical instability, European integration, and US-China conflict. This year our geopolitical forecasting and strategic market recommendations performed well, given the COVID-19 shock, but our tactical trades often went awry. Whether these and other trends will continue in 2021 will be the subject of our strategic outlook due next week. This week we offer our annual report card, which reviews our best and worst calls for the year with a desire to hold ourselves accountable to clients, learn investment lessons from mistakes, and hone our geopolitical method of analysis. Successful Strategy, Debatable Tactics Overall our performance this year was good. Specifically, our political forecasting was on target and our investment recommendations got the big moves correct. But our risk-averse tactical trades were less successful. In last year’s annual outlook, “2020 Key Views: The Anarchic Society,” our main investment recommendation was long gold – based on sky-high geopolitical risk and a shift toward reflationary policy by the Federal Reserve, China, and the European Union (Chart 2). We maintain this trade today, despite its losing some altitude recently, as we expect to see low real rates, reflationary global policy, and rising inflation expectations. Geopolitical risk will also remain elevated despite dropping off from recent peaks, and not only during President Trump’s “lame duck” final days in office. We sounded the alarm for clients in our January 24 report, “Market Hurdles: From Sanders To Iran,” warning that global equities and risk appetite would suffer “in the very near term” due to conventional political risks as well as the new coronavirus, which we feared would explode as a result of Chinese New Year. In retrospect we were not bearish enough even in these reports. In our March 27 report, “No Depression,” we advised that the extraordinary monetary and fiscal response to the crisis would reflate the global economy and thus went long Brent crude oil. From this point onward we gradually added risk to our strategic portfolio, including by going long global equities relative to bonds in June (Chart 3). Chart 2Gold Paid Off When Black Swan Arose Of course, despite getting these big moves right, we abandoned several of our strategic recommendations during the crisis and some of our tactical trades went awry throughout the year. Chart 3When Crisis Hits, Buy Risk Assets! Our Worst Calls Of 2020 We chose a very bad time, last December, to bet heavily on global equity rotation from growth to value and away from tech sector leadership. US equities and tech stocks surged ahead of global equities on the back of the pandemic. Our long energy / short tech trade proved disastrous. Only now, with a vaccine on the horizon, are these recommendations coming to fruition. On the other hand, we should have remained committed to our long EUR-USD position rather than cutting it short when the crisis erupted (Chart 4). Global stimulus and the Fed’s sharp reduction in interest rates and gigantic infusion of US dollar liquidity ensured that the dollar would plummet. Strategically, we got the big market moves right, but we were too risk-averse during the summer and after the election. In some cases our geopolitical forecast proved dead-on while our market recommendation faltered. One of biggest geopolitical forecasts, in September 2019, was that the US and China could well conclude a trade deal but that it would be extremely limited in scope and strategic tensions would continue to rise dangerously. This prediction has proved accurate, judging by US high-tech export controls and China’s suppression of Hong Kong this year. But we misjudged the market response, particularly after China contained the virus: the renminbi saw a tremendous rally this year while we remained short, suffering a 4.96% loss so far (Chart 5). Chart 4Stick With Your Guns...Even Amidst Crisis Chart 5US-China Tensions Persisted, But The Market Didn't Care Along these lines, President-elect Joe Biden’s statement that he will maintain President Trump’s tariffs is another confirmation of one of our most contrarian views over the past year.1 We would expect the People’s Bank to allow the yuan to slip both to deal with lingering deflationary pressures and to build up some poker chips for the coming negotiations with Biden. We also would expect the US dollar to witness a near-term tactical bounce. However, if we are wrong, our short CNY-USD trade will fall further and we will have to cut our losses. Chart 6You Can't Time The Market Other mistakes occurred when solid economic and political views combined with bad market timing. Our long position in cyber-security stocks is well grounded – we remain invested – but once again we jumped the gun on the rotation away from Big Tech, which constituted the short end of two of our pair trades, now closed. Separately, we coupled our long gold bet with a long silver bet that came far too late into the rally – though we remain strategically optimistic on silver due to its industrial uses, which should revive in the post-pandemic context. Lamentably, we ran up against our stop-loss threshold on our structural position in US aerospace and defense stocks not long before the vaccine announcement would have begun the arduous process of recuperating losses (Chart 6). We have reinitiated the latter trade, albeit in global defense stocks rather than just American. The inverse also occurred, in which our political forecasting proved faulty but our market implications worked out quite well. One of our biggest political forecasting failures stemmed from an initial success. Beginning in May, we signaled that the US Congress would experience “stimulus hiccups” in trying to pass additional fiscal relief for the economy. This view proved prescient as negotiations fell through in July and a range of benefits expired. Real rates began to recuperate at this time. The problem is that we also predicted that the fiscal impasse was merely a hiccup, i.e. would be resolved prior to the election. It remains unresolved to this day. Fortunately, our market recommendation – to go long US municipal bonds relative to duration-matched treasuries – was rooted in the principle of “buy what the Fed is buying” and therefore continued to appreciate, along with our similarly justified position in investment grade bonds (Chart 7). Chart 7Stimulus Hiccup Occurred, But Was Not Resolved Our biggest error of political forecasting was the collapse of OPEC 2.0 at the beginning of the year. We signaled to clients in January that Russia was growing internally unstable and that this would result in an external action that would prove market-negative. This was correct, but we failed to anticipate that the most important consequence would be a temporary Russian rejection of Saudi demands for oil production cuts. Still, we advised clients to stay the course, arguing that the Russians and Saudis were geopolitically constrained and would return to their cartel, which proved to be the case, thus hastening the restoration of balance to oil markets. This view supported our long spot oil recommendation in late March, though the idea that US producers might collaborate proved fanciful. Alternatively we suggested that clients go long oil relative to gold, which has performed well. Other mistakes stemmed from our tactical trades. Generally, we were insufficiently bullish both during the summer and after the US election. In both cases we overemphasized the absence of US fiscal stimulus as a risk to the rally. In reality the first stimulus was sufficient and the V-shaped recovery of the private economy reduced the need for additional support over the course of the year. Our long tactical positions in US treasuries, consumer staples, and JPY-EUR did not pan out. The takeaway going forward, given that the market is not pressuring politicians to act, is that the risk of another congressional fiscal failure prior to Christmas is underrated. Lastly, some minor emerging market trades went awry, such as our long positions in Thai and Malay equities and our shorting the South African rand. We wrongly predicted that Michelle Obama would be Joe Biden’s pick for vice president, when in fact that honor went to Senator Kamala Harris. Our Best Calls Of 2020 While we got the big market moves right in 2020, our best calls were political and geopolitical in nature: Joe Biden won the US election. He won through his ability to win back blue-collar workers and compete in the Sun Belt as well as the Rust Belt, which we outlined as a key geographic strength during his run in the Democratic primary election (Map 1). We downgraded Trump from 55% odds of re-election to 35% in March, when the lockdowns occurred, and we upgraded Trump only to 45% in October when he rallied. The thin margins in the swing states confirmed this higher-than-consensus probability of a Trump win. Map 1Joe Biden Won The Rust Belt And The Sun Belt Republicans retained the Senate. Beginning in late September, we saw that President Trump was rallying and that this would increase the odds of a Republican Senate even if Trump himself fell short. On October 16 we signaled that the Senate was too close to call, and on October 30 we upgraded the GOP again and argued that a Democratic White House plus a Republican Senate was the most likely scenario (Chart 8). There is a lingering risk to this view: a double Democratic victory in the Georgia runoffs on January 5, 2021. But we put the odds of that at 30% at best. Chart 8Republicans Held The Senate (Pending Georgia Runoffs) Chart 9Biden Won The Democratic Primary Nomination Biden won the Democratic nomination, which we first highlighted in November 2018 and June 2019 and consistently thereafter, though we never underrated his challengers (Chart 9). Trump was acquitted of impeachment charges, which seems like ages ago. We said from the start that Democrats did not have the votes (Chart 10). China stimulated the economy massively and avoided massive domestic unrest. Investors doubted that Beijing would stimulate enough to lead to a global recovery, given the leadership’s preference to avoid systemic financial risk. We insisted that constraints would prevail over preferences and the stimulus would be gigantic. Our “China Play Index” skyrocketed, though it did not outperform global equities (Chart 11). We also argued that President Xi Jinping would not face significant domestic unrest after the crisis erupted, though we view domestic political risk as underrated for the coming years. Chart 10Impeachment Failed Long Emerging markets and deep cyclicals recovered. The combination of Chinese stimulus and a US “return to normalcy” led us to go long emerging markets after the election. We articulated this trade by going long Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, on the expectation that Washington will remain hawkish toward China over trade (Chart 12). We also went long deep cyclicals and US infrastructure plays on the basis of Chinese stimulus and the Biden-Trump common denominator on building projects (Chart 13). Chart 11China Stimulated Massively Chart 12Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Worked As EM Play The Taiwan Strait was a bigger geopolitical risk than the Korean peninsula, which markets are at last recognizing (Chart 14). Unfortunately for investors Taiwan remains a serious geopolitical risk regardless of Trump’s exit. Hong Kong attracted investors’ attention more than Taiwan in 2020, whereas we have treated Hong Kong as a red herring. Chart 13Long Infrastructure And Cyclicals Paid Off Chart 14Hong Kong Was A Red Herring, Korea Beat Taiwan Brexit has been a red herring throughout 2020, as expected, though an end-of-year failure to agree to a UK-EU trade deal would upend our predictions (Chart 15). Chart 15Brexit Was A Sideshow Germany’s shift to more dovish fiscal policy strengthened European solidarity, keeping peripheral bond yields and “break-up risk” contained (Chart 16). In August 2019 we argued that Germany was easing fiscal policy but would not surge spending until a crisis happened – which proved to be the case when the coronavirus prompted Olaf Scholz to wheel out the “bazooka” this year. We also argued that Europe would be willing to mutualize debt, which was officially confirmed when outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel forged an agreement on an EU Recovery Fund with French President Emmanuel Macron (though not exactly a “Hamiltonian moment”). Chart 16European Solidarity Strengthened Chart 17Peak Shinzo Abe' Theme Boosted The Yen Japan saw “Peak Abenomics,” which was confirmed this year when he handed the helm over to his deputy, Yoshihide Suga, whose policies are continuous. Abe’s late-2019 tax hike was only one of many reasons we anticipated a rally in the yen, which was supercharged by this year’s crisis (Chart 17). Russia’s political risk premium spiked, as we expected, though we did not anticipate that the cause would be a temporary breakdown in OPEC 2.0 (Chart 18). We were more prepared for an event like the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and US sanctions against the Nordstream II pipeline. Our argument that Russia would lie low, for fear of domestic unrest, has so far borne out in the Belarus protests and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Whether it will continue to do so in the face of what will likely be a pro-democracy assault in eastern Europe from the US Democratic Party remains to be seen. Chart 18Russian Geopolitical Risk Spiked As Predicted India-China tensions were a red herring. India benefited from the western world’s turn against China. Partnerships and alliances were already taking shape before the coronavirus spurred a move in the West to diminish reliance on China’s health care exports. Our long Indian pharmaceuticals trade was highly profitable, though our overweight in Indian bonds was less so (Chart 19). Chart 19India Benefited From West's Anti-China Turn Brazilian political risk surged to the highest levels since the 2018 election, and President Jair Bolsonaro suffered a setback in municipal elections, as we expected, especially after witnessing his cavalier attitude toward the pandemic (Chart 20). However, his approval rating rose on the back of fiscal largesse, implying that debt dynamics will continue to trouble this market despite the bullish backdrop for emerging markets in 2021. Chart 20Brazil Remained A Muddle Chart 21Turkish Populism Exacted A Toll Chart 22A Bull Market In Iran Tensions The Turkish lira collapsed, as Turkish President Recep Erdogan maintained reckless domestic economic policies and foreign adventurism (Chart 21). As we go to press, Erdogan appears to be backing down from his aggressive approach to maritime-territorial disputes in the Mediterranean, for fear of European sanctions, which would be a positive surprise, albeit temporary. The “bull market in Iran tensions” continued, with US-Israeli sabotage and assassinations of key Iranian figures bookending the year (Chart 22). With Trump still in office for another 45 days, we would not be surprised to see another move on Iran, where hardliners are ascendant in the unstable advance of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s eventual succession. So far, Trump has taken market-negative actions in his “lame duck” period on Iran, China, and Big Tech, as we argued, which means more is coming despite the market’s enthusiasm over the partly sunny outlook for 2021. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical analysis is about structural themes and trends – not unpredictable black swans, which may even further entrench structural trends. When a crisis triggers a massive selloff, buy risk assets, then reassess. The gargantuan, coordinated monetary and fiscal response to this year’s crisis presented a clear buy signal. Once the virus was revealed not to be as deadly as first suspected, the rally gained steam. Political and geopolitical forecasts may be dead-on and yet fail to drive the market. There is a constant need to refine the ability to articulate and implement trades that seek to generate alpha from policy insight. Tactical views and attempts at cleverness are a liability when one’s strategic views – geopolitical, macro-economic, financial – are firmly grounded. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Thomas L. Friedman, "Biden Made Sure ‘Trump Is Not Going To Be President For Four More Years,’" New York Times, December 2, 2020, nytimes.com.
Our semi-annual virtual meeting with the long-standing client Ms. Mea took place on December 1. Given it is the end of the year, Ms. Mea inquired about our strategies for 2021 and reviewed the evolution of our views during 2020. Below is a transcript of our discussion, which we hope will help clients better grasp our views and analysis. Chart 1EM Relative Equity Performance And EM Currencies Versus DM ex-US Ms. Mea: Before we get to investment recommendations for next year, let’s review which of your views have worked in 2020 and which have not. Answer: From a big picture perspective, we went from being very negative on EM over the last decade to being neutral on EM risk assets in both absolute terms and relative to DM peers. Since April, we have been waiting for a pullback to go long and overweight EM, but a meaningful setback has not materialized. That said, although EM risk assets and currencies have rallied substantially in absolute terms, they have not outperformed their DM peers, as shown in Chart 1. Concerning the evolution of our strategy, as you might recall, we had to chase EM stocks higher late last year after the trade deal between the US and China created euphoria in financial markets, pushing EM assets higher. But even then, we did not change our bullish view on the US dollar and continued recommending an underweight allocation in EM versus DM in global equity and credit portfolios. In our January 23, 2020 report we contended that the risk premium in global markets was extremely low and that risk assets were extremely overbought. The following week, as news of the COVID-19 outbreak in China emerged, we recommended closing the long position in EM stocks. On February 20, we asserted that odds of a breakdown were substantial and recommended shorting EM stocks outright. We closed this position on March 19 with a substantial gain. On March 26, we argued that it was too late to sell but too early to buy. In retrospect, the latter part of this assessment was incorrect. Then, on April 23, we recommended going long duration in EM local currency bonds or buying domestic EM bonds while hedging currency risk. We recommended receiving 10-year swap rates in several EM countries. We changed our long-standing strategic bullish stance on the US dollar to bearish on July 9. Simultaneously, we closed our shorts in various EM currencies versus the greenback and recommended shorting many of these EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart 1). We upgraded EM credit from underweight to neutral on June 4 and lifted the allocation to EM stocks from underweight to neutral on July 30. EM relative equity performance versus DM has been in a broad trading range for the whole of 2020 (please refer to the top panel of Chart 1). Chart 2Facing Technical Resistance Ms. Mea: What is your EM outlook going into 2021? Answer: The odds of a major breakout in EM equities, currencies and fixed-income markets have risen, yet there could be a shakeout before the breakout. Both EM equity and the global ex-US equity indexes have risen to their previous highs which proved to be a formidable resistance level (Chart 2). The main reasons to expect a major breakout in EM and global ex-US share prices are as follows: First, the global economy could experience periodic setbacks, but things cannot be worse than they were during the pandemic-induced lockdowns in early 2020. The deployment of vaccines is likely to improve global economic conditions in 2021, especially in hard hit services sectors. Second, asset purchases by major central banks around the world have effectively removed many securities (mostly government bonds) from the marketplace while creating an enormous supply of money (Chart 3). The upshot is that too much money is chasing fewer assets. Chart 4 illustrates this phenomenon in the case of US dollar securities. Cash in both US institutional and retail money market funds is still elevated. As a share of market value of US dollar denominated equities and bonds, the amount in US money market funds has declined but it is still above its February lows. Provided that US money market rates are zero, one can make the case for more flows from money markets into both equities and bonds. Chart 3Booming Money Supply Worldwide Chart 4How Much Cash On-SidelinesIs There Left In The US? Finally, odds that EM equities will break above the trading range they have been in over the last 10 years have increased. As we discussed in our previous reports, EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan have been facing hard budget constraints due to limited fiscal stimulus packages, a breakdown in their monetary transmission mechanism, and massive foreign capital outflows in early 2020. These harsh conditions have forced many companies to restructure to boost their efficiency. The banking system has been recognizing and provisioning for bad assets. Finally, some governments have adopted difficult structural reforms. These could be sowing seeds of structural transformation in these economies, in turn producing a secular bull market in their equities and currencies. As was discussed in a recent Country In-Depth report, India is one example where structural reforms stand to have a positive effect on its long-term outlook. Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil are other candidates that could undergo similar transformations. In a nutshell, unless the global economy craters – which has low odds – one can envision a scenario in which risk assets continue marching higher. Ms. Mea: However, you mentioned that there could be a shakeout before the breakout. What makes you say that? Answer: A potential shakeout before the breakout may occur due to the following three peaks: Peak investor sentiment: Investor sentiment is very elevated and risk assets are overbought. The ZEW global growth expectations index (a survey of analysts on DM economies) has rolled over after reaching an all-time high (Chart 5, top panel). The Sentix survey of investor future expectations has reached an apex (Chart 5, bottom panel). Importantly, net long positions in copper and net bullish sentiment on copper are at their previous highs (Chart 6). This is a plausible proxy for investor sentiment on both China and global growth. Chart 5Investor Expectations Are Elevated Edited Chart 6Investors Are Super Bullish On And Very Long Copper Chart 7Investors Are Bullish On US Equities Finally, sentiment among US equity investors is also elevated (Chart 7). Peak stimulus: In China, both credit and fiscal stimulus will likely peak in Q4 2020, as demonstrated in Charts 8 and 9. The US and the euro area will experience a negative fiscal thrust in 2021 equal to 7.4% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively. A new fiscal package worth $1.5 trillion is needed in order for the US fiscal thrust to be neutral. As Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate, even after Georgia’s Senate election vote on January 5, 2021, a new fiscal package larger than $500-750 billion is unlikely. On the whole, many countries in DM and EM are experiencing peak stimulus in 2020. Chart 8China: Peak Credit Stimulus Chart 9China: Peak Fiscal Stimulus Peak manufacturing growth: We should differentiate between the top in a business cycle and an end in growth acceleration. As far as global manufacturing is concerned, we are likely currently experiencing growth acceleration at its height. Global manufacturing will continue to expand, but at a slower rate. Share prices could either rally or correct when growth begins to decelerate. The stock market reaction is contingent upon how overbought and how expensive equity prices are. The top panel of Chart 10 illustrates that the tops in the US ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventory ratio have historically marked setbacks in global cyclical stocks. Similarly, EM share prices and industrial metals fluctuate with the EM and China manufacturing PMI (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). Having risen sharply to very elevated levels, odds are that global and China manufacturing PMIs are probably topping out. Granted, these are diffusion indexes, and declines/rollovers in global manufacturing PMIs do not necessarily imply that a recession is on the horizon. Rather, they signal the end of the acceleration phase in a cycle. Bottom Line: Given how overbought and expensive they are, share prices might react negatively to peak stimulus. Ms. Mea: Your outlook on the Chinese economy has become more nuanced since the spring. How do you see China’s business cycle and financial markets evolving? Answer: We upgraded our view on the Chinese business cycle in late May after it had become apparent that China had again injected enormous credit and fiscal stimulus into the economy. On June 18, we upgraded Chinese stocks to overweight within an EM equity portfolio. We continue to expect decent growth numbers and reviving corporate profits in most of H1 2021. That said, authorities have been tightening monetary policy since May. Policymakers realize that China’s credit excesses have become even larger and they have been proactive in policy tightening to rein in leverage and speculative activities. The central bank has siphoned off banks’ excess reserves causing interbank rates to rise considerably (Chart 11). With a time lag, money/credit will decelerate and the business cycle will follow. We expect the Chinese business cycle to crest around the middle of 2021. Chart 10Cyclical Assets Fluctuate With Manufacturing PMIs Chart 11China: Liquidity Tightening Works With A Time Lag The recent shakeout in the onshore corporate bond market will lead to a reduction in corporate bond issuance as investors now require higher yields to finance SOEs. In addition, banks and non-bank financial institutions have to comply with the asset management regulation by the end of 2021. This will restrict banks’ ability to expand their balance sheets and curb NBFI risk appetite. All in all, credit-sensitive sectors like capital spending and the property market will decelerate considerably in H2 2021. Provided that they make up a large share in the mainland economy, overall income growth will also slump. Concerning financial markets, if there is a selloff in Chinese stocks in the coming weeks or months, it will give way to another upleg later in H1 2021. Ms. Mea: Going forward, what will be the driving forces of EM risk assets and how will they shape up? Answer: EM risk assets – equities, credit markets and high-yielding domestic bonds – are by and large driven by three factors: (1) China’s import and commodities cycles (which often move in tandem); (2) domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China; and (3) sharp swings in US growth and the S&P500. (1) We elaborated on the intricacies of the Chinese business cycle above and will now offer a few insights on commodities prices. There has been a broad-based recovery in Chinese demand for commodities and various commodities prices have risen substantially. Nevertheless, the outlook for commodities prices is less certain going forward. Chart 12China's Booming Copper Imports Imply Inventory Accumulation In particular, copper prices have surged but the rally is only partially attributable to recovering real demand in China. Other forces, namely inventory restocking in China and financial (investor) demand, have been responsible for the massive rise in copper prices. The mainland’s imports of copper and copper products have boomed since spring, growing at a rate of 70-80% from a year ago. Meanwhile, the recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment in electricity, water, and gas – which are the largest consumers of copper – has been considerable but not extraordinary (Chart 12). This surge leads us to infer that a sizable inventory restocking cycle has been taking place in China since last spring. Such large inventory accumulation has likely been prompted by the easy availability of credit and rising copper prices. Besides, investors hold record net long positions in copper on the New York Mercantile Exchange (refer to Chart 6). In brief, as we discussed in detail in the Special Report from November 25, Chinese purchases of copper will decline even as its real demand for copper continues to expand. Oil prices are at risk of excess supply as many producers are reluctant to continue suppressing their crude output. Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to limit OPEC+ production. However, it will be increasingly difficult for it to do so. The basis is that many producers are naturally looking to maximize the net present value of cash flow from their oil reserves. Due to inflation, $45 today is worth more than $45 in five years. As and when oil producers accept that global demand for oil will stagnate as the world switches to more environmentally friendly sources of energy, they will have an incentive to produce and sell as much crude as possible at current prices. Chart 13EM Sovereign Credit Spreads (Shown Inverted) Fluctuate With Commodities Prices If Saudis lose control over output, they will ramp up their own production to increase their market share. Crude prices will plunge anew. The timing is uncertain, but we expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Overall, even though China’s business cycle recovery will continue in H1 2021, prices for certain important commodities like oil and copper will likely struggle. Setbacks in commodities prices will have ramifications for financial markets in resource-producing EM countries. EM currencies, as well as their sovereign spreads, correlate with commodities prices (Chart 13). (2) Domestic demand in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan will gradually improve but from a very low point. Many developing countries still face major hurdles, including banking systems that are struggling with non-performing loans, a looming fiscal drag, and a lack of control over the pandemic. Further, EM outside North Asia will lag behind advanced countries in procuring and deploying COVID-19 vaccines. Consequently, consumer and business confidence will be slow to recover in these countries, and their business cycle revival will continue to trail that of North Asia (China, Korea and Taiwan) and advanced economies. (3) Finally, any shakeout in the S&P500 will reverberate through EM. Having rallied considerably, North Asian equity and currency markets have already priced in a great deal of good news. In EM ex-North Asia, the level of economic activity, albeit reviving, remains low. This makes these EM ex-North Asian financial markets very sensitive to fluctuations in global/US financial markets. Chart 14EM Equities Have Been A Low-Beta Play On The S&P500 The resilience of US equity and credit markets in recent months in the face of numerous challenges has surprised us. US share prices and credit markets have not corrected meaningfully despite (1) the third wave of COVID-19 which has resulted in partial lockdowns and a deterioration in consumer sentiment; (2) the lack of a second fiscal stimulus package and (3) uncertainty surrounding the presidential elections. In retrospect, investors have been willing to buy any small dip. Interestingly, in the past three years, EM share prices outperformed DM share prices when the S&P500 sold off and underperformed when US stocks rallied (Chart 14). EM versus DM relative share prices are shown inverted on this chart. This reveals that EM stocks are not a high beta on the S&P 500 and rising US equity markets do not guarantee that EM share prices will outperform their DM peers. Overall, the outlook for EM risk assets is convoluted, warranting a neutral stance for now both in absolute terms and relative to DM. Chart 15The US Dollar Is Oversold Ms. Mea: Where and how does the US dollar enter your analysis? Answer: The dynamics between EM and the US dollar is push-pull in nature, i.e., the causality runs both ways. EM fundamentals – that could be broadly defined as return on capital in these economies – drive their exchange rates’ trends versus the US dollar. Further, US dollar trends are also shaped by several global macro forces, including the global business cycle. The US fiscal position and monetary policy stance also drive fluctuations in the value of the greenback. Over the next several years, the US dollar will likely be in a bear market because US inflation will rise and the Federal Reserve will fall behind the inflation curve. US real rates will remain negative, which will continue to undermine the dollar’s value. All that said, the US dollar has become very oversold and investor sentiment is bearish on the greenback (Chart 15). From a contrarian perspective, the dollar might be set up for a countertrend rebound. Interestingly, after the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks before selling off violently. It seems that the broad trade-weighted dollar is now following a reverse pattern (Chart 16). The US dollar in 2016 is shown inverted in this chart. The greenback was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has continued weakening since. If this reverse pattern were to play out, the US dollar will near its bottom soon and then stage a playable rebound. Chart 16The US Dollar Before And After 2016 And 2020 Presidential Elections Chart 17EM Stocks Are Cheap If The Structural EPS Trend Is Up In short, a long-term bear market but near-term rebound in the US dollar is consistent with our view of a shakeout before a breakout for EM equities and risk assets. Ms. Mea: What about EM equity and currency valuations? Are they not still cheap despite their recent rally? Answer: From a secular perspective, EM equities appear modestly cheap as illustrated by our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio (Chart 17). However, it is vital to realize that this CAPE valuation model assumes that EPS (earnings per share) in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms will revert to its long-term trend sooner rather than later (Chart 17, bottom panel). There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the structural trend in EM EPS. For the past decade – and therefore well before the pandemic – EM EPS in nominal US dollar terms has been fluctuating in a wide range (Chart 18). Not surprisingly, EM share prices have been flat for the past ten years. Further, EM EPS has massively underperformed US EPS in local currency terms for the past ten years (Chart 19). Consistently, EM share prices have underperformed the S&P 500 even in local currency terms. Chart 18EM EPS: No Growth For 10 years Chart 19EM Versus US: Relative Stock Prices And Relative EPS As for EM currencies, the aggregate real effective exchange rate of EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan currencies suggests that they are cheap (Chart 20). Overall, to argue that EM stocks are cheap, one should be confident that EM EPS in real (inflation-adjusted) USD terms will be expanding in the years to come (Chart 17, bottom panel). While some EM economies have undertaken some restructuring, there is currently no strong evidence to suggest that EM EPS will be in a structural uptrend. From a cyclical perspective, EM EPS will certainly be recovering in 2021 (Chart 21). However, a notable chunk of this profit recovery has already been largely priced in. Chart 20EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan: Currency Valuations Chart 21EM Profits Will Recover In 2021 To sum up, a bet on EM share prices breaking out above their decade-long trading range implies betting on EM EPS entering a period of structural growth. Over the past ten years, EM companies have not delivered the secular growth needed to warrant higher equity multiples. We are open to the idea that structural reforms carried out in several nations will allow for higher productivity, income and profit growth. However, it is still too early to jump to that conclusion. Chart 22Will Asian Markets Finally Break Out? Ms. Mea: Where in your analysis and strategy might you be wrong? Answer: The key risks to our view are twofold: First, FOMO (fear of missing out) on the part of investors continues to propel EM risk assets higher while either their fundamentals remain mediocre or they are already very expensive. As we have shown in Chart 4, there is still a lot of US dollar cash sitting in US money market funds and these could feed the EM rally, preventing the materialization of a shakeout. Second, we might be late to recognize structural shifts in certain EM economies and, might therefore miss breakouts in those bourses. Notably, there is no single EM equity market that has clearly broken above its previous highs (Chart 22). Ms. Mea: What are your overweights and underweights for equity, currency and fixed-income portfolios? Answer: For an EM equity portfolio, our strong conviction overweights have been and remain China, Korea and Mexico. Chart 23 shows the performance of our fully-invested EM equity portfolio based on our recommended country allocation. It has outperformed the EM MSCI equity benchmark by 3.7% in 2020 and by 74% since its initiation in May 2008. The latter translates into a 4.7% CAGR outperformance versus the EM MSCI equity benchmark in 10.5 years. Critically, this outperformance has been achieved with very low volatility and small drawdowns. Chart 23Performance Of Our EM Equity Country Allocation Portfolio (Country Recommendations) As for EM local bonds, we continue to recommend receiving ten-year swap rates in Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, China and India. We are looking for a setback in their currencies to switch to holding cash bonds, i.e., without hedging currency risk. Among EM currencies, our short basket consists of BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY and IDR while our favored ones have been MXN, RUB, CZK, INR THB and SGD. All these country recommendations and positions as well as the one in the EM sovereign credit space (US dollar bonds) are always presented at the end of our reports (please refer to the following pages). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Highlights President Trump’s final actions and the US fiscal impasse pose non-trivial risks to the rally. Biden’s foreign policy cabinet picks have limited impact but are mildly positive for now. Biden’s multilateralism will eventually conflict with the need to get things done. Continuities with Trump foreign policy are underrated. The RCEP trade agreement is not a game changer but a pro-trade shift in the US would be. Europe is a clear winner of the US election but continental politics risk will pick up next year from today’s lows. Book profits on select risk-on trades, but go strategically long GBP-EUR. Feature Global financial markets are surging on a raft of good news. We are booking some gains as we expect the rally to be capped in the near term either by Trump’s final actions as president or by the US fiscal impasse. First, the good news. The US power transition is officially under way, reducing US policy uncertainty. The popular vote within the critical battleground states acted as a restraint on the Republican Party’s ability to dispute the results or appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.1 Chart 1US And Global Policy Uncertainty Falling President-Elect Joe Biden is preparing the US for a return to rule by experts. This will not prevent grand policy errors in the future but it will give confidence to the market today. Biden is nominating a slate of White House advisers and cabinet members who are traditional Democrats or left-leaning technocrats. For example, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen looks to serve as Treasury Secretary, longtime Biden and Barack Obama adviser Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State, and former Hillary Clinton and Obama staffer Jake Sullivan as national security adviser. Biden may nominate a few far-left officials (e.g. for the Labor Department) but the most important positions are quickly filling up with conventional faces, a boon for financial markets. Democrats are unlikely to win control of the Senate on January 5 but even if they do their single-vote majority will probably be too small to enable any radical cabinet picks – or radical legislation.2 The downside is that spending will be constrained and monetary and fiscal policy will remain uncoordinated, regardless of Yellen’s unique ability to work with Fed Chair Jay Powell. With Biden reportedly leaning on House Democrats to cut a COVID fiscal relief deal, there is a 50/50 chance that a $500-$750 billion bill passes in the “lame duck” session of Congress prior to Christmas. This would be a positive surprise. We are not counting on a deal until the first quarter next year. Hence US policy uncertainty will remain elevated. Meanwhile global policy uncertainty could spike again as long as President Trump remains in office and seeks to achieve policy objectives on the way out. Biden does not take office until January 20, but over a 12-month horizon we see a clear case for cyclical sectors and European stocks to outperform defensive sectors and American stocks as a result of Biden’s trade peace dividend, i.e. eschewing sweeping unilateral tariffs (Chart 1). Chart 2Vaccine On The Horizon While COVID-19 spikes, consumer wariness, and partial lockdowns will weigh on fourth quarter economic activity, several vaccines are on the way. The latest wave of the outbreak is already rolling over in Europe, which bodes well for the United States (Chart 2). Again, the 12-month outlook is brighter than the near term. Over the long haul, investors also have reason to be optimistic about governance in the developed world. The takeaway from this year is that the US and UK, the two major developed markets that saw right-wing populist movements win big votes in 2016, and two governments whose handling of the pandemic was at best muddled, led the development of vaccines in record time to deal with an entirely novel coronavirus and global pandemic.3 The US constitutional system withstood a barrage of partisan assaults both from President Trump and his supporters and their opponents. The British constitutional system is handling Brexit. Most other developed markets also navigated the crisis reasonably well. Weaknesses were revealed, and there will be aftershocks, but the sky is not falling. Near term US policy uncertainty will remain elevated due to fiscal impasse. Bottom Line: The rise in global risk assets may overshoot on positive news, but the US fiscal impasse could undercut the rally, as could Trump’s parting actions over the next two months. Market Not Priced For Lame Duck Trump There is a fair chance of an American or Israeli surgical strike against Iran or its militant proxies to underscore the red line against nuclear weaponization. Financial markets are not prepared for a major incident of armed conflict. Neither Israeli nor UAE equities are priced for near-term risks to materialize. The same goes for UAE or Saudi credit default swaps (Chart 3). An even greater risk to financial markets comes from the Trump administration’s pending actions on China. Trump is highly likely to take punitive or disruptive actions against China. His major contribution to US foreign policy is the confrontation with China, which was also the origin of the coronavirus and hence his electoral defeat. Already since the election Trump has imposed sanctions on US investments in state-owned enterprises. China’s fiscal and quasi-fiscal stimulus is peaking at the moment. This provides some buffer for its economy and the global economy if Trump hikes tariffs or imposes sweeping sanctions. But there are signs of instability beneath the surface. Authorities have tightened interbank rates sharply and intervened to prevent asset bubbles. The country is seeing turmoil in the bond market as a result of these actions and ongoing economic restructuring (Chart 4). Chart 3Risk Of US Or Israeli Strike On Iran Chart 4Chinese Stimulus And Bond Market Volatility Once again the market is not prepared for another major shock in the US-China relationship. The People’s Bank has allowed the renminbi to appreciate drastically this year. This trend will reverse if President Trump punishes China. As China’s economic momentum wanes and a new US administration enters office, it would make sense to allow the currency to depreciate. After all, the Biden administration will expect the renminbi to appreciate just as all previous administrations have done, but the People’s Bank will not want the yuan to fall much below the ~6.2 level that prevailed just before the trade war started in early 2018 (Chart 5). Chart 5Renminbi Priced For Zero Trump Tariffs Biden’s Foreign Policy: Continuities With Trump It is too soon to speak of the “Biden Doctrine.” Cabinet appointments will have limited impact relative to geopolitical fundamentals. Neither Biden nor Blinken have a consistent theme to their foreign policy decisions. Michèle Flournoy may or may not be nominated as Defense Secretary. What is clear is that Biden is in favor of establishment national security policymakers who want the US to work more closely with allies and international institutions. Starting in January, this shift will make US foreign policy somewhat more predictable. On Iran, Biden will seek to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal prior to the June 18, 2021 Iranian presidential election, but he will also have reason to sustain the Arab-Israel rapprochement that the Trump administration initiated via the Abraham Accords. News reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu met with Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman along with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a “secret” meeting on November 23. The Saudis could eventually normalize ties with Israel, but only once an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is reached. The Democrats have a long-running interest in negotiating such a settlement. Progress can be made as long as the Saudis and Israelis do not try utterly to sabotage Biden’s Iran deal. They would risk isolation from American support – an intolerable risk for both states. An American détente with Iran combined with normalized Arab-Israeli relations would create something resembling a balance in the region, which is what the Biden administration needs in order to maintain the “pivot to Asia” that will be its dominant foreign policy agenda. Biden’s pivot to Asia will start with a diplomatic “reset” with China so that strategic dialogue can resume and areas of cooperation can be identified. As Chart 5 above shows, the market is priced for Biden to reduce tariffs back to their September 2018 level (25% on $50 billion of imports and 10% on $200 billion). Anything is possible, since tariffs are an executive decision, but we would not bet on Biden sacrificing all of his leverage when the US-China strategic tensions are fundamentally rooted in the US’s loss of global standing and China’s rejection of the liberal world order. What is clear is an emerging contradiction that Biden will eventually have to resolve between multilateralism and getting things done. The Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. If Biden relies on multilateral diplomacy to update and extend the Iranian nuclear deal, he will find it much more difficult to gain Russian and Chinese cooperation than Obama did. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s trade war have poisoned the well. If Biden does not give enough ground to get Russo-Chinese cooperation, then he will have to use unilateral American power (i.e. Trump’s maximum pressure policy) or just settle for rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal without any safeguards against ballistic missiles or militant proxies. The original deal expires in 2025. Chart 6Greater China Still Center Of Geopolitical Risk The same goes for Biden’s handling of Trump’s China policy. Biden wants to revive the World Trade Organization. But if he adheres to the WTO then he will have to rescind all of Trump’s tariffs, since they have been declared illegal. This will reduce his leverage on unresolved structural disagreements. Biden wants to reach out to the allies on how to handle China. It is not clear how he will respond to the Trump administration’s outgoing scheme to create an alliance of liberal democracies that would arrange to purchase each other’s goods and possibly implement counter-tariffs in response to Chinese boycotts, such as the one placed on Australia today. Biden may not adopt the scheme. But the alternative would be to leave states to succumb to China’s political boycotts, thus failing to build an effective multilateral response to China’s aggressive foreign policy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan reveals that the Communist Party remains undeterred in its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and state-backed technological and manufacturing dominance. This will fundamentally run afoul of US interests. Thus we expect the Biden administration to conduct a foreign policy that is tougher on China than the Obama administration, that retains most of the Trump tariffs and tech sanctions, and that more resolutely attempts to build a coalition to pressure China into adopting international liberal norms. This policy trajectory virtually ensures that Biden will have to adopt some of Trump’s policies. Chinese equities are not priced for this risk. The pronounced risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is just starting to be recognized (Chart 6). The risk to our view is a grand US-China re-engagement. This is possible, but we think the current trajectory of China will cause a new confrontation even if Biden is less hawkish than Trump. Bottom Line: Financial markets are underrating Chinese/Taiwanese political and geopolitical risks, both from Trump’s lame duck period and from Biden’s pivot to Asia. Did China Just Take Charge Of Global Trade? Several clients have written to ask us about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a large new free trade agreement (FTA) signed by China and its Asian trading partners. RCEP is not a game changer but it is marginally positive for the global economy. Moreover it has the potential to ignite a new round of trade agreements, for instance by provoking the US (and the UK) to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. RCEP is a traditional free trade agreement that will cut tariffs by an average of 90% for its members. Membership includes China, Japan, South Korea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia, and New Zealand. It has not been ratified and will take ten years to fully implement after ratification. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing-oriented East Asian nations have reflexively responded to global shocks and slowdowns by deepening their trade integration. RCEP shows that this trend remains intact. China is the only member of the pact that is seeing trade grow at the moment – the others are still seeing declines due to the global recession but are hoping to increase nominal growth by removing trade barriers (Chart 7). RCEP is also notable because it is China’s second multilateral trade deal (the first was the China-ASEAN FTA). Beijing normally prefers bilateral deals where its size gives it the advantage, but it is trying to demonstrate greater willingness to work multilaterally. President Xi Jinping has rhetorically positioned himself as an advocate of free trade and multilateralism on the global stage, despite his pursuit of import substitution and state industrial subsidies at home. As long as China continues expanding trade with others it will smooth the painful restructuring of its manufacturing sector and blunt some of the criticisms about mercantilism. Ironically it is Japan’s decision to join, rather than China’s, that makes RCEP distinct. Japan did not have an FTA with South Korea and it was the only member of RCEP that did not already have a free trade deal with China. (Japan also lacked a deal with New Zealand.) This decision is not new but reflects the paradigm shift in Japanese national policy that began after the global financial crisis of 2008. In 2011, Japan signed an FTA with India. Thereafter Abenomics supercharged international trade and investment policies as part of the “third arrow” of pro-growth structural reform, which Abe’s successor Yoshihide Suga is continuing. So why is RCEP not a game changer? Because all of these countries other than Japan already have FTAs with each other and their tariff rates are already quite low. Moreover there is nothing particularly advanced about RCEP. It is a traditional deal focused on trade in goods and does not really attempt anything groundbreaking with services, or to incorporate new industries, lay down standards for labor or environment, or remove non-tariff barriers. Contrast the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the trade deal originated by the United States for Pacific Rim countries that attempts to do all these things, but was hobbled by the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from it. The real significance of RCEP is that even as it shows continuity in Asian economic policy, with China at the center, it will also provoke new deal-making. Now that China, Japan, and South Korea are joining a single trade agreement, they will have a foundation on which to move forward with their long-delayed trilateral FTA. These developments will provoke the Biden administration into rejoining the CPTPP, which in turn would create a new higher standard type of trade bloc that has the potential to attract democracies into a high-standards bloc that excludes China. Biden will also revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European counterpart to the Pacific deal. On the campaign trail, Biden said that he would “renegotiate” Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to rejoin it, a Trumpian formulation. This is feasible. After the US withdrawal, the various members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership modified the deal (dubbing it the CPTPP) to remove provisions that the US had insisted on and restore provisions that the US had demanded they remove. But they will gladly readmit the US now that Trump is gone, creating a trade bloc of comparable size to RCEP but with much more ambitious aims (Chart 8). The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others will be interested in joining. But China can only join if it embraces liberal reforms that are at odds with its new five-year plan, including reduced support for state-owned enterprises. Chart 7Weak Trade Prompts Asian Trade Deal Chart 8Putting RCEP Into Perspective The Republican Senate will be required to get approval for CPTPP, which is an obstacle, but Biden’s secret weapon is that the CPTPP has special appeal for Republicans precisely because it excludes China. Pro-trade moderates will find common cause with China hawks. As long as Trade Promotion Authority is renewed by the deadline on July 1, 2021, then the US can rejoin CPTPP on a simple majority vote. This is precisely how Republicans ratified Trump’s USMCA (the revised NAFTA). Trump also signed a trade deal with Japan, revealing that even under Trump’s leadership the US agreed to TPP-like deals with its biggest trading partners within the CPTPP (Canada, Mexico, Japan). More broadly, Trump’s experiment with protectionism has revealed that American attitudes toward global trade are not uniformly hostile. Polls show that Americans are generally pro-trade, and while they are skeptical that global trade creates jobs and higher wages, they are mostly skeptical of business-as-usual with China.4 Geopolitically, the US will not be able to stand idly by while China increases its sphere of influence in Asia. Therefore we should expect the Biden administration to pursue the CPTPP and other trade initiatives. The GOP Senate is the key constraint but it is not utterly prohibitive. Bottom Line: China and Asia continue to expand trade in the face of economic slowdown. The US Senate will be the key bellwether for US trade initiatives in 2021-22, but the geopolitical need to counter China will likely force the US to rejoin the CPTPP. Strategically we are long CPTPP equities – which includes some key RCEP members – as well as RCEP equities like South Korea. Chinese equities have already rallied a lot this year due to the country’s better handling of the pandemic and quicker economic recovery – they also face headwinds from US policy. Whereas emerging Asia equities ex-China, relative to all global equities, have plenty of catching up to do and will be beneficiaries of a global recovery in which both the US and China are courting them. Not Too Late To Go Long Pound Sterling The Brexit finale is approaching as the UK and EU enter the eleventh hour in their negotiation of a post-Brexit trade deal for the period after December 31, 2020. The market expects the UK, which is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa, to capitulate to an agreement that prevents a 3% tariff hike on all of its exports to the EU. This hike would occur if the UK-EU relationship reverted to WTO Most Favored Nation status. Boris Johnson promised in the Conservative Party manifesto to negotiate a trade deal and won a resounding single-party majority in December 2019. This gives him the room to marginalize hard Brexiteers and get a deal passed in parliament. The pound has rallied by 1.45% against the dollar since the beginning of the year and it is now rallying against the euro, moving off the “hard Brexit” lows (Chart 9), suggesting that the market is tentatively anticipating a trade deal. Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Chart 9UK-EU Trade Deal Expected, But GBP-EUR Offers Upside Failing to get a trade deal would require Johnson to break the EU withdrawal deal, since that deal requires a system of trade checks on the Irish Sea that introduces a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Johnson has no incentive to stick to this deal if he does not have privileged access to the EU’s single market. But then a hard border of physical customs checks would arise on Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland. This would not only aggravate relations with Ireland and the EU but would alienate the incoming American administration, which would view it as a violation of the US-brokered Good Friday Agreement (1998) and refuse to agree to a trade deal with the UK. Irish equities are not behaving as if a 3% tariff on all imports from the UK is about to take effect (Chart 10). Both GBP-USD and Irish equities have considerable downside if the deal falls through. The fact that the GBP-EUR appreciation is slight suggests less downside and more upside here. Subjectively we have argued there is a 35% chance that the UK will quit the EU “cold turkey” at the end of the year. The cost of more than $6 billion in foregone trade, which would grow each year, is not prohibitive. The economy is already subsisting on monetary and fiscal stimulus due to COVID-19. Boris Johnson does not face an election until 2024. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. The hardest limitation facing the UK is the relationship with Scotland. Northern Ireland is not likely to leave anytime soon but 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. Support for independence meets resistance at 50% of the population (Chart 11), but an economic shock stemming from a failure to get a trade deal would push it above the limit (given that 62% of Scots never wanted to leave the EU in the first place). Chart 10Irish Equities Already Priced UK Trade Deal Chart 11Scotland Drives UK Toward A Trade Deal Johnson has the ability to conclude a deal, avoid an economic shock on top of COVID, keep the Scots in the union, and then set about overseeing his government’s mammoth economic recovery plan. His popularity is tenuous enough that the other pathway is not only more economically costly but also more likely to get him unseated and potentially to burden him with the legacy of being the last prime minister of a united kingdom. Bottom Line: It is not too late to go long GBP-EUR. A near-term global risk-off move would work against this trade but it is a strategic opportunity. Low EU Political Risk Will Pick Up In 2021 In our annual outlook for 2020 we highlighted how the EU was relatively politically stable while its geopolitical competitors – Russia, China, even the US – were far from stable. Today this is still the case – Europe’s political fundamentals are fine. But risks are rising due to partial COVID lockdowns, fiscal risks, and the approach of a series of important elections from now through 2022. A major problem for the global economy is the looming contraction in fiscal deficits in 2021 as economies step down from this year’s extraordinary fiscal stimulus measures. This downshift will be especially disruptive for the US, UK, and Italy due to the size of their stimulus packages, resulting in a fiscal drag of 5% of GDP if no additional measures are taken. But even Germany, France, and other EU members face at least a 2.5% of GDP contraction (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Chart 12Europe's Fiscal Cliff Needs Attention Adding more fiscal support should be feasible in a world where the Fed and ECB are maintaining ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future and the EU has agreed to allow mutualized debt issuances. Germany has embraced deficit spending in the wake of the austerity-laden 2010s, which brought significant populist challenges to the European political establishment. However, developed market economies are still highly indebted, a constraint on deficits, and those with political blockages could still have trouble passing large enough spending measures to remove the impending fiscal drag. The US faces gridlock in 2021 and therefore its fiscal cliff is a significant headwind to financial markets. One positive factor in providing fiscal support thus far is that, with the exception of Spain and the UK, European leaders and ruling coalitions have received a bounce in popular opinion this year (Chart 13). Chart 13EU Leaders’ Approval Bounced – Now What? Mark Rutte and his People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) have benefited more than other countries but the combined support for opposition parties is rising ahead of the March 17, 2021 general election (Chart 14, top panel). A leading anti-establishment candidate has dropped out of the race. Fiscal measures will depend on the election. Chart 14Will EU Elections Really Be A Cakewalk? Chart 15European Risk To Rise On Looming Elections The German and French governments have also seen a bounce in support but need to maintain it for a longer period, as they have elections due by October 24, 2021 and May 13, 2022 respectively. French President Emmanuel Macron can still summon majorities in the National Assembly, despite losing his single party majority, and has sidelined his structural reform agenda to boost the economy. Germany is also capable of passing new measures, and has time to do so before momentum wanes amid the contest to succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel. The leadership race in the ruling Christian Democratic Union will at least raise hawkish rhetoric (Chart 14, middle panels). But markets will be placated by the fact that popular opinion is not pro-austerity at present, and the alternative to the CDU is a fiscally profligate left-wing coalition consisting of the Greens, Social Democrats, and possibly the anti-establishment hard-left, Die Linke. Spain and Italy have the least stable governments, are the likeliest to see snap elections, and thus could surprise the market with fiscal risks. Both governments lack a strong mandate and rule over a divided political scene. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has seen a swell of support but he is a fairly non-partisan character and his coalition has been flat in opinion polling. It is less popular than the combined right-wing opposition, which is striving for power ahead of the fairly consequential 2022 presidential election. In Spain, not only has popular approval dropped, but the Socialist Party and the left-wing Podemos run a minority government, meaning that there is potential for gridlock to increase fiscal risk (Chart 14, bottom panels). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections (Chart 15). The market is pricing higher political risk for European countries amid the partial COVID lockdowns but this risk will likely remain elevated due to looming elections. The silver lining is that Brussels, Berlin, and the wider political establishment have become fundamentally more accepting toward budget deficits during times of distress. The ECB and European Commission Recovery Fund provide a combined monetary and fiscal backstop. Negative interest rates on debt enable fiscal largesse with minimum implications for sustainability. And none of these elections raise systemic risks regarding EU and EMU membership, other than conceivably Italy. So while fiscal risk will become more relevant in 2021, it is not a problem while COVID is still raging, and there are better chances of maintaining a fiscally proactive policy than at any previous time over the past two decades. Bottom Line: European elections and a looming fiscal drag will keep EU political risk from collapsing after the latest round of lockdowns ease. Biden And Emerging Market Strongmen Most of the emerging market strongmen – Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro – have increased their popular support this year, benefiting from national solidarity in the face of crisis. The exception is Narendra Modi, who is struggling (Chart 16). Still, Modi has a single-party majority and four years on the election clock, and is thus more stable than Bolsonaro, who fundamentally lacks a political base despite his bounce in polls, and Erdogan, whose increase in support will fade amid a host of domestic and international challenges ahead of the 2023 elections. The US election will have limited impact on these leaders. None of them have good relations with the Democratic Party and some were openly pro-Trump. But this is only marginally negative and may not have concrete ramifications. The key is that the Biden administration will be more conducive toward a global trade recovery, will relax restrictions on immigration, will favor US diversification away from China, and will put pressure on authoritarian regimes. Chart 16Strongman Popularity Boost Will Fade Other things being equal, Biden is therefore positive for India, neutral for Brazil and Turkey, and negative for Russia. Our GeoRisk Indicators suggest that political risk has peaked for Brazil and Russia and equities could bounce back, but we think Russian political risk will surprise to the upside (Chart 17). Chart 17Political Risk Still High In Emerging Markets In the case of Russia, the Biden administration will take a more confrontational approach than previous presidents, including Obama and Bush as well as Trump. However, it still needs to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and extend the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia through 2026, so the pro-democracy pressure campaign will have to be balanced with negotiations. Russia, for its part, is increasingly focused on the need for domestic stability, at least until Biden makes concrete steps with NATO that threaten Russian core interests. Bottom Line: Emerging market political risk is high, the vaccine will arrive more slowly, and the Biden administration will take a tougher approach toward authoritarian regimes. This creates an opportunity for India but a risk for Russia, and is neutral for Brazil and Turkey. Strategically we are constructive on EM equities but in the near 0-3 month time frame all bets are off. Investment Recommendations With clear near-term political and geopolitical risks, and extremely elevated equity prices and sentiment, we think it is a good time to book some profits. We are closing our long global equities relative to bonds trade for a gain of 27%. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Global Aerospace/Defense Stocks We are closing our long investment grade corporate bonds relative to similarly dated Treasuries for a gain of 15%. We are closing our long China Play Index trade for a gain of 7% in recognition that China’s stimulus is nearing its peak while the Trump administration will take punitive measures in his final two months. We will also retain our long gold trade. Gridlock in the US government is not reflationary but gold is still attractive due to geopolitical risk. Strategically we recommend going long GBP-EUR. We also recommend reinitiating a strategic long position in defense stocks. Specifically, global aerospace and defense stocks relative to the broad market (Chart 18). We have been long defense stocks since 2016 but COVID decimated the trade. The coming vaccines promise to reboot the aerospace part of this trade while there was never any reason to doubt the strong basis for global defense spending amid geopolitical great power struggle. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) … Black Wave “What happened to us?” Black Wave seeks to answer the cardinal question facing both Middle Easterners and those looking into the Middle East from the outside.5 It takes us back four decades to events that shaped the region and walks us through time and space, politics, religion, history and culture, to where we stand – in the crosshairs of the very clash that started it all. Few are better equipped than author Kim Ghattas in doing so. A native of Beirut, she grew up amid the Lebanese civil war, living the events that created the post-1979 Middle Eastern reality. Later, she spent two decades covering the Middle East as a journalist for the BBC and Financial Times. A term first coined by Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, “black wave” characterizes the religious tide that swept Egypt in the 1990s from the Persian Gulf – one that Chahine saw as alien to Egyptians. Instead he argued that while Egyptians had always been very religious, they also had joie de vivre – enjoying art, music, talent, all taboos according to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Iranians in the late 1970s were not much different from Egyptians in the 1990s. At the time, they were unified in their opposition to the Pahlavi dynasty for being too Western and corrupt. As an exile in the sacred Iraqi city of Najaf and later in the French village of Neauphle-le-Chateau, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s speeches were capable of inspiring minds, galvanizing support, and gathering crowds. He was the right character, at the right time, but with the wrong ideas. Ideologically, Khomeini was an outsider in Najaf. The Iraqi clergy considered him too politically involved and his vision of wilayat al-faqih – a state based on Islamic jurisprudence – did not have widespread appeal. It was dismissed as outlandish by those around him who aimed to take advantage of his widespread appeal for their own gains, while hoping to limit Khomeini’s ideological influence on his audience. This proved to be a grave disregard for Iranians. 1979 was also a transformative year for Saudi Arabia. The young monarchy faced a national awakening as Juhayman al-Otaybi staged a siege on the Muslim world’s most sacred site, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It was the first act of terrorism in opposition to Western influence – the birth of Saudi extremism – and was echoed in subsequent acts of violence in the kingdom, in 1995 and later in 2003. Fearing the spread of political Islam, the House of Saud responded by emphasizing Wahhabism, Riyadh’s homegrown Islamic movement, by empowering clerics and religious authorities. The quid pro quo was that the clerics supported the monarchy from both internal and external threats. The clash between the Iranian Revolution and Saudi Wahhabism in 1979 gave rise to the first sectarian killings. The 1987 Sunni-Shia clash in Pakistan marked the beginning of the modern day Sunni-Shia divide, spreading through Pakistan and eventually the Middle East to Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Today, as youth across the Middle East struggle in despair of the aftermath of these events, Ghattas sees hope. Protests ringing from Beirut to Baghdad call for a post sectarian political system. The Saudi monarchy is relaxing its puritanical grip, and a new generation brings newfound hope of rectifying past miscalculations. We ultimately agree with Ghattas’s optimism that these changes are hopeful indications that the people of the Middle East are ready to shift gears and move past the conflicts that have dominated the past four decades. However, there are other forces at play and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is still a dominant feature of the region’s geopolitical landscape. True, Ghattas’s account not only highlights how deeply engrained the conflict is, but also that the early signs of tidal shifts can be easily missed. But we cannot ignore the specter of near-term risk facing the Middle East that continue to challenge its economic and political ascent. Thus, from an investment standpoint, we favor a more cautious approach and remain on the lookout for a better entry point once the near-term manifestation of these long-standing hurdles are overcome. Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court could still rule that Pennsylvania should have stuck with its November 3 deadline for ballots, but such a ruling would not change the outcome of the election. As with Florida following the disputed election in 2000, the various states’ electoral systems will likely be stronger as a result of this year’s polarized contest and narrow margins. 2 Biden could use the Vacancies Act or recess appointments to ram through his cabinet picks, but it would be controversial and at present he looks to be taking advantage of the Republican veto to nominate center-left figures that are more ideologically lined with his lane of the Democratic Party. 3 US-based Moderna developed one vaccine while US-based Pfizer and Germany-based BioNTech developed another. The Anglo-Swedish company AstraZeneca jointly developed its vaccine with Oxford University. Vaccine trials were administered across these countries and others, including South Africa, India, Brazil, and the entire global health care and pharmaceutical supply chain contributed. 4 See Pew Research. 5 Kim Ghattas, Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 2020), 377 pages. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights New recommendation: Go neutral growth versus value on a 6-12-month horizon… …and exploit the greater opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe. Within the growth universe, overweight healthcare versus technology. New recommendation: Within the value universe, overweight utilities versus banks. Downgrade tech-heavy Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Upgrade utilities-heavy Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal trade: Overweight Portugal versus Italy. Feature Chart of the WeekBank Profits In Structural Decline Last week, Fed Chair, Jay Powell explained: “We’re not going back to the same economy. We’re going back to a different economy.” What will the different economy look like? We will only really know when the pandemic ends and short-term palliatives like government-funded job furlough schemes and rent and debt payment moratoriums are removed. Only then will we get the true price discovery to know which activities, jobs, and debts are viable and which are not. At the very least, the now widespread acceptance of remote working, remote shopping, and remote business meetings means that city centres, bricks and mortar retailers, and business aviation will become pale shadows of their former selves. This is worrying because the retail sector, on its own, employs 10 percent of all workers. Furthermore, economic shocks give impetus to structural changes that were already underway. Case in point, the UK government has just announced a ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The lockdowns gave the British people the taste of clean air, and the British people liked it, so the government accelerated its initiative to abolish fossil fuels. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, there are two ways that sectors go bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly. A Textbook Market Slump… But Will We Get A Textbook Recovery? During an economic slump and the subsequent recovery, three fundamental drivers shape the evolution of stock prices. The first two drivers are well understood by any student of Financial Markets 101, but the third driver is not so well understood. More on that later. The first well understood driver of stock prices is the outlook for near-term profits. During a slump, the profits of ‘defensive’ sectors that are insensitive to fluctuations in the economy, outperform those of ‘cyclical’ sectors that are sensitive to the economy. For example, during this year’s slump, the profits of defensive healthcare remained remarkably resilient, whereas the profits of cyclical banks collapsed by 30 percent (Chart I-2). During the recovery, this should reverse, says the textbook. Cyclical profits should outperform defensive profits. Chart I-2Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? The second well understood driver of stock prices is the discount rate applied to long-term profits. The present value of long-term profits is highly sensitive to the (inverted) bond yield. As discussed last week, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity at ultra-low bond yields. When the bond yield collapses to an ultra-low level, the present value of long-term profits surges. This favours ‘growth’ sectors like technology, whose profits are weighted to the distant future, versus ‘value’ sectors like utilities, whose profits are weighted closer to the here and now. ‘Cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, but markets do not always follow the textbook. During this year’s slump, the near-term profits of technology and utilities performed similarly (Chart I-3). But when the bond yield collapsed and boosted the value of long-term profits, the multiple paid for near-term profits surged by 20 percent for technology, while remaining unmoved for utilities (Chart I-4). When the bond yield rises, this relative move should reverse, says the textbook. Value sector multiples should outperform growth sector multiples. Chart I-3Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Chart I-4But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities So far, so good. The student of Financial Markets 101 will tell you that ‘defensive growth’ stocks outperform when the economy slumps, and bond yields collapse. Whereas ‘cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, and bond yields rise. Yet as we all know, the real world is not that simple. Financial markets do not always follow the textbook. Major Economic Shocks Can Destroy Industries One real-world complication to the textbook recovery is that the bond yield might not be able to rise meaningfully before causing a relapse in the economy. This could be because of a high structural level of debt, a high structural level of unemployment, or a high structural level of risk-asset valuations. Any one of these three structural fragilities would make the economy incapable of tolerating a higher bond yield. Yet today the worry is not one fragility, it is all three of the above! Still, even if the bond yield cannot rise meaningfully, it might not fall much either, making the choice between value and growth unclear. The other real-world complication to the textbook is that major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. The point that Jay Powell made last week, and which forms the title of this report. Major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. This brings us to the third – less well-understood – driver of stock prices during and after a slump: the structural change in the sector’s long-term profit outlook. For some sectors, the long-term profit outlook phase-shifts down. Meaning that even if the bond yield does not keep falling, value sectors could continue to underperform as the collapse in their long-term profits gets recognised. For example, after oil and gas profits reached an all-time high in 2008, each slump has been followed by a progressively lower subsequent peak (Chart I-5). European banks look even worse. In the recovery following each slump since 2008, profits have regained only a third of the preceding slump’s losses. This implies that after each slump, the long-term profit outlook for the banks is phase-shifting down (Chart of the Week). Chart I-5Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Hence, European banks have failed to generate sustained outperformance in any recovery, even though the textbook says that as ‘cyclical value’ stocks, they should. Only a brave person would bet that it will be any different this time (Chart I-6). Chart I-6European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery The Big Opportunities Are Within The Growth And Value Universes After a major economic shock, a structural change in a sector’s long-term profit outlook renders any backward-looking valuation framework obsolete. In such cases we cannot use mean-reversion to inform our investment strategy, because the past will be a poor guide to the future. As European banks have taught us for fifteen years, it is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. It is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. Right now, there is a much smarter investment strategy. Go neutral growth versus value, and exploit the bigger opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe where mean-reversion strategies are more justified. Specifically, within the growth universe, the valuation premium on technology versus healthcare is at its highest level since 2009 (Chart I-7). Even more extreme, the US technology versus US healthcare valuation premium is approaching the peak of the dot com bubble (Chart I-8). Hence, we reiterate last week’s recommendation. Chart I-7The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... Chart I-8...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak Go overweight healthcare versus technology. The regional and country allocation implications are to go overweight healthcare-heavy Europe versus technology-heavy Emerging Markets. And within Europe, to go overweight healthcare-heavy Denmark and Switzerland versus technology-heavy Netherlands. The upshot is that today we are downgrading Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Turning to the value universe, the performance of cyclical banks versus defensive utilities just tracks the bond yield (Chart I-9). This means that the recent snapback rally in banks versus utilities needs higher bond yields for support. Absent a sustained rise in bond yields, the rally is fragile and vulnerable to reversal. Chart I-9Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Yet as we explained last week, the 10-year T-bond yield can rise by only 30 basis points or so before undermining the broad stock market. On this basis, we are making a new recommendation. Go overweight utilities versus banks. Within Europe, the implication is to go overweight utility-heavy Portugal versus bank-heavy Spain and Italy (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks The upshot is that today we are upgrading Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal Trading System* Fractal analysis confirms that Portugal’s underperformance is approaching a potential reversal point if bond yields do not rise meaningfully. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is overweight Portugal versus Italy. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.6 percent. In other trades, long coffee versus corn achieved its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-11MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
We are publishing the November issue of Charts That Matter. The key message from the charts on the following pages is that investor sentiment on global growth is elevated and the reflation trade is a bit overstretched. As a result, risk assets and commodities prices will likely correct, and the US dollar will rebound. Investors should keep dry powder to buy EM assets at a better entry point. A trigger for a selloff could be one or a combination of the following: the lack of a large US fiscal stimulus package, falling activity in Europe, peak stimulus in China or the recent jitter in the Chinese onshore corporate bond market. CHART OF THE WEEKThe Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Is At A Critical Juncture US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated US equity sentiment is somewhat elevated and is consistent with a correction in share prices. Chart 1US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated Chart 2US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated Peak Growth Sentiment Investors are quite optimistic on global growth. A record large net long positions in copper corroborate a very bullish investor stance on China/EM growth. From a contrarian perspective, this heralds a correction in commodities prices and EM as well as a rebound in the US dollar. Chart 3Peak Growth Sentiment Chart 4Peak Growth Sentiment Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments Defensive sectors/markets have been underperforming and are oversold. Their outperformance is likely in the near term. Chart 5Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments Chart 6Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices The Baltic Dry index is falling and iron ore prices have relapsed. This is consistent with diminishing Chinese imports of iron ore. However, iron ore inventories in China are not excessive, so odds are it is a correction and not a bear market in iron ore prices. Chart 7Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices Chart 8Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices Chart 9Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking Starting April-May, Chinese imports of copper and other commodities was running at very high rates, exceeding any reasonable estimates of final demand. This suggests China has been accumulating commodities. Even as final demand continues recovering, China might diminish imports of commodities weighing on their prices in the near term. Chart 10Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking Chart 11Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price Oil prices and energy stocks are facing a technical resistance. Yet, the share price of the world’s largest global commodity trader – Glencore – seems to be breaking out. The coming weeks will reveal which way the commodities complex will trade. Our bias is that a near-term correction is overdue. The US dollar holds the key, please refer to the next page. Chart 12Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price Chart 13Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound US inflation expectations – which have risen sharply since March – are likely to retreat as the US Senate does not approve a large fiscal stimulus package. Falling US inflation expectations will translate into higher TIPS yields. The latter and very bearish sentiment/positioning on the US dollar will trigger a rebound in the greenback. Chart 14Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound Chart 15Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar ReboundChart 16Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? After the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks and then it sold off considerably. It seems the broad trade-weighted dollar is following a reverse pattern now. It was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has continued weakening afterwards. If the reverse of the 2016 pattern persists, it means the US dollar is about make a major bottom and stage a playable rebound. Chart 17US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? Chart 18US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? Chart 19US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound The periods when US share prices outperform their global peers in local currency terms often coincide with strength in the US dollar. Recently, this relationship has broken down. The greenback might soon recouple to the upside, re-establishing this relationship (Chart 21). Besides, the broad trade-weighted dollar is very oversold (Chart 22). Chart 20More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound Chart 21More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks Rising US TIPS yields could create headwinds for growth stocks. FAANG and Tencent share prices have risen about 20-fold since January 2010 – as much as the Nasdaq 100 did in the 1990s before topping out. Chart 22Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks Chart 23Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are driven by EM exchange rates and commodities prices. A potential US dollar rebound and a correction in commodities prices warrant near-term caution on EM credit markets. Chart 24Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads Chart 25Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Various indicators and technical chart configurations send mixed signals. Our bias is to expect a correction in risk assets in the near term. Chart 26Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Chart 27Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Chart 28Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Chart 29Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Peak Stimulus In China Fiscal stimulus is running out. In addition, the PBoC has been tightening liquidity in the interbank market and interest rates have risen. Banks’ loan approvals have rolled over. All these point to a peak in the credit and fiscal impulse as well as money impulses in Q4 2020. Does it mean China’s economy is about to decelerate? – refer to the next page. Chart 30Peak Stimulus In ChinaChart 31Peak Stimulus In China Chart 32Peak Stimulus In China China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue In H1 2021 Our credit and fiscal spending impulse points to a continuous expansion in the Chinese economy for now. If the credit and fiscal impulse rolls over in Q4 2020, as shown in the previous page, the business cycle in China will peak around middle of 2021 given the nine-month time lag between this impulse and economic data. Chart 33China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021Chart 35China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021 Chart 34China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021 Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market The recent defaults by several SOEs on their bond payments have led to a spike in corporate bond yields. However, there is no stable historical relationship between onshore corporate bond yields and the A-share market. Chart 36Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 37Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 38Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market China: Can Share Prices Rally Amid Rising Corporate Borrowing Costs? During periods of rising onshore corporate bond yields, the MSCI ex-TMT Investable equity index rallied if Chinese EPS expectations where improving. The latest rollover in EPS growth expectations amid rising corporate bond yields is a warning to share prices. Chart 39China: Can Share Prices Rally Amid Rising Corporate Borrowing Costs? Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks China’s outperformance versus global stocks has been due to its TMT stocks (Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan). In turn, excluding Chinese stocks, EM ex-China has not really outperformed the global equity index. Chart 40Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 41Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks Various EM Equity Indexes Till very recent (before the announcement of progress in vaccines), EM small caps, the equal-weighted index, EM ex-TMT stocks and the EM index ex-China, Korea and Taiwan had been lackluster. Will the latest spike persist? It depends on the S&P500 and global risk asset performance. Chart 42Various EM Equity Indexes Chart 43Various EM Equity Indexes Chart 44Various EM Equity Indexes Chart 45Various EM Equity Indexes Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Emerging Asia’s and overall EM relative performance versus global stocks is unlikely to break out now. We continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Chart 46Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 47Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 48Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 49Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Highlights The stock market’s 60 percent rally since mid-March is reaching a near-term valuation test. Sell stocks and wait on the side lines if the 10-year T-bond yield rises by 0.3 percent. Go aggressively overweight T-bonds on any modest rise in yields. New recommendation: Go overweight healthcare versus technology on a 6-12-month investment horizon. New recommendation: Go overweight Europe versus Emerging Markets on a 6-12-month investment horizon. Fractal trade: Fractal analysis supports the decision to go overweight healthcare versus technology. Feature Since early 2018, a rise in the long bond yield has sent shudders through the stock market on four occasions: February 2018, October 2018, April 2019, and January 2020. On all four occasions, the tipping point was the earnings yield premium on tech stocks versus the 10-year T-bond yield falling towards its lower limit of 2.5 percent (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSell Stocks If The Bond Yield Rises By 0.3 Percent Today, this all-important yield premium stands at 2.8 percent. Meaning that it would take the 10-year T-bond yield to rise by just 30 basis points to retest this four times tipping point. Alternatively, with the T-bond yield unchanged, the tipping point would be retested if tech stocks rallied by around 10 percent. The stock market’s 60 percent rally since mid-March is reaching a near-term valuation test. Crucially, this means that the stock market’s 60 percent rally since mid-March is reaching a near-term valuation test. We recommend selling stocks and waiting on the side lines if the earnings yield gap on tech stocks versus the T-bond yield approaches its lower limit of 2.5 percent – from any combination of moderately higher bond yields or higher stock prices over the coming weeks. Record Low Bond Yields Have Lifted The Stock Market To An All-Time High ‘A once-in-a-century global pandemic lifts the world stock market to an all-time high’ sounds like an obscene headline. Yet this is the correct narrative for 2020. Yes, the European stock market is still languishing 10 percent below its mid-February peak. But the much larger and tech-heavy US stock market stands 10 percent higher, taking the world market to around 5 percent higher (Chart I-2). How can the aggregate market stand at an all-time high when a terrible plague continues to ravage the global economy? The simple answer: because of record low bond yields. Chart I-2Record Low Bond Yields Have Lifted The Stock Market To An All-Time High Back on February 27, we wrote: “for stock markets, the best inoculation against Covid-19 is ultra-low bond yields.” And so it proved. Though stock market profits are down by 15 percent this year, the multiple paid for those profits is up by 20 percent, resulting in a 5 percent uplift in the market price (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Valuations, Not Profits, Are Driving The Stock Market Specifically, tech sector valuations have become hyper-sensitive to any change in the long bond yield (Chart I-4). Meaning that for those stock markets with a high weighting to tech stocks, the valuation boost from a decline in bond yields has more than countered the profit slump from the pandemic. In fact, the pivotal role of bond yields precedes the pandemic. For the past three years, a good motto for investors has been: don’t focus on profits, focus on valuations. Chart I-4Valuations, Not Profits, Are Driving The Tech Sector The Biggest Threat To The Stock Market Is Higher Bond Yields Through 2018-19, stock market profits drifted sideways. Yet the stock market fell 30 percent, then rose 30 percent – because the multiple paid for the profits plunged in 2018 then surged in 2019. In 2020, as the pandemic devastated profits, a further surge in the multiple immunised the stock market against the ravages of Covid-19. The dramatic swing in multiples was driven by the dramatic swing in bond yields. This is hardly surprising given that the prospective return on equities is sensitive to the prospective return offered by competing long-duration bonds. But at ultra-low bond yields, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity. When bond yields approach their lower limit, bond prices approach their upper limit. This means that the scope for further price rises diminishes while the scope for price collapses increases. For proof, just look at Swiss 10-year bonds. Their prices can barely rise anymore! Yet they can fall precipitously (Chart I-5). In short, the lower that bond yields go, the riskier that bonds become as an investment. Chart I-5Swiss Bond Prices Can Barely Rise, But They Can Fall A Lot As bonds become a riskier investment, the excess return on equities versus bonds, the equity risk premium (ERP), collapses towards zero. After all, if the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, then any risk premium must disappear. The result is that the prospective return (discount rate) required on equities declines exponentially, because both of its components – the bond yield plus the ERP – decline in tandem. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the discount rate, the valuation of equities rises exponentially when the bond yield declines to an ultra-low level. Conversely, the valuation of equities falls exponentially when the bond yield rises from an ultra-low level. The valuation of equities rises exponentially when the bond yield declines to an ultra-low level. Yet doesn’t a higher bond yield also imply a higher nominal growth rate for profits, which should be good for the stock market? Yes, but understand that the increase in the discount rate (nominal bond yield plus ERP) will be much larger than the increase in the profit growth rate. The result is a plunge in the stock market’s net present value. Once you grasp this exponential relationship, the penny suddenly drops. The pandemic has proved that the biggest structural threat to the stock market does not come from a negative growth shock like a once-in-a-century global plague. The pandemic has been good for the aggregate stock market because it has forced bond yields to decline to ultra-low levels. Instead, the biggest threat to the stock market is higher bond yields. Please note that this disagrees with the BCA house view – which does not preclude stocks from rising even if yields rise by 0.3 percent, if this takes place against the backdrop of better growth prospects. Sell Stocks If The Bond Yield Rises By 0.3 Percent As the first chart powerfully illustrates, higher bond yields sent shudders through the stock market on four occasions in the past three years. We are close to a similar near-term valuation test. Of course, given enough time, a gradual rise in earnings can lift the tech earnings yield gap versus the bond yield to well above its danger level of 2.5 percent. However, over shorter periods, it would require stock prices and/or bond yields to stop rising. Or indeed, to reverse. For equities, the upshot is that the 60 percent rally since mid-March is reaching near-term exhaustion. We recommend selling stocks and waiting on the side lines if the 10-year T-bond yield was to rise by another 30 bps. For bonds, the upshot is that all else being equal, 10-year bond yields can rise by no more than 30 basis points before sending shudders through the stock market. Which would then cause bond yields to give back their gains, as they did on each of the four previous occasions that higher bond yields spooked the stock market. On this basis, it is not worth underweighting bonds. The much smarter strategy is to go aggressively overweight T-bonds on any modest rise in yields. Within equity sectors, there are three arguments in favour of healthcare. First, while the tech sector earnings yield gap versus the T-bond yield is approaching its lower limit of 2.5 percent, the healthcare sector earnings yield gap stands at a very comfortable and attractive 4.1 percent, well above its recent lower limit of 2.0 percent (Chart I-6). Second, unlike tech, the healthcare sector rally is being driven by profits, not by a valuation uplift (Chart I-7). Third, fractal analysis confirms that the massive underperformance of healthcare versus technology is reaching technical exhaustion (see last section). Chart I-6Healthcare's Earnings Yield Premium Looks Very Attractive Chart I-7Profits, Not Valuation, Are Driving The Healthcare Sector Hence, today we are recommending that on a 6-12-month horizon, equity investors should go overweight healthcare versus technology. Go Overweight Europe Versus Emerging Markets Finally, sector strategy has huge implications for regional and country allocation. Given that the European stock market is overweight healthcare and emerging markets (EM) is overweight technology, the decision to overweight Europe versus EM is simply the decision to overweight healthcare versus technology. Nothing more, and nothing less (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Europe Versus EM = Healthcare Versus Tech Hence, today we are also recommending that on a 6-12-month horizon, equity investors go overweight Europe versus emerging markets. Fractal Trading System* Supporting the fundamental arguments for healthcare versus tech in the main body of this report, the 130-day fractal structure of relative performance is extremely fragile. This implies that the massive underperformance of healthcare versus tech is at a potential inflection point. Accordingly, this week’s recommenced trade is to go long healthcare versus technology. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long financials versus basic resources achieved its 3.5 percent profit target, and short MSCI India versus MSCI Czech Republic achieved its 8 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 54 percent. Chart I-9 When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Portfolio Strategy The hardening insurance market on the back of firming demand for insurance services especially in residential real estate and automobile markets compel us to lift insurers to a benchmark allocation. A resurgent stock-to-bond ratio, the reopening of the economy and receding fiscal policy, election and COVID-19 uncertainties which will further suppress the equity risk premium, all boost the allure of the S&P asset management & custody bank index. Stay overweight. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P insurance index to neutral and lock in relative gains of 38%, today. This move also augments the S&P financials sector weighting to a modest overweight stance. Table 1 Feature News of a vaccine last Monday turbocharged equities to new intraday all-time highs, following up from a stellar performance the week of the election as odds of a “Blue Wave” collapsed. One of the implications is that the Trump corporate tax cuts will remain in place and investors breathed a sigh of relief (tax policy uncertainty shown inverted, Chart 1). While a smaller fiscal package owing to a split government postponed the rotation trade, the PFE vaccine efficacy news brought it back with a vengeance. This set up caused equities to discount all the good news in a heartbeat as typically happens when uncertainty is sky high and investors stampede into stocks. As we have argued here a VIX with a 40 handle was overdone and thus we crystalized our gains and closed our long VIX December futures trade prior to the election. We have been preparing our portfolio for such a looming rotation and this has been most evident in our long “Back To Work”/short “Covid-19 Winners” equity baskets. Last Monday they went in polar opposite directions and compelled us to put a trailing stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect profits (top three panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Tax Policy Uncertainty Relief Our recent preference of small caps at the expense of large caps that we first recommended a week before the election also depicts the ongoing equity market rotation out of overvalued tech stocks and into beaten down laggard cyclicals (bottom panel, Chart 2). Importantly, the economic reopening trade is still in the early innings, and we remain cyclically bullish on the prospects of the S&P 500 with a fresh end-2021 target of 4,000 that we updated last Monday in a Special Report before news of a vaccine hit the wires. Nevertheless, the recent parabolic rise in equities raises the obvious question: have stocks run too far too fast? Chart 2“Back To Work” Recovery First, there is no doubt that equities are overextended in the near-term as the collapse in the equity put/call (EPC) ratio highlights. Over the past year, the EPC ratio has formed a clearly defined range and a reading below 0.4 suggests overbought conditions (EPC ratio shown inverted, Chart 3). Second, while the violent rotation has pushed the SPX higher despite the deflating tech sector, we doubt that in the coming weeks the SPX will continue to gallop higher without the heavyweight tech sector partially participating in the rally. As a reminder, adding FANG (FB, AMZN, NFLX & GOOGL) weights to the GICS1 tech sector’s weighting results in a roughly 40% market cap weight of tech-related stocks in the S&P 500 (Chart 4). Chart 3No More Hedging Chart 4Tech Is 40% Of The Market Third, according to the American Association of Individual investors (AAII), bulls are back in droves and the AAII bull/bear ratio has slingshot to the highest level since January 2018. This is cause for near-term concern as it has historically served as a reliable contrary signal (Chart 5). Fourth, the knee-jerk equity market reaction on the back of the positive vaccine news has also pushed the percentage of SPX stocks trading above their 200-day moving average to a zenith, warning that the SPX will most likely move laterally (Chart 6). Chart 5Bull Stampede Chart 6Too Far Too Fast? Finally, following a rough September and choppy October, seasonality is now in favor of owing stocks and given diminishing odds of year-end tax loss selling, equities should grind higher as 2020 draws to a close. Netting it all out, in the short-term our going assumption is that, barring exponential moves in the reopening trade similar to what we witnessed last week, the SPX will likely move sideways in order to digest the recent up move and work off overbought conditions. This is especially true if a selloff in the bond market continues to weigh on the tech sector’s still lofty valuation footprint. This week we make a sub-surface financials sector tweak that pushes this early cyclical sector to a modest above benchmark allocation. Time To Lock In Gains On Insurance The shifting macro landscape signals that it no longer pays to be bearish insurance stocks; thus we are upgrading the S&P insurance index to a neutral weighting today, crystalizing relative gains of 38% since inception. This cyclical underweight exposure in insurance stocks – as part of our barbell portfolio strategy within the financials universe – has cushioned the blow from our positive bank exposure and served its hedging purpose. Now that the election uncertainty is waning and given the recent positive PFE news on the effectiveness of their COVID-19 vaccine, insurance stocks will at least catch a bid. The economic reopening underscores that home and auto sales will continue to climb as nonfarm payrolls make a run for the pre-recession highs likely sometime in 2021. Keep in mind that consumers’ plans to buy a new car and a home are recovering smartly according to the most recent Conference Board survey (third panel, Chart 7). This upbeat demand backdrop for these key insurance end-markets should boost industry profits (bottom panel, Chart 7). Already a hardening insurance market (second panel, Chart 8) owing to pent-up residential real estate and automobile demand is a boon for underwriting results. Chart 7Insuring Gains Chart 8Hardening Market Importantly, the latest national account data corroborates firming final demand for insurance services: consumer outlays on insurance are galloping higher. The upshot is that the insurance valuation de-rating will transition to a rerating phase (bottom panel, Chart 8). Our Insurance Indicator does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and heralds rosier days ahead for relative share prices (second panel, Chart 9). However, there is a caveat that prevents us from swinging all the way to an overweight stance. Insurance CEOs have been anything but disciplined. Headcount is surging and industry wages are also accelerating. While executives may be preparing for a durable rebound in the coming months, a spiking wage bill will eat into insurance margins (third & bottom panels, Chart 9). Netting it all out, a hardening insurance market on the back of firming demand for insurance services especially in residential real estate and automobile markets compel us to lift insurers to a benchmark allocation. Bottom Line: Upgrade the S&P insurance index to neutral today, cementing relative profits of 38% since inception. This upgrade bumps the broad S&P financials sector to a modest overweight stance. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P insurance index are: BLBG: S5INSU - AIG, CB, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, AJG, UNM, AIZ, RE, GL, WRB. Chart 9One Positive And One Risk Stick With Asset Management & Custody Banks While we have moved to the sidelines on the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers groups, we have maintained bank-related exposure via the S&P asset management & custody banks (AMCB) index and today we reiterate our overweight stance in this early cyclical group. Recent news of industry M&A activity has propped up stocks in this index. Any reduction of supply is great news not only because investors have fewer constituents available to deploy capital to, but also because of oligopolistic power with positive industry pricing power knock-on effects. Tack on the recent selloff in the bond market and factors are falling into place for a durable outperformance phase in the S&P AMCB index (top panel, Chart 10). In fact, the stock-to-bond ratio has caught on fire of late forecasting a pickup in momentum in relative share prices (middle panel, Chart 10). Fund flows are also emitting a bullish signal. Historically, increasing bond and equity fund flows have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio and the current message is positive (bottom panel, Chart 10). Our view remains that the economy will continue to reopen in 2021 and news of the PFE vaccine reiterates our thesis. Thus, as economic uncertainty lifts, it should lead to multiple expansion in this beaten down early cyclical industry (middle panel, Chart 11). More broadly speaking, receding fiscal and election uncertainties should push down the still high equity risk premium and boost the allure of the S&P AMCB index (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 10Increasing Flows Are A Boon Chart 11A Play On The Economic Reopening Securities lending is another source of income for the industry. Oscillating margin debt balances are an excellent demand gauge for such income producing services. Recently, margin debt has made a run for all-time highs in level terms, expanding at a near 20%/annum clip, underscoring that an earnings led advance is in the offing (bottom panel, Chart 12). With regard to earnings, there is broad-based skepticism on the industry’s profit growth recovery prospects both on a cyclical and structural time horizon. The middle panel of Chart 13 highlights that over the past two decades every time sell-side extreme pessimism reigned supreme, it was a good contrary signal. More precisely, when relative 12-month profit growth expectations sink to negative double digits, a reflex rebound typically ensues. We doubt this time will prove different. Chart 12Follow The Margin Debt In sum, a resurgent stock-to-bond ratio, the reopening of the economy and receding fiscal and election uncertainties which will further suppress the equity risk premium, all boost the allure of the S&P AMCB index. Chart 13Lean Against Extreme Analyst Pessimism Bottom Line: We continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P AMCB index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AMGT – BK, BLK, STT, AMP, NTRS, TROW, BEN, IVZ. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views October 26, 2020 Favor small over large caps July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth
Highlights US inflation expectations will moderate, and US real yields will rise. This will support the US dollar. The potential rebound in the US dollar will cap any upside in EM ex-TMT stocks. Rising US real yields are a risk to high-multiple global growth stocks. Maintain a neutral allocation to EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Feature In this week’s report we identify market-relevant issues and topics and then present the investment implications of these potential developments. Current key investment-relevant topics and issues are as follows: 1. Implications of the US elections Fiscal Stimulus: In the context of Biden’s victory and the Senate remaining Republican, the odds of a meaningful fiscal package in the next several months are quite low. The Republican Senate did not support a fiscal package going into the elections. Odds are low that it will now agree to a fiscal package larger than $750 billion. Chart 1Rising US Real Yields Are Positive For The US Dollar According to the US Congressional Budget Office’s calculations, without a new fiscal package, the fiscal thrust in 2021 will be -7.5% of GDP or $1.5 trillion. Hence, fiscal stimulus should be more than $1 trillion to avoid a slump in growth. Granted that the recovery in US consumer income and spending that has been underway since April has to a large extent been supported by US fiscal transfers, the lack of current government income support to households poses a risk to the economy. Of course, if US economic activity tanks again and the stock market plunges, Republicans will support a much larger package. However, as things stand now, the probability of a substantial (more than $1 trillion) fiscal package is low. The lack of fiscal stimulus implies that US growth and inflation expectations will moderate. Chart 1 shows that US inflation expectations have probably reached an apex and will downshift for now. US nominal bond yields are capped on the upside (by the Fed’s purchases and its commitment not to raise interest rates for several years) and on the downside (by the Fed’s reluctance to reach negative interest rates). Consequently, swings in inflation expectations will drive fluctuations in real yields, as has been occurring in recent months. As inflation expectations decline, real yields will rise. Impact of rising US real yields on financial markets: A stronger US dollar and lower prices for Nasdaq stocks. Rising real rates will support the US dollar (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 5 on page 5 reveals that the real rates differential between the US and the euro area has recently been moving in favor of the greenback. Chart 2Rising US Real Yields Are Negative For Growth Stocks Budding investor realization that the US might not pursue an aggressively expansionary fiscal policy, as has been expected since spring, could also support the greenback. Less issuance of Treasury securities might be interpreted as less public debt monetization and less money creation by the Federal Reserve. Such a viewpoint will also be marginally positive for the US dollar. As to the equity market, US real (TIPS) yields have been negatively correlated with the Nasdaq index (Chart 2). As US real yields continue to rise, odds are that global growth stocks will come under selling pressure. Geopolitical ramifications: The impact of the forthcoming change in the White House on US foreign policy has been widely anticipated and has already been priced in by financial markets. A Biden administration will have a positive impact on the euro area, Canada, Mexico and Asia Pacific countries with the exception of China – as was not the case under the Trump administration. On the other end, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be under heat from Biden’s White House. In our view, the impact on China will be neutral, not better than during Trump’s administration. It might be mildly positive in the near term but negative in the long run. In the short run, the new US administration will be less likely to use global trade as a weapon. In the long run, however, Biden will likely mobilize Europe to join its geopolitical confrontation with China. This will be negative for the Middle Kingdom. One country where the impact of Biden’s administration has not been fully priced in is Brazil. The US executive branch will take a tougher stance in its dealings with Brazil’s right-wing government because their social values are not aligned and policy priorities differ. We remain short the BRL and underweight Brazilian equity and fixed-income markets within their respective EM portfolios. 2. Vaccines We have no better expertise than the market’s judgement on the timing of vaccine availability and its effectiveness in containing the pandemic in EM ex-China countries. It is clear, however, that the process of vaccine acquisition and distribution might be slower in EM ex-China than in advanced countries. On all three fronts – the spread of the pandemic, policy stimulus and vaccine distribution – EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan will continue lagging DM. Therefore, EM ex-China domestic demand will continue to underperform relative to expectations and versus those in DM. This argues for continuous underweight, or at best a neutral allocation, in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan equities versus their DM peers. Chart 3Chinese Onshore Equities Have Been In A Trading Range Since Early July 3. China: the business cycle and regulatory clampdown China’s business cycle recovery has further to go. The stimulus injected into the economy has been considerable and will continue to work its way into the economy. Even though we believe that China has reached peak stimulus, the latter works with a time lag of 6-12 months and economic growth will top only around mid-2021. That said, Chinese onshore share prices have been in a consolidation phase since early July and this is likely not over yet (Chart 3). In turn, Chinese investable stocks have been surging in absolute terms and outperforming the global equity index (Chart 4, top panel). However, the entire Chinese equity outperformance has been due to growth stocks (TMT/new economy). Excluding these, the absolute and relative performance of Chinese investable stocks has been lackluster (Chart 4, top and bottom panels). Chart 4Chinese Investable Stocks: Surging TMT And Lackluster Performance By Ex-TMT Stocks In short, the spectacular performance of Chinese investable stocks this year has been attributed to three new economy stocks: Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan. These three stocks presently account for 40.5% of China’s MSCI Investable Index and 17.5% of the aggregate EM MSCI equity index. Concerns about regulatory clampdowns on new economy stocks have been, and remain, a major risk, not only in China but also in advanced economies. It is impossible to time regulatory actions. Nevertheless, investors should take into account the possibility that regulation may curb the profitability of new economy companies, especially if they are de-facto monopolies or oligopolies. Chinese authorities will not back down from imposing new regulation and scrutiny over the activities of giant new economy companies. Hence, risks of further de-rating remain elevated. In short, even though the mainland business cycle recovery is on a track, Chinese share prices remain at risk of correction due to overbought conditions and re-pricing of regulatory risks for new economy stocks. Will The US Dollar Capture Some Of Its Luster? US real yields are rising not only in absolute terms, but also relative to real yields in the euro area (Chart 5). Rising real yields in the US versus the euro area generally lead to a dollar rally against the euro. Apart from rising US real bond yields, there are a number of other factors that will likely support the greenback: Investor sentiment on the US dollar is very low (Chart 6). From a contrarian perspective, this is positive. Chart 5The US Versus Euro Area: Real Yield Differentials And Exchange Rate Chart 6Investors Are Downbeat On The US Dollar Consistently, investors are very short the US dollar, especially versus DM currencies (Charts 7and 8). Positioning is less short in the US dollar versus cyclical DM and high-beta EM currencies (Chart 8). That said, the fundamentals of EM high-beta currencies such as BRL, TRY, ZAR and IDR are poor. Chart 7Investors Are Very Long Safe-Haven Currencies… Chart 8...And Modestly Long Cyclical Currencies The Republican Senate will block corporate tax increases and limit any regulatory initiatives by Democrats in Congress. Such business-friendly policies are currency bullish. In short, a Republican Senate is broadly positive for the US dollar, and markets have not priced it in. The fact that broad US equity averages – such as small caps and equal-weighted equity indexes – continue outperforming the rest of the world in local currency terms is also dollar bullish (Chart 9). The reasoning is that US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world suggests better profitability and return on capital in the US versus its peers. That favors a firmer US dollar. Finally, the broad-trade weighted US dollar is oversold and is sitting on a long-term technical resistance level (Chart 10). Chart 9US Relative Equity Outperformance Heralds A Stronger US Dollar Chart 10The US Dollar Is Very Oversold Bottom Line: We have been highlighting downside risks to the US dollar since July 9. However, the conclusion of the US election raises the odds of a playable US dollar rebound. EM Strategy EM Equities We have been advocating for a neutral allocation toward EM in a global equity portfolio since July 30. If the US dollar rebounds, as we expect, EM stocks will not outperform the global equity index (Chart 11). Notably, excluding Chinese investable stocks, EM share prices have not outperformed the global benchmark (Chart 12). Besides, as shown in the top panel of Chart 4 on page 4, China’s outperformance against the global equity benchmark has been driven exclusively by new economy stocks. Chart 11EM Stocks Do Not Outperform When The Dollar Rallies Chart 12EM Versus Global Equity Performance: With And Without China All in all, Charts 4 and 12 reveal that excluding three large Chinese new economy stocks – Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan – EM share prices have underperformed the global equity benchmark. Going forward, the potential rebound in the US dollar will cap any upside in EM ex-TMT stocks. Meanwhile, the correction in the NASDAQ and the increased scrutiny on the part of Chinese authorities over new economy stocks poses a risk to Chinese mega-cap TMT share prices. In absolute terms, we have been waiting for a pullback to buy EM equities, but they have surged following the US elections and the news on Pfizer’s vaccine. Chart 13EM Equity Index: No Breakout Yet The EM equity index could still advance and reach its 2011 or 2018 highs before rolling over (Chart 13). However, given our view on the US currency and risks to EM stemming from a rising US dollar, we refrain from playing such limited upside. EM currencies EM currencies will be at a risk if the US dollar stages a rebound. Since July 9, we have been shorting a basket of BRL, CLP, TRY, KRW, ZAR and IDR versus an equally-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. We are sticking with this strategy. Even if the US dollar rebounds, downsides in the euro, CHF and JPY against the greenback will be relatively limited. However, investors might consider adding the US dollar to the long side of this strategy. EM local bonds and EM credit markets We continue recommending long duration in EM local rates. However, we remain reluctant to take on currency risk. We maintain our recommendations from April 23 about receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, India, China and Korea. We are also receiving 2-year rates in Malaysia and South Africa as a bet on rate cuts in these economies. In the EM credit space, we are also neutral. Our sovereign credit overweights are Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Highlights Biden’s chances of winning the US election are rising, but it is still unsettled and could bring negative surprises to financial markets. The fiscal cliff will not subside immediately as the Senate Republicans have been vindicated for their fiscally hawkish approach. We doubt Democrats will win both Senate seats in Georgia to restore the lost “Democratic Sweep” scenario that offered maximum policy reflation. President Trump’s lame duck period, if he loses, lasts for three months and could bring negative surprises on China, the Taiwan Strait, Big Tech, Iran, or North Korea. The US remains at “peak polarization,” though we expect a growing national consensus over the long haul. Go long a basket of Trans-Pacific Partnership countries on a strategic time horizon to capitalize on what we believe will be Biden’s pro-trade-ex-China policy. Feature Chart 1Market Response To US Election The US presidential election remains undecided despite former Vice President Joe Biden’s increasing likelihood of victory. Votes will be recounted in several states while one potential tipping-point state, Pennsylvania, could easily swing on a Supreme Court decision. The Senate is likely to remain in Republican hands, though there is still a ~20% chance that it will flip if Democrats win both of the likely Georgia runoff elections on January 5. Thus our base case is the same as in our final forecast: Biden plus a Republican Senate. Financial markets first rallied and have now paused (Chart 1). The pause makes sense to us. Ultimately the best-case scenario of this election was always Biden plus a Republican Senate – neither tariffs nor taxes would increase. But this same scenario also always posed the highest risk of near-term fiscal tightening that would undermine the US recovery and global reflation trade. GOP Senators will insist on a smaller fiscal relief bill and may wait too long to enact it. Below we discuss these dynamics and why we maintain a tactically defensive position amid this contested election. We will not go full risk-on until the critical short-run risks subside: the contested election, the fiscal impasse, Trump’s “lame duck” executive orders, and the international response. Biden Not Yet President-Elect Biden is leading the vote tally in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as we go to press. To all appearances he has reclaimed the “Blue Wall” (MI, PA, WI) and made inroads in the Sun Belt (AZ, GA). We will not go full risk-on until the critical short-run risks subside. Map 1 shows tentative election results. Unsettled states are colored lightly while settled states are solid red or blue. This map points to a Biden victory even if Georgia and Pennsylvania slip back to Trump. The President would need to reclaim the latter two and one other state to reach 270 Electoral College votes. Map 1US 2020 Election Results (Tentative) Chart 2 shows the final prediction of our quantitative model. While our model predicted a Trump victory at 51% odds, we subjectively capped Trump’s odds at 45% because we disagreed that Trump would win Michigan.1 We did not do the same for our Senate model as the results matched with our subjective judgment that Republicans would keep control. Chart 2Our Presidential Quant Model Versus Actual Results Investors cannot yet conclude that the contested election risks have abated. If Biden wins only AZ, NV, MI, and WI, then he will end up with 270 Electoral College votes. This is the minimal vote needed for a victory. It is legitimate, but it means that a net of one faithless elector, or a disqualified elector, could throw the nation into a historic and nearly unprecedented crisis. If the Electoral College becomes indecisive for any reason, the House of Representatives will decide the election. Each state will get one vote. The results of the election suggest Republicans have four-to-ten seat majority of state delegations in the House (Table 1). Trump would win. Polarization and unrest would explode. Not for nothing did we brand this election cycle “Civil War Lite.” Table 1State Delegations In US House Of Representatives The greater the margin of victory in the Electoral College, the less vulnerable the nation is to indecision in the college, or to a result decided in the courts. The Republicans have a strong case in Pennsylvania that votes that arrived after November 3 should not be counted. It is not clear if the Supreme Court will revisit the case, having left it unresolved prior to the election. If Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes become the fulcrum of the election, and the Supreme Court rules to exclude votes received after November 3, and if Trump thereby wins the count, a national crisis will erupt. This is not high probability at the moment because Biden can afford to lose Pennsylvania if he wins Nevada or Georgia. But the history of contested elections teaches that investors should not rush to conclusions. Senate Gridlock Will Survive Georgia Runoffs The most likely balance of power is a Democratic president with a Republican Senate and Democratic House, i.e. gridlock. Chart 3 shows the likely balance of power in Congress. Democrats would need to win both runoff elections in Georgia to win 50 seats, which would give them a de facto majority if Biden wins, since Vice President Kamala Harris would become President of the Senate and break any tie votes there. They are unlikely to do so. Chart 3AGridlock In US Government Chart 3BGridlock In US Government Why do we doubt that Democrats will win both Georgia seats, given that Trump is now falling short in the statewide presidential vote? First, Republicans tend to do well in runoffs as Georgia is a conservative-leaning state (Chart 4). Second, the Republican vote was greater than the Democratic vote in both Senate elections, though falling short of 50%. Third, exit polls show that voters leaned Republican in the suburbs and were mostly concerned about the economy, not the coronavirus. Fourth, also clear from exit polls, Republican voters will be more motivated to retain control of the Senate with Trump out, while Democratic voters will be less motivated with Biden in (Chart 5). Voter turnout will drop in the special election as usual. Neither Trump nor the presidency will be on the ballot on January 5. Still, it is possible for Democrats to win both seats and hence de facto control of the Senate. We would say the odds are roughly 20% (0.5 x 0.4 = 0.2). Chart 4GOP Does Well In Georgia Runoffs Chart 5Georgia 2020 Election Results (So Far) If Democrats pulled off two victories in Georgia, the “Blue Sweep” scenario would be reaffirmed and several legislative proposals that had a 0% chance of passage in a Republican Senate would become at least possible. Certainly taxes would go up – the Democrats would be able to use the reconciliation process to push through reforms to the health care system paid for by partially repealing the Trump Tax Cut and Jobs Act. They would also be able to pass legislation that is popular with moderate Democrats who would then hold the balance in the Senate. The Green New Deal would become possible, if highly improbable. There would be a small chance of removing the filibuster in an exigency, but a vanishingly small chance of other radical structural changes, like creating new seats on the Supreme Court or granting statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico. A 50-50 count in the Senate, with Harris breaking the tie, would produce a larger increase in the budget deficit than otherwise. Stocks would have to discount the tax hike but they would recover quickly on the prospect of combined monetary and fiscal ultra-dovishness. Fiscal Impasse Prolonged Biden plus a Republican Senate is positive for the US corporate earnings outlook over the 24 months between now and the 2022 midterm election. It is also positive for the global earnings outlook over the four-year period due to the drastically reduced odds of a global trade war. But it is negative in the near term because it will result in a smaller and delayed fiscal relief package – and sooner than later the market will need a signal that the government will not pull the rug out from under the recovery. Biden plus a GOP Senate is negative in the near term due to fiscal risks but positive beyond that. True, the US economy continues to bounce back rapidly, which is why the Republicans performed so well in this election despite a recession, a pandemic, and a failure to pass another round of stimulus beforehand. In October the unemployment rate fell to 6.9%. Yet previous rounds of fiscal support are drying up. The job market is showing some signs of underlying weakness and these will worsen as long as benefits run out and COVID-19 cases discourage economic activity (Chart 6). Personal income has dropped off from its peak when the first round of stimulus was passed in March. Without the dole it will relapse (Chart 7). Chart 6US Job Market Weakening Sans Stimulus Chart 7US Personal Income Will Drop Sans Stimulus Will Senate Republicans agree to a fiscal deal in the “lame duck” session before the new Congress sits on January 3? We have no basis for a high-conviction view. They might agree to a deal in the range of $500 billion to $1 trillion, but only if the Democrats come down to these levels in the talks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of the big winners of the election. He held his seat and likely maintained Republican control of the Senate without capitulating to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s demands of a $3 trillion-plus relief bill. He wagered that Republicans would do better with voters if they concentrated on reopening the economy (and confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court) while limiting any fiscal bill to targeted COVID response measures. He drew a hawkish line against broad-based social spending and bailouts for state and local governments. The gambit appears to have worked. House Democrats, far from gaining seats, lost five. We would not be surprised if Pelosi were replaced as speaker in 2021. Her plan backfired so badly that if Trump had stayed on message in his campaign, he might even have won. The implication is that unless Pelosi comes down to McConnell’s number, the fiscal impasse will extend into January and February. The American public approves of fiscal relief, but that did not force McConnell’s hand earlier, as the economy was recovering regardless (Table 2). Unless the economy slumps or financial markets selloff drastically, he will likely insist on a skinny deal that includes liability protections for businesses while minimizing bailouts for indebted blue states. Table 2Americans Support Fiscal Stimulus Package Hence investors are likely to get bad news before good news on the US fiscal front. And if other bad news arises, the absence of fiscal support will be sorely felt. This motivates our tactically defensive posture until the fiscal impasse is resolved. Peak Polarization Polarization is at peak levels in the US and the election result suggests it will remain elevated. Whichever party wins will win with a narrow margin. There is simply no commanding mandate for either party, as has been the case this century, so the struggle will continue (Chart 8). Chart 8Polarization Will Continue With Narrow Margins Of Victory Of course, polarization may subside temporarily, assuming Trump loses. At least under Biden the Electoral College vote will coincide with the popular vote, improving popular consent. Biden will have a lower disapproval rating, probably throughout his term. High disapproval tends to coincide with crises in modern US history, but in 2021, after the dust clears from this election, the country may catch its breath (Chart 9). Chart 9Presidential Disapproval Will Fall Much will depend on whether the presumed Biden administration is willing to sideline the left-wing of the Democratic Party to court the median voter. Exit polling in the swing states strongly suggests that the Biden administration won the election (if indeed it did) by improving Democratic support among the majority white population, non-college educated voters, and senior citizens, all groups that delivered Trump the victory in 2016. The Democrats had mixed results among ethnic minorities and suburban voters. Their biggest liability was their focus on issues other than the economy (Chart 10). Chart 10Exit Polls Say Focus On Bread And Butter Over the coming decade we think the combination of (1) cold war with China and (2) generational change on fiscal policy will produce a new national consensus. But we are not there yet. The contested election is not guaranteed to end amicably. If Trump wins on a technicality, the country will erupt into mass protests; if he loses and keeps crying stolen election, isolated domestic terrorist incidents are entirely possible. Moreover the battle over the 2020 census and redistricting process will be fierce. Democrats will be hungry to take the Senate in 2022, failing Georgia in January, to achieve major legislative objectives while Biden is in office. And the 2024 election will be vulnerable to the fact that Biden may have to bow out due to old age, depriving the Democrats of an incumbent advantage. The bottom line is that Republicans outperformed and will not be inclined to help the Biden administration start off on strong footing. The implication is the fiscal battle will extend into the New Year unless a stock market selloff forces Republicans to compromise. Fiscal cliffs will be a recurring theme until at least the 2022 election. A deflationary tail risk will persist. Obama’s Legacy Secured? The sole significance of a gridlocked Biden presidency will lie in regulatory affairs, foreign policy, and trade policy. These are the policy areas where presidents have unilateral authority and Biden can act without the Senate’s approval. In this context, Biden’s sole focus will be to consolidate the legacy of the Barack Obama administration, in which he served. 1. Obamacare (ACA): Republicans failed to repeal and replace this bill despite a red sweep in 2016. Biden’s election ensures that Obamacare will be implemented, if not expanded, as he will have the power to enforce the law at the executive level. The risk is that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could strike it down. Based on past experience, the health care sector will benefit from the drop in uncertainty once the court’s decision is known (Chart 11). For investors the lesson of the past four election cycles is that Obamacare is here to stay, but Americans will not adopt a single-payer system until 2025 at the earliest conceivable date. We are long health equipment and see this outcome as beneficial to the health sector in general, particularly health insurance companies. Big Pharma, however, will suffer from bipartisan populist pressures to cap prices. 2. Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPA): Biden will seek to restore Obama’s signature foreign policy accomplishment, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, i.e. the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. The purpose of the deal was to establish a modus vivendi in the Middle East so that the US could “pivot to Asia” and focus its energy on the existential strategic challenge posed by China. Biden will stick with this plan. The Iranians also want to restore the deal but will play hard to get at first. Israel and Saudi Arabia could act to thwart Iran and tie Biden’s hands in the final three months of Trump’s presidency while they have unmitigated American backing. Chart 11Obamacare Preserved The implication is that Iranian oil production will return to oil markets (Chart 12), but that conflict could cause production outages, and Saudi Arabia could increase production to seize market share. Hence price volatility is the outcome, which makes sense amid fiscal risks and COVID risks to demand as well. 3. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): Biden claims he will “renegotiate” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was the Obama administration’s key trade initiative. The idea was to group like-minded Pacific Rim countries into an advanced trade deal that addressed services, the digital economy, labor and environmental standards, and pointedly excluded China. Trump withdrew from the deal out of pique despite the fact that it served the purpose of diversifying the American supply chain away from China. The impact of rejoining is miniscule from an economic point of view (Chart 13), but it will be a boon for small emerging markets like Mexico, Chile, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Chart 12Restoring The Iran Nuclear Deal Chart 13Rejoining The Trans-Pacific Partnership The bigger takeaway is that Biden will continue the US grand strategic shift toward confronting China, which will be a headwind toward Chinese manufacturing and a tailwind for India, Latin America, Southeast Asia. The US will cultivate relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a more coherent economic bloc and a manufacturing counterweight to China (Chart 14). A lame duck Trump will attempt to cement his legacy by targeting China/Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, or Big Tech. When it comes to on-shoring, Biden’s focus will be reducing dependency on China and improving the US’s supply security in sensitive areas like health and defense. Trade and strategic tensions with China will persist, but a global trade war is not in the cards. Manufacturing economies ex-China stand to benefit. 4. The Paris Climate Accord: Biden will not be able to pass his own version of the Green New Deal without the Senate, so investor excitement over a government-backed surge in green investment will subside for the time being (Chart 15). He will also moderate his stance on the energy sector after his pledge to phase out oil and gas nearly cost him the election. He was never likely to ban fracking comprehensively anyway. Chart 14ASEAN's Moment Biden will be able to rejoin the international Paris Agreement and reverse President Trump’s deregulation of the energy sector. He will re-regulate the economy to lift clean air, water, environment, and sustainability standards. This is a headwind for the energy sector, but stocks are already heavily discounted and congressional gridlock is a positive surprise. Chart 15Returning To The Paris Climate Accord There may be some room for compromise with Senate Republicans when it comes to renewables in a likely infrastructure package next year. Post-Trump Republicans may also be interested in Biden’s idea of a “carbon adjustment fee” on imports, which is another way of saying tariffs on Chinese-made goods. Like the health care sector, the election is tentatively positive for US energy stocks – especially once fiscal risks are surmounted. Investment Takeaways Chart 16Lame Duck Trump Risk: Taiwan Strait Three near-term risks prevent us from taking a tactically risk-on investment stance. First, the contested election, which could still throw up surprises. Second, the fiscal stimulus impasse, which could persist into January or February and will reduce the market’s margin of safety in the event of other negative surprises. Third, a lame duck Trump will attempt to cement his legacy via executive orders. He could target China/Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, or even Big Tech. On China, Trump is already tightening export controls on China and selling a large arms package to Taiwan (Chart 16). The lame duck period of any presidency is a useful time for the US to advance strategic objectives. Trump will also blame China and the coronavirus for his defeat. He could seek reparations for the virus, restrictions on Chinese manufacturing and immigration to the US, export controls or sanctions on tech companies, secondary sanctions over Iran or North Korea, delisting of Chinese companies listed in the US, sanctions over human rights violations in China’s autonomous regions, or travel bans on Communist Party members. During these three months, Big Tech will face crosswinds – risks from Trump, but opportunities from gridlock. Polarization has helped support US equity and tech outperformance over the past decade. Frequent hold-ups over the budget in Congress weigh on growth and inflation expectations, thus favoring growth stocks and tech. Internal divisions have prompted the US to lash out abroad, increasing risks to international stocks and driving safe-haven demand into the dollar and tech. More broadly the second wave of the pandemic is a boon for tech earnings and Biden will restore the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley. But tech is already priced for perfection and this favorable trend will be cut short when COVID restrictions ease and Biden works out a compromise with the Senate GOP over stimulus and the budget (Chart 17). Beyond these near-term risks, we have a constructive outlook for risk assets over the next 12 months. Chart 17Biden, Peak Polarization, And Big Tech Chart 18Global Stocks, Cyclicals Benefit When US Fiscal Impasse Resolved Insofar as Biden seeks to restore US commitment to global free trade, and more stable and cooperative relations with allies and partners ex-China, global policy uncertainty should fall relative to the United States. Once near-term fiscal hurdles are cleared, the dollar’s strength can subside and global stocks and global cyclicals can start to outperform (Chart 18). Chart 19Trump An Exclusively Commercial President We also favor stocks over bonds on a strategic horizon. Trump was an exclusively commercial president whose approval rating had a tight correlation with the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 19). A surge in stocks would help power Trump’s approval. This relationship is not standard across presidents. But it does make sense during periods of policy change that affect earnings. Trump’s tax cuts are the best example. Equities outpaced bonds in anticipation of tax cuts in 2017. Trump’s approval rating recovered once the bill was passed. President Obama’s approval rating also correlated somewhat with the stock-to-bond ratio during the critical fiscal cliff negotiations under gridlock from 2010-12. Once Biden works out a compromise with GOP Senators, bond yields will rise and stocks will power upward. The takeaway from these points is that volatility can remain elevated over the next 0-3 months (Chart 20). We would not expect it to go as high as in 2000, when the dotcom bubble burst, but Trump’s lame duck maneuvers against China could generate a massive selloff. But this cannot be ruled out. Indeed, Trump’s constraints have almost entirely fallen away regardless of whether he loses or wins. Investors should take a phased and conservative approach to adding risk in the near term. The outlook will brighten up when the president is known, a fiscal deal is reached, and President Trump’s legacy as the Man Who Confronted China is complete. Chart 20Volatility Will Stay Elevated In Short Run Chart 21Go Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Given our view that Biden will be hawkish on China, especially amid gridlock at home, we are maintaining our short CNY-USD trade. We also recommend buying a basket of Trans-Pacific Partnership bourses, weighted by global stock market capitalization, on a strategic time-frame to capture what we expect will be Biden’s pro-trade-ex-China policy (Chart 21). Finally, to capture the views expressed above regarding Biden’s likely market impacts, over the short and long run, we will go long US health care relative to the broad market on a tactical basis and long US energy on a strategic basis. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As things stand, the model overrated the Republicans in Arizona and Georgia as well, though really Georgia looks to be the only state Democrats won that the model gave high odds of staying Republican. If we had used the level rather than the range of Trump’s approval rating – or if we had neglected opinion polling altogether – the model would have called a Biden win.