Europe

Highlights Rising Global Yields: The increased turbulence in global bond markets is part of the adjustment process to a more positive outlook for global economic growth. Rising real yields are now the main driver of nominal yield movements, with stable inflation expectations indicating that investors are not overly concerned about a sustained inflation overshoot. Duration: Central bankers will eventually be forced to shift to less dovish interest rate guidance to reflect the new reality of faster growth and increased inflation pressures, but this is likely to not occur until much later in 2021, starting with the Fed. Maintain a below-benchmark cyclical duration stance in global bond portfolios. UST Yields & Spreads: The selloff in US Treasuries has pushed US yields to levels that are starting to look a bit stretched relative to yields from other major developed economies like Germany and Japan. This is especially true on a volatility-adjusted basis. As a result, we are closing our tactical US-Germany spread widening trade in bond futures at a profit of 1.8%. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Are Rising Because Of Growth The rapid surge in global bond yields seen so far in 2021 has led some commentators to declare that the dreaded “bond vigilantes” have returned to dole out punishment for overly stimulative fiscal and monetary policies (most notably in the US). The rapid pace of the bond selloff, with the 10-year US Treasury yield reaching 1.6% on an intraday basis last week, has raised fears that spiking yields could damage a fragile global economic recovery. This logic is backwards – it is surging growth expectations that are driving bond yields sustainably higher from deeply depressed levels. Global growth is projected to accelerate at a very rapid pace over the rest of this year and 2022. The combination of the Bloomberg consensus real GDP growth and inflation forecasts for the major developed economies suggest that nominal year-over-year GDP growth is expected to climb to 7.2% in the US, 8.4% in the UK and 6.4% in the euro area by year-end (Chart of the Week). Nominal growth in 2022 is expected to grow by another 5-7% across the same regions, suggesting a return to a slightly faster pace than prevailed during the pre-pandemic years of 2017-19 - even after a boom in 2021. Nominal longer-term global government bond yields, which had been priced for a pandemic-stricken economic backdrop, are now playing catch-up to the new reality of a post-pandemic, vaccinated world. Bond investors understand that the need for extreme monetary accommodation is ebbing, especially in the US where there will be an enormous fiscal impulse to growth in 2021 (and beyond). As a result, interest rate expectations are moving higher, fueling a repricing towards higher bond yields around the world. This process has more room to run. A Global Move Higher In Yields, For The Right Reasons Chart 2Reflationary Bear-Steepening Of Global Yield Curves The cyclical rise in developed market bond yields that began last summer was initially focused on longer-maturity yields boosted by rising inflation expectations (Chart 2). The very front-ends of bond yield curves – which are more sensitive to expectations of changes in central bank policy rates – have remained subdued. The upward pressure on global bond yields is starting to infect some shorter maturities, however. 5-year government bonds yields in the UK, Canada and Australia rose 44bps, 42bps and 35bps, respectively, during the month of February. The latter two represented a near doubling of the level of the 5-year yield. In the case of the UK, the surge in 5-year Gilt yields came from a starting point of negative yields at the end of January. Last week, the 5-year US Treasury yield jumped a massive 22bps on a single day due to a poorly received US Treasury auction. Year-to-date, longer-term global bond yields have been rising more through the real yield component than higher inflation expectations (Charts 3A & 3B). This is a change in the dynamics from the latter half of 2020 when inflation expectations were the dominant force pushing global yields higher. Chart 3AReal Yields Are Driving The Recent Bond Selloff … Chart 3B… Even In The Lower-Yielding Markets This shift in “leadership” of the global bond market selloff has been broad-based. 10-year real yields from inflation-linked bonds have surged higher in the US (+35bps year-to-date), UK (+40bps), Australia (+44bps) and Canada (+25bps). Real 10-year yields have even inched up in France (+9bps), despite euro area growth suffering because of COVID-19 lockdowns. This coordinated rise in real bond yields comes on the heels of a sharp improvement in overall global economic momentum and improving expectations for future growth. Manufacturing PMIs, a reliable leading indicator of real yields in the developed markets, began a cyclical improvement in the middle of last year and, right on cue, global bond yields bottomed out toward the end of 2020 (Chart 4). The link between that strong growth momentum and real bond yields comes from expected changes in central bank policies. Our Central Bank Monitors for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia – designed to measure cyclical pressures on monetary policy - have all moved significantly higher since mid-2020 (Chart 5). This suggests a diminished need for additional monetary stimulus because of rebounding economic growth and intensifying inflation pressures. The Monitors have climbed to above pre-pandemic levels in the US and Australia. Chart 4Real Yields Starting To Catch Up To Solid Growth Chart 5Markets Starting To Discount Rate Hikes In 2023 Interest rate markets are responding to this cyclical pressure to tighten monetary policies by repricing the expected timing and pace of the next rate hiking cycle. Our 24-month discounters, which derive the amount of interest rate changes priced into overnight index swap (OIS) curves up to two years in the future, are now pricing in higher policy rates in the US (+40bps), the UK (+32bps), Australia (+36bps) and Canada (a whopping +82bps) by the first quarter of 2023. This repricing of interest rate expectations does conflict with current central bank forward guidance, to varying degrees. For example, the Fed continues to signal that there will not be any rate hikes until at least the end of 2023. Policymakers will not be overly concerned about higher government bond yields and shifting interest rate expectations, however, if there is limited spillover into broader financial market performance. In the US, the latest increase in real Treasury yields to date has had minimal impact on US equity market valuations or corporate bond yields (Chart 6A), suggesting no tightening of financial conditions that could impact future US economic growth. A similar situation is playing out in Europe, where higher longer-term real yields have had little impact on equity market valuations or the borrowing rates that the ECB is most concerned about, like Italian BTP yields (Chart 6B). Chart 6ANo Tightening Of Financial Conditions In The US... Chart 6B...Or Europe Currency valuations are a more important indicator of financial conditions for other central banks. For example, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been explicit that its current policies – near-zero policy rates, yield curve control to anchor the level of 3-year bond yields and quantitative easing (QE) to moderate the level of longer-term yields – are intended to not only keep borrowing costs low but also dampen the value of the Australian dollar. At the moment, the US dollar is being pulled in different directions by the typical fundamental drivers. Real rate differentials between the US and other major developed economies remain unattractive for the greenback, even with the latest rise in US real yields (Chart 7). At the same time, growth differentials between the US and the other major economies are turning more USD-positive. For now, rate differentials are the more dominant factor for the US dollar and will remain so until the Fed begins to shift to a less dovish policy stance – an outcome that we do not expect until much later this year when the Fed will begin to prepare the market for a tapering of asset purchases in 2022. A sustainable bottoming of the US dollar, fueled by a shift to a less accommodative Fed, will also likely mark the end of the rising trend for global inflation expectations, given the links between the dollar, commodity prices and inflation breakevens (bottom panel). Central banks outside the US will continue to resist any unwelcome appreciation of their own currencies versus the US dollar. That means doing more QE when bond yields rise too quickly, as the RBA did this week and the ECB has threatened to do in recent comments from senior policymakers (Chart 8). Increasing the size of asset purchases is unlikely to sustainably drive non-US bond yields lower, however, in an environment of improving global growth that is causing investors to reassess the future path of interest rates. All more QE can hope to do at this point in the global business cycle is limit how fast bond yields can increase. Chart 7The USD Remains The Critical Reflationary Variable Chart 8More QE Is Less Effective At Capping Bond Yields   Chart 9Markets With A Lower Yield Beta To USTs Are Outperforming From an investment strategy perspective, the current growth-fueled move higher in global real bond yields does not change any of our suggested tilts. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance within global bond portfolios. Within our recommended country allocation among developed market government bonds, we continue to prefer a large underweight to US Treasuries and overweights to markets that are less susceptible to changes in US Treasury yields like Germany, France, Japan and the UK (Chart 9). We also continue to recommend only neutral allocations to Canadian and Australian government bonds (with below-benchmark duration exposure within those allocations), although we are on “downgrade alert” for both given their status as higher-beta bond markets with central banks more likely follow the Fed down a less dovish path later this year. Bottom Line: Rising real yields are now the main driver of nominal yield movements, with stable inflation expectations indicating that investors are not overly concerned about a sustained inflation overshoot. Central bankers will eventually be forced to shift to less dovish interest rate guidance to reflect the new reality of faster growth and increased inflation pressures, but this is likely to not occur until much later in 2021, starting with the Fed. Maintain a below-benchmark cyclical duration stance in global bond portfolios, with a large underweight allocation to US Treasuries. The UST-Bund Spread Widening Looks Stretched Chart 10Yield Chasing Has Been A Losing Strategy In 2021 Last August, we published a report discussing how “yield chasing” – a strategy of consistently favoring the highest yielding government bond markets – had become the default strategy for bond investors during the early months of the pandemic.1 We concluded that yield chasing would be a successful strategy for only as long as central banks stuck to their promises to maintain very loose monetary policy for the next few years. Investors would be forced to chase scarce yields in that environment, while worrying less about cyclical economic and inflation factors that could push up bond yields. Yield chasing has performed quite poorly so far in 2021. A basket of higher-yielding markets like the US, Canada and Australia has underperformed a basket of low-yielders like Germany, France and Japan by -1.4 percentage points (Chart 10). Obviously, such a carry-driven strategy would be expected to perform poorly during an environment of rising bond volatility as is currently the case. Markets that have been offering relatively enticing yields, like the US or Australia (Table 1), are actually generating the largest total return losses. Those higher-yielders have suffered more aggressive repricing of interest rate expectations, as discussed in the previous section of this report, leading to losses from duration that are dwarfing the higher yields. This is especially true in the US, where there remains the greater scope for an upward repricing of interest rate and inflation expectations. Table 1Government Bond Yields: Unhedged & Hedged Into USD This suggests that investors must be cautious on determining when to consider increasing exposure to higher yielders like the US, even after Treasury yields have increased substantially. One way to evaluate that is to look at the spreads between US Treasuries and low yielders like Germany and Japan, relative to US bond volatility. In Chart 11, we show the spread of 10-year US Treasuries to 10-year German Bunds. To facilitate a fair comparison between the two, we hedge the Treasury yield into euros while adjusting the spread for duration difference between the two bonds. The currency-hedged and duration-matched Treasury-Bund spread is shown in the middle panel of the chart. In the bottom panel, we adjust that spread for US interest rate volatility by dividing the spread by the level of the MOVE index of US Treasury option volatility. On an unadjusted basis, the 10-year yield gap now sits at 175bps, +70bps higher than the lows seen in August 2020. That spread is narrower on a currency hedged basis, with the 10-year US Treasury yield hedged into euros +73ps higher than the 10-year German bund yield. Two conclusions stand out from the chart: The currency-hedged and duration-matched spread is still well below the prior peaks dating back to 2000; The volatility-adjusted spread is already one standard deviation above the mean value since 2000. In other words, there is scope for US Treasuries yields to continue rising relative to German Bund yields based on levels reached in past cycles. Yet at the same time, the spread provides a reasonable level of compensation compared to the riskiness (volatility) of Treasuries, also based on past cycles. We show the same chart for the spread between 10-year US Treasuries and 10-year Japanese government bonds (JGBs) in Chart 12. In this case, there is also scope for additional spread widening although the volatility-adjusted spread is still not as attractive as at previous peaks since 2000. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Looking Stretched Vs UST Vol Chart 12UST-JGB Spread Getting Stretched Vs UST Vol The message from the volatility-adjusted Treasury-Bund spread lines up with that of the momentum measures of the unadjusted spread. The latter is historically stretched relative to its 200-day moving average, while the change in the spread over the past six months has been as rapid as any of the moves seen since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 13). Adding it all up, positioning for additional widening of the Treasury-Bund spread is a much poorer bet from a risk versus reward perspective than it was even a few months ago. On a fundamental medium-term basis, however, there is still room for the Treasury-Bund spread to widen further. Relative inflation and unemployment (spare capacity) trends both argue for relatively higher US bond yields (Chart 14). In addition, the Fed is almost certainly going to start tightening monetary policy well before the ECB, thus policy rate differentials will underpin a wider bond spread – although that is already largely discounted in the spread on a forward basis (top panel). Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Momentum Looks Stretched Chart 14Fundamentals Still Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 15Stay Underweight US Vs. Germany On A Strategic Basis Our fundamental fair value model of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread shows that the spread is still cheap relative to fair value, which is rising (Chart 15). This suggests more medium-term upside in the spread, perhaps even by more than currently priced into the forwards over the next year. Based on this analysis, we see a case for maintaining a core strategic (6-12 month holding period) underweight position for the US versus Germany in our recommended country allocation within our model bond portfolio. At the same time, with the spread looking a bit stretched on some of the momentum and volatility-adjusted measures, we are taking profits on our tactical (0-6 month holding period) 10-year Treasury-Bund spread widening trade using bond futures, realizing a 1.8% return (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 18). Bottom Line: The selloff in US Treasuries has pushed US yields to levels that are starting to look a bit stretched relative to yields from other major developed economies like Germany and Japan. This is especially true on a volatility-adjusted basis. As a result, we are taking profits on our tactical US-Germany spread widening trade. However, we are maintaining our strategic overweight for Germany versus the US in our model bond portfolio, as fundamentals argue for a wider Treasury-Bund spread on a cyclical and strategic basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Market-based geopolitical analysis is about identifying upside as well as downside risk. So far this year upside risks include vaccine efficacy, coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, China’s avoidance of over-tightening policy, and Europe’s stable political dynamics. Downside risks include vaccine rollout problems, excessive US stimulus, a Chinese policy mistake, and traditional geopolitical risks in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. Financial markets may see more turmoil in the near-term over rising bond yields and the dollar bounce. But the macro backdrop is still supportive for this year. We are initiating and reinitiating a handful of trades: EM currencies ex-Brazil/Turkey/Philippines, the BCA rare earth basket, DM-ex-US, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership markets, and global value plays. Feature Chart 1Bond Yield Spike Threatens Markets In Near Term Investors hear a lot about geopolitical risk but the implication is always “downside risk.” What about upside risks? Where are politics and geopolitics creating buying opportunities? So far this year, on the positive side, the US fiscal stimulus is overshooting, China is likely to avoid overtightening policy, and Europe’s political dynamics are positive. However, global equity markets are euphoric and much of the good news is priced in. On the negative side, the US stimulus is probably too large. The output gap will be more than closed by the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan yet the Democrats will likely pass a second major bill later this year with a similar amount of net spending, albeit over a longer period of time and including tax hikes. The countertrend bounce in the dollar and rising government bond yields threaten the US and global equity market with a near-term correction. The global stock-to-bond ratio has gone vertical (Chart 1). Meanwhile Biden faces immediate foreign policy tests in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. These two are traditional geopolitical risks that are once again underrated by investors. The near term is likely to be difficult for investors to navigate. Sentiment is ebullient and likely to suffer some disappointments. In this report we highlight a handful of geopolitical opportunities and offer some new investment recommendations to capitalize on them. Go Long Japan And Stay Long South Korea China’s stimulus and recovery matched by global stimulus and recovery have led to an explosive rise in industrial metals and other China-sensitive assets such as Swedish stocks and the Australian dollar that go into our “China Play Index” (Chart 2). Chart 2China Plays Looking Stretched (For Now) While a near-term pullback in these assets looks likely, tight global supplies will keep prices well-bid. Moreover long-term strategic investment plans by China and the EU to accelerate the technology race and renewable energy are now being joined by American investment plans, a cornerstone of Joe Biden’s emerging national policy program. We are long silver and would buy metals on the dips. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “new era” policies will be further entrenched at the March National People’s Congress with the fourteenth five-year plan for 2021-25 and Xi’s longer vision for 2035. These policies aim to guide the country through its economic transition from export-manufacturing to domestic demand. They fundamentally favor state-owned enterprises, which are an increasingly necessary tool for the state to control aggregate demand as potential GDP growth declines, while punishing large state-run commercial banks, which are required to serve quasi-fiscal functions and swallow the costs of the transition (Chart 3). Xi Jinping’s decision to promote “dual circulation,” which is fundamentally a turn away from Deng Xiaoping’s opening up and liberal reform to a more self-sufficient policy of import substitution and indigenous innovation, will clash with the Biden administration, which has already flagged China as the US’s “most serious competitor” and is simultaneously seeking to move its supply chains out of China for critical technological, defense, and health goods. Chart 3Xi Jinping Leans On The Banks To Save The SOEs Chinese political and geopolitical risks are almost entirely priced out of the market, according to our GeoRisk Indicator, leaving Chinese equities exposed to further downside (Chart 4). Hong Kong equities have traded in line with GeoRisk Indicator for China, which suggests that they also have downside as the market prices in a rising risk premium due to the US’s attempt to galvanize its allies in a great circumvention of China’s economy in the name of democracy versus autocracy. Chart 4China/HK Political Risk Priced Out Of Market China has hinted that it will curtail rare earth element exports to the US if the US goes forward with a technological blockade. Biden’s approach, however, is more defensive rather than offensive – focusing on building up domestic and allied semiconductor and supply chain capacity rather than de-sourcing China. President Trump’s restrictions can be rolled back for US designed or manufactured tech goods that are outdated or strictly commercial. Biden will draw the line against American parts going into the People’s Liberation Army. Biden has a chance in March to ease the Commerce Department’s rules implementing Trump’s strictures on Chinese software apps in US markets as a gesture of engagement. Supply constraints and shortages cannot be solved quickly in either semiconductors or rare earths. But both China and the US can circumvent export controls by importing through third parties. The problem for China is that it is easier for the US to start pulling rare earths from the ground than it is for China to make a great leap forward in semiconductor production. Given the US’s reawakening to the need for a domestic industrial policy, strategic public investments, and secure supply chains, we are reinitiating our long rare earth trade, using the BCA rare earth basket, which features producers based outside of China (Chart 5). The renminbi is starting to rolling over, having reached near to the ceiling that it touched in 2017 after Trump’s arrival. There are various factors that drive the currency and there are good macro reasons for the currency to have appreciated in 2016-17 and 2020-21 due to strong government fiscal and monetary reflation. Nevertheless the People’s Bank allowed the currency to appreciate extensively at the beginning of both Trump’s and Biden’s terms and the currency’s momentum is slowing as it nears the 2017 ceiling. We are reluctant to believe the renminbi will go higher as China will not want to overtighten domestic policy but will want to build some leverage against Biden for the forthcoming strategic and economic dialogues. For mainland-dedicated investors we recommend holding Chinese bonds but for international investors we would highlight the likelihood that the renminbi has peaked and geopolitical risk will escalate. There is no substantial change on geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait since we wrote about it recently. A full-scale war is a low-probability risk. Much more likely is a diplomatic crisis – a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan’s ability to export tech to the mainland and the level of American support for Taiwan – and potentially a testing of Biden’s will on the cybersecurity, economic security, or maritime security of Taiwan. While it would make sense to stay long emerging markets excluding Taiwan, there is not an attractive profile for staying long emerging markets excluding all of Greater China. Therefore investors who are forced to choose should overweight China relative to Taiwan (Chart 6). Chart 5Rare Earth Miners Outside China Can Go Higher Market forces have only begun to register the fact that Taiwan is the epicenter of geopolitical risk in the twenty-first century. The bottleneck for semiconductors and Taiwan’s role as middleman in the trade war have supported Taiwanese stocks. It will take a long time for China, the US, and Europe to develop alternative suppliers for chips. But geopolitical pressures will occasionally spike and when they do Taiwanese equities will plunge (Chart 7). Chart 6EM Investors Need Either China Or Taiwan ... Taiwan Most At Risk South Korean geopolitical risk is also beneath the radar, though stocks have corrected recently and emerging market investors should generally favor Korea, especially over Taiwan. The first risk to Korea is that the US will apply more pressure on Seoul to join allied supply chains and exclude shipments of sensitive goods to China. The second risk is that North Korea – which Biden is deliberately ignoring in his opening speeches – will demand America’s attention through a new series of provocations that will have to be rebuked with credible threats of military force. Chart 7Markets Starting To Price Taiwan Strait Geopolitical Risk Chart 8South Korea Favored In EM But Still Faces Risks Over Chips, The North   Chart 9Don't Worry About Japan's Revolving Door The North Korean risk is usually very fleeting for financial markets. The tech risk is more serious but the Biden administration is not seeking to force South Korea to stop trading with China, at least not yet. The US would need to launch a robust, multi-year diplomatic effort to strong-arm its allies and partners into enforcing a chip and tech ban on China. Such an effort would generate a lot of light and heat – shuttle diplomacy, leaks to the press, and public disagreements and posturing. Until this starts to occur, US export controls will be a concern but not an existential threat to South Korea (Chart 8). Japan is the geopolitical winner in Asia Pacific. Japan is militarily secure, has a mutual defense treaty with the US, and stands to benefit from the recovery in global trade and growth. Japan is a beneficiary of a US-driven tech shift away from excess dependency on China and is heavily invested in Southeast Asia, which stands to pick up manufacturing share. Higher bond yields and inflation expectations will detract from growth stocks more than value stocks, and value stocks have a larger market-cap weight in European and Japanese equity markets. Japanese politics are not a significant risk despite a looming election. While Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is unpopular and likely to revive the long tradition of a “revolving door” of short-lived prime ministers, and while the Liberal Democratic Party will lose the super-majorities it held under Shinzo Abe, nevertheless the party remains dominant and the national policy consensus is behind Abe’s platform of pro-growth reforms, coordinated dovish monetary and fiscal policy, and greater openness to trade and immigration (Chart 9). Favor EU And UK Over Russia And Eastern Europe Russian geopolitical risk appears to be rolling over according to our indicator but we disagree with the market’s assessment and expect it to escalate again soon (Chart 10). Not only will Russian social unrest continue to escalate but also the Biden administration will put greater pressure on Russia that will keep foreign investors wary. Chart 10Russia Geopolitical Risk Will Not Roll Over While geopolitics thus poses a risk to Russian equities – which are fairly well correlated (inversely) with our GeoRisk indicator – nevertheless they are already cheap and stand to benefit from the rise in global commodity prices and liquidity. Russia is also easing fiscal policy to try to quiet domestic unrest. The pound and the euro today are higher against the ruble than at any time since the invasion of Ukraine. It is possible that Russia will opt for outward aggressiveness amidst domestic discontent, a weak and relapsing approval rating for Vladimir Putin and his government, and the Biden administration’s avowed intention to prioritize democracy promotion, including in Ukraine and Belarus (Chart 11). The ruble will fall on US punitive actions but ultimately there is limited downside, at least as long as the commodity upcycle continues. Chart 11Ruble Can Fall But Probably Not Far Biden stated in his second major foreign policy speech, “we will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia.” There are two areas where the Biden administration could surprise financial markets: pipelines and Russian bonds. Biden could suddenly adopt a hard line on the Nordstream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany, preventing it from completion. This would require Biden to ask the Germans to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to trans-Atlantic solidarity. Biden is keen to restore relations with Germany, and is halting the withdrawal of US troops from there, but pressuring Germany on Russia is possible given that it lies in the US interest and Biden has vowed to push back against Russia’s aggressive regional actions and interference in American affairs. The US imposed sanctions on Russian “Eurobonds” under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) in the wake of Russia’s poisoning of secret agent Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018. Non-ruble bank loans and non-ruble-denominated Russian bonds in primary markets were penalized, which at the time accounted for about 23% of Russian sovereign bonds. This left ruble-denominated sovereign bonds to be sold along with non-ruble bonds in secondary markets. The Biden administration views Russia’s poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny as a similar infraction and will likely retaliate. The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act is not yet law but passed through a Senate committee vote in 2019 and proposed to halt most purchases of Russian sovereign debt and broaden sanctions on energy projects and Kremlin officials. Biden is also eager to retaliate for the large SolarWinds hack that Russia is accused of conducting throughout 2020. Cybersecurity stocks are an obvious geopolitical trade in contemporary times. Authoritarian nations have benefited from the use of cyber attacks, disinformation, and other asymmetric warfare tactics. The US has shown that it does not have the appetite to fight small wars, like over Ukraine or the South China Sea, whereas the US remains untested on the question of major wars. This incentivize incremental aggression and actions with plausible deniability like cyber. Therefore the huge run-up in cyber stocks is well-supported and will continue. The world’s growing dependency on technology during the pandemic lockdowns heightened the need for cybersecurity measures but the COVID winners are giving way to COVID losers as the pandemic subsides and normal economic activity resumes. Traditional defense stocks stand to benefit relative to cyber stocks as the secular trend of struggle among the Great Powers continues (Chart 12). Specifically a new cycle of territorial competition will revive military tensions as commodity prices rise. Chart 12Back To Work' Trade: Long Defense Versus Cyber By contrast with Russia, western Europe is a prime beneficiary of the current environment. Like Japan, Europe is an industrial, trade-surplus economy that benefits from global trade and growth. It benefits as the geopolitical middleman between the US and its rivals, China and Russia, especially as long as the Biden administration pursues consultation and multilateralism and hesitates to force the Europeans into confrontational postures against these powers. Chart 13Political Risk Still Subsiding In Continental Europe Meanwhile Russia and especially China need to court Europe now that the Biden administration is using diplomacy to try to galvanize a western bloc. China looks to substitute European goods for American goods and open up its market to European investors to reduce European complaints of protectionism. European domestic politics will become more interesting over the coming year, with German and French elections, but the risks are low. The rise of a centrist coalition in Italy under Mario Draghi highlights how overstated European political risk really is. In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte’s center-right party is expected to remain in power in March elections based on opinion polling, despite serious corruption scandals and COVID blowback. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s center-right party is also favored, and yet an upset would energize financial markets because it would result in a more fiscally accommodative and pro-EU policy (Chart 13). The takeaway is that there is limit to how far emerging European countries can outperform developed Europe, given the immediate geopolitical risk emanating from Russia that can spill over into eastern Europe (Chart 14). Developed European stocks are at peak levels, comparable to the period of Ukraine’s election, but Ukraine is about to heat up again as a battleground between Russia and the West, as will other peripheral states. Chart 14Favor DM Europe Over EM Europe Chart 15GBP: Watch For Scottish Risk Revival In May Finally, in the UK, the pound continues to surge in the wake of the settlement of a post-Brexit trade deal, notwithstanding lingering disagreements over vaccines, financial services, and other technicalities. British equities are a value play that can make up lost ground from the tumultuous Brexit years. There is potentially one more episode of instability, however, arising from the unfinished business in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party wants to convert any victory in parliamentary elections in May into a second push for a referendum on national independence. At the moment public opinion polls suggest that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s achievement of an EU trade deal has taken the wind out of the sails of the independence movement but only the election will tell whether this political risk will continue to fall in the near term (Chart 15). Hence the pound’s rally could be curtailed in the near term but unless Scottish opinion changes direction the pound and UK domestic-oriented stocks will perform well. Short EM Strongmen Throughout the emerging world the rise of the “Misery Index” – unemployment combined with inflation – poses a persistent danger of social and political instability that will rise, not fall, in the coming years. The aftermath of the COVID crisis will be rocky once stimulus measures wane. South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil look the worst on these measures but India and Russia are also vulnerable (Chart 16). Brazilian geopolitical risk under the turbulent administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has returned to the 2015-16 peaks witnessed during the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff amid the harsh recession of the middle of the last decade. Brazilian equities are nearing a triple bottom, which could present a buying opportunity but not before the current political crisis over fiscal policy exacts a toll on the currency and stock market (Chart 17). Chart 16EM Political Risk Will Bring Bad Surprises Chart 17Brazil Risk Hits Impeachment Peaks On Bolso Fiscal Populism Bolsonaro’s signature pension reform was an unpopular measure whose benefits were devastated by the pandemic. The return to fiscal largesse in the face of the crisis boosted Bolsonaro’s support and convinced him to abandon the pretense of austere reformer in favor of traditional Brazilian fiscal populist as the 2022 election approaches. His attempt to violate the country’s fiscal rule – a constitutional provision passed in December 2016 that imposes a 20-year cap on public spending growth – that limits budget deficits is precipitating a shakeup within the ruling coalition. Our Emerging Market Strategists believe the Central Bank of Brazil will hike interest rates to offset the inflationary impact of breaking the fiscal cap but that the hikes will likely fall short, prompting a bond selloff and renewed fears of a public debt crisis. The country’s political crisis will escalate in the lead up to elections, not unlike what occurred in the US, raising the odds of other negative political surprises. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Mexico / Short Brazil While Latin America as a whole is a shambles, the global cyclical upturn and shift in American policy creates investment opportunities – particularly for Mexico, at least within the region. Investors should continue to prefer Mexican equities over Brazilian given Mexico’s fundamentally more stable economic policy backdrop and its proximity to the American economy, which will be supercharged with stimulus and eager to find ways to use its new trade deal with Mexico to diversify its manufacturing suppliers away from China (Chart 18). In addition to Brazil, Turkey and the Philippines are also markets where “strongman leaders” and populism have undercut economic orthodoxy and currency stability. A basket of emerging market currencies that excludes these three witnessed a major bottom in 2014-16, when Turkish and Brazilian political instability erupted and when President Rodrigo Duterte stormed the stage in the Philippines. These three currencies look to continue underperforming given that political dynamics will worsen ahead of elections in 2022 (possibly 2023 for Turkey) (Chart 19). Chart 19Keep Shorting The Strongmen Investment Takeaways We closed out some “risk-on” trades at the end of January – admittedly too soon – and since then have hedged our pro-cyclical strategic portfolio with safe-haven assets, while continuing to add risk-on trades where appropriate. The Biden administration still faces one or more major foreign policy tests that can prove disruptive, particularly to Taiwanese, Chinese, Russian, and Saudi stocks. Biden’s foreign policy doctrine will be established in the crucible of experience but his preferences are known to favor diplomacy, democracy over autocracy, and to pursue alliances as a means of diversifying supply chains away from China. We will therefore look favorably upon the members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and recommend investors reinitiate the long CPTPP equities basket. These countries, which include emerging markets with decent governance as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all stand to benefit from the global upswing and US foreign policy (Chart 20). Chart 20Reinitiate Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Chart 21Reinitiate Long Global Value Over Growth The Biden administration will likely try to rejoin the CPTPP but even if it fails to do so it will privilege relations with these countries as it strives to counter China and Russia. The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others could join the CPTPP over time – though an attempt to recruit Taiwan would exacerbate the geopolitical risks highlighted above centered on Taiwan. The dollar is perking up, adding a near-term headwind to global equities, but the cyclical trend for the dollar is still down due to extreme monetary and fiscal dovishness. Tactically, go long Mexican equities over Brazilian equities. From a strategic point of view we still favor value stocks over growth stocks and recommend investors reinitiate this global trade (Chart 21). Strategically, wait to overweight UK stocks in a global portfolio until the result of the May local elections is known and the risk of Scottish independence can be reassessed. Strategically, favor developed Europe over emerging Europe stocks as a result of Russian geopolitical risks that are set to escalate. Strategically go long global defense stocks versus cyber security stocks as a geopolitical “back to work” trade for a time when economic activity resumes and resource-oriented territorial, kinetic, military risks reawaken. Strategically, favor EM currencies other than Brazil, Turkey, and the Philippines to minimize exposure to economic populism, poor macro fundamentals, and election risk. Strategically, go long the BCA Rare Earths Basket to capture persistent US-China tensions under Biden and the search for alternatives to China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   We Read (And Liked) … Supply-Side Structural Reform Supply-Side Structural Reform, a compilation of Chinese economic and policy research, discusses several aspects of Chinese economic reform as it is practiced under the Xi Jinping administration, spanning the meaning and importance of supply-side structural reform in China as well as five major tasks.1 The book consists of contributions by Chinese scholars, financial analysts, and opinion makers in 2015, so we have learned a lot since it was published, even as it sheds light on Beijing’s interpretation of reform. 2015 was a year of financial turmoil that saw a dramatic setback for China’s 2013 liberal reform blueprint. It also saw the launch of a new round of reforms under the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2016-20), which aimed to push China further down the transition from export-manufacturing to domestic and consumer-led growth. Beijing’s renewed reform push in 2017, which included a now infamous “deleveraging campaign,” ultimately led to a global slowdown in 2018-19 that was fatefully exacerbated by the trade war with the United States – only to be eclipsed by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Built on fundamental economic theory and the social background of China, the book’s authors examine the impact of supply-side reform on the Chinese financial sector, industrial sector, and macroeconomic development. The comprehensive analysis covers short-term, mid-term and long-term effects. From the perspective of economic theory, there is consensus that China's supply-side structural reform framework did not forsake government support for the demand side of the economy, nor was it synonymous with traditional, liberal supply-side economics in the Western world. In contrast to Say’s Law, Reaganomics, and the UK’s Thatcherite privatization reforms, China's supply-side reform was concentrated on five tasks specific to its contemporary situation: cutting excessive industrial capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, cutting corporate costs, and improving various structural “weaknesses.” The motives behind the new framework were to enhance the mobility and efficiency of productive factors, eliminate excess capacity, and balance effective supply with effective demand. Basically, if China cannot improve efficiencies, capital will be misallocated, corporations will operate at a loss, and the economy’s potential will worsen over the long run. The debt buildup will accelerate and productivity will suffer. Regarding implementation, the book sets forth several related policies, including deepening the reform of land use and the household registration (hukou) system, and accelerating urbanization, which are effective measures to increase the liquidity of productive factors. Others promote the transformation from a factor-driven economy to efficiency and innovation-driven economy, including improving the property rights system, transferring corporate and local government debt to the central government, and encouraging investment in human capital and in technological innovation. The book also analyzes and predicts the potential costs of reform on the economy in the short and long term. In the short run, authors generally anticipated that deleveraging and cutting excessive industrial capacity would put more pressure on the government’s fiscal budget. The rise in the unemployment rate, cases of bankruptcy, and the negative sentiment of investors would slow China’s economic growth. In the medium and long run, this structural reform was seen as necessary for a sustainable medium-speed economic growth, leading to more positive expectations for households and corporates. The improved efficiency in capital allocation would provide investors with more confidence in the Chinese economy and asset market. Authors argued that overall credit risk was still controllable in near-term, as the corresponding policies such as tax reduction and urbanization would boost private investment and consumption in the short run. These policies increased demand in the labor market and created working positions to counteract adverse impacts. Employment in industries where excessive capacity was most severe only accounted for about 3% of total urban employment in 2013. Regarding the rise in credit risk during de-capacity, the asset quality of banks had improved since the 1990s and the level of bad debt was said to be within a controllable range, given government support. Moreover, in the long run, the merger and reorganization of enterprises would increase the efficient supply and have a positive effect on economic innovation-driven transformation. We know from experience that much of the optimism about reform would confront harsh realities in the 2016-21 period. The reforms proceeded in a halting fashion as the US trade war interrupted their implementation, prompting the government to resort to traditional stimulus measures in mid-2018, only to be followed by another massive fiscal-and-credit splurge in 2020 in the face of the pandemic. Yet investors could be surprised to find that the Politburo meeting on April 17, 2020 proclaimed that China would continue to focus on supply-side structural reform even amid efforts to normalize the economy and maintain epidemic prevention and control. Leaders also pledged to maintain the supply-side reform while emphasizing demand-side management during annual Central Economic Work Conference in December 2020. In other words, Xi administration’s policy preferences remain set, and compromises forced by exogenous events will soon give way to renewed reform initiatives. This is a risk to the global reflation trade in 2021-22. There has not been a total abandonment of supply-side reform. The main idea of demand-side reform – shifts in the way China’s government stimulates the economy – is to fully tap the potential of the domestic market and call for an expansion of consumption and effective investment. Combined with the new concept of “dual circulation,” which emphasizes domestic production and supply chains (effectively import substitution), the current demand-side reforms fall in line with the supply-side goal of building a more independent and controllable supply chain and produce higher technology products. These combined efforts will provide “New China” sectors with more policy support, less regulatory constraint, and lead to better economic and financial market performance. Despite the fluctuations in domestic growth and the pressure from external demand, China will maintain the focus on reform in its long-term planning. The fundamental motivation is to enhance efficiency and innovation that is essential for China’s productivity and competitiveness in the future. Thus, investors should not become complacent over the vast wave of fiscal and credit stimulus that is peaking today as we go to press. Instead they should recognize that China’s leaders are committed to restructuring. This means that the economic upside of stimulus has a cap on it– a cap that will eventually be put in place by policymakers, if not by China’s lower capacity for debt itself. It would be a colossal policy mistake for China to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy in 2021 but any government attempts to tighten, the financial market will become vulnerable. A final thought: it is unclear whether there is potential for an improvement in China’s foreign relations contained in this conclusion. What the western world is demanding is for China to rebalance its economy, open up its markets, cut back on the pace of technological acquisition, reduce government subsidies for state-owned companies, and conform better to US and EU trade rules. There is zero chance that China will provide all of these things. But its own reform program calls for greater intellectual property protections, greater competition in non-strategic sectors (which the US and EU should be able to access under recent trade deals), and targeted stimulus for sustainable energy, where the US and EU see trade and investment opportunities. Thus there is a basis for an improvement in cooperation. What remains to be seen is how protectionist dual circulation will be in practice and how aggressively the US will pursue international enforcement of technological restrictions on China under the Biden administration. Jingnan Liu Research Associate JingnanL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Yifu L, et al. Supply-Side Structural Reform (Beijing: Democracy & Construction Publishing House, 2016). 351 pages. Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The pandemic is not yet over, but it appears that infections have peaked in the developed world and in most of the major developing economies. Economic growth will reaccelerate as social distancing abates and vaccination programs gather momentum. The current policy orthodoxy is night-and-day different from the orthodoxy that prevailed in the wake of the global financial crisis, as deficit shaming has given way to deficit positivity. Rapid expansion is more likely than a repeat of last decade’s tepid, plodding recovery and inflation will eventually supplant hysteresis as policymakers’ biggest worry. The impending passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act will vault the US ahead of its major economy counterparts in terms of pandemic spending. Washington’s massive fiscal commitment speeds up the timetable for closing the output gap in the US. Although inflation has become a hot topic among US investors, we do not see it materializing until next year at the earliest. Our base case has the Goldilocks backdrop of solid growth and ample monetary accommodation remaining in place for at least the rest of the year. Markets have fully discounted that scenario but investors should be aware that both downside and upside surprises are possible; bad virus news could drive a growth shortfall while households’ enormous excess savings could power a consumption breakout. The broad take-up of the Goldilocks scenario among equity investors will make it hard for stocks to dazzle in 2021. Nonetheless, we think conditions support mid-to-high single-digit returns, which will allow equities to outperform bonds. The combination of accelerating growth and quiescent central banks is catnip for equities but not so much for bonds, especially investment-grade sovereigns. Fixed-income investors should maintain below-benchmark duration as yield curves steepen. Steepening yield curves have given Financials a shot in the arm while weighing on the high-flying Tech sector. Reopening in the wake of COVID’s retreat should also redound to recent laggards’ benefit and we continue to expect value stocks will outperform their growth counterparts over the rest of the year. The US dollar will resume its downtrend as the virus is beaten back, albeit at a gentler pace than in 2020. Humanity Retakes The Lead Humankind cannot yet declare victory over COVID-19 but it does appear to have gained the upper hand as new case counts have plummeted from their January peak (Chart I-1). Restrictions helped turn the tide in Europe, albeit at the cost of cutting off oxygen to the economy (Chart I-2), but even in Sweden and the US, which eschewed EU-style restrictions, the virus has lost momentum. Increased vigilance apparently trumped fears that the coronavirus would flourish in the northern hemisphere winter. The potential for vaccine-resistant variants is a concern, but the pandemic news is clearly trending in the right direction. Chart I-1The Fever Has Broken Chart I-2Throwing The Merchants Out With The Bathwater As infections fall, so too does the strain on public health care systems. Plunging hospitalizations (Chart I-3) indicate that health care systems have recovered capacity. Hospitalizations are an important metric for tracking COVID’s impact on the economy because they lead restrictions on activity; when they are high and rising, officials are prone to limit person-to-person interaction, and when they are low and falling, officials roll back emergency limits. For services-heavy developed economies, easier restrictions are the key to a return to something more closely resembling normal activity until vaccinations confer herd immunity (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Restrictions Can Be Lifted As Health Care Systems Regain Capacity In the meantime, those who continue to be displaced by the pandemic and the distancing measures taken to combat it will fall back on fiscal support. Fourth-quarter deceleration in the United States highlighted the important role that fiscal transfers have played in keeping vulnerable households, businesses and communities afloat. The bulk of the transfers authorized under the CARES Act were distributed in two bursts. The first arrived in April and May via economic impact payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child that were paid in full to about two-thirds of American households1 (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-4Lockdowns Are A Drag Chart I-5Transfers Slowed To A Trickle In The Fall Chart I-6Fewer Transfers, Fewer Sales, ... The second burst came in the form of a weekly $600 federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefit supplement in April, May, June and July (Chart I-5, middle panel). Additional aid was provided by the pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) program, which expanded UI benefits to independent contractors, self-employed individuals and other workers who would not otherwise qualify to receive them. The PUA program was the smallest of the three major transfer plans and the only one that ran until the end of the year, and as the arrival of the direct payment checks and final UI benefit supplements receded further into the past, the US economy began to show some signs of wear. Retail sales fell sequentially in all three months of the fourth quarter (Chart I-6) as total employment hit a wall (Chart I-7) and the economic surprise index swooned (Chart I-8).   Chart I-7... Fewer Jobs ... Chart I-8... And Fewer Positive Surprises Households’ ability to satisfy their obligations to creditors and landlords slipped as the year wore on as well. Fiscal transfers and forbearance programs have limited credit distress far more effectively than one would have expected when the COVID meteor hit the earth (Table I-1), but leading 30-day delinquency rates reveal a modest erosion since late summer (Chart I-9). The share of apartment renters paying at least some of their rent fell by more than one-and-a-half percentage points from year-ago levels in October, November, December and January, a first since the CARES Act transfers began to flow in time to help with the May rent (Chart I-10). It seems clear that lower-income households who relied most heavily on aid felt its absence as the year wore on. Table I-160- And 90-Day Consumer Delinquencies Are Down Year-Over-Year, ... Chart I-9... But Leading 30-Day Delinquencies Are On The Rise ... Chart I-10... And Apartment Rent Collections Have Been Slipping     We take the snapback in January retail sales as evidence that high marginal-propensity-to-consume households needed the second round of transfers provided for in December’s compromise spending bill. Both the economic impact payments ($600 per qualifying adult and $600 per child) and the supplemental UI benefits ($300 per week) were smaller, but the most vulnerable households put them to immediate use. We expect that February rent collections and consumer loan delinquencies will also show improvement, albeit not as dramatically as the retail sales series. With another, larger round of stimulus coming down the pike, it appears that the US economy will avoid a repeat of its fourth quarter fraying around the edges but slumps remain a possibility in economies that allow transfer schemes to lapse before COVID-19 can be tamed. And Now For Something Completely Different The global economy has confronted two significant crises in the space of a dozen years. The events that precipitated them could hardly have been more different: the global financial crisis (GFC) was an endogenous event with enough avarice, hubris, folly and villainy to support a cottage industry of books, movies and TV shows revisiting it, while the pandemic, for all of the official complacency and bumbling it laid bare, was simply an exogenous occurrence of great misfortune. The monetary policy response to both events has been substantially identical; the Fed swiftly took the fed funds rate back to zero, bought copious quantities of Treasury and agency securities, and launched a mix of old and new emergency measures. Other major central banks, which were largely unable to make any moves toward normalization between crises, simply maintained zero or negative interest rate policy and ramped up the pace and/or scope of their own asset purchase programs. The fiscal response has been dramatically different, however, in line with a 180-degree turn in budget orthodoxy. Chastened, perhaps, by Europe’s double-dip recession, or the protractedly tepid US expansion, economic mandarins have experienced a road-to-Damascus conversion. Whereas the OECD and the IMF began wagging their fingers at prodigal legislators while the global economy was still submerged under the GFC rubble, today they counsel that there is no rush to pull back on spending. As the OECD’s chief economist said in a January interview, “The first lesson [from the aftermath of the GFC] is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP.2” The IMF has declared that “the near-term priority is to avoid premature withdrawal of fiscal support. Support should persist, at least into 2021, to sustain the recovery and to limit long-term scarring.3” Chart I-11What Goes Up Must ... Go Up Again The about-face in terms of fiscal deficits could have a profound effect on the character of the post-pandemic expansions. The plodding and protracted post-GFC recovery/expansion might be viewed as an object lesson in monetary policy’s limits. There is no gainsaying that central banks acted boldly to counter the GFC, cutting policy rates to zero and beyond, purchasing vast quantities of sovereign bonds, government agency securities and even debt and equity issued by private entities. The purchases caused central bank balance sheets to swell (Chart I-11), but the money creation impact was stunted by an offsetting wave of defaults and a general reluctance on the part of lenders and would-be borrowers to add to the stock of debt. Chart I-12GFC Stimulus Was Fleeting GFC fiscal spending was modest and largely limited to automatic stabilizers once emergency measures ran their course. Even the most celebrated efforts, like the United States’ 2009 Recovery Act, were intentionally modest in scope and limited in duration. Following the prevailing wisdom, national governments quickly moved to withdraw assistance and reduce their budget deficits once the worst of the crisis had passed (Chart I-12). Tepid investment, sluggish employment gains and fiscal drag all weighed on growth, defying the typical bigger-the-decline, bigger-the-bounce business cycle pattern. The picture is quite different today as central banks have gained a powerful and willing partner in their efforts to combat the damage wrought by a sudden shock. Pandemic fiscal stimulus initiatives have dwarfed GFC efforts across the major economies (Chart I-13). Once Congress passes the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act, the US will have doubled down on its 2020 initiatives, committing to aid equivalent to an extraordinary 25% of its annual output. The ultimate effect on inflation, interest rates and exchange rates remains to be seen, but it is clear that the post-pandemic expansion will not unfold at the plodding pace of the post-GFC expansion. Chart I-13The COVID Fiscal Response Has Dwarfed The GFC's Goldilocks And The Two Tails Narrowing our focus to the US, which comprises nearly 60% of the market cap of the benchmark MSCI All-Country World Index, our base case is the Goldilocks scenario that markets appear to be discounting. That scenario would entail the just-right outcome of solid growth and continued monetary accommodation (Figure I-1). Since the Fed will only dial back accommodation if the economy appears to be at risk of overheating, it will take a growth disappointment, most likely from a negative virus surprise, for the US economy to tumble into the left-hand tail of the distribution. Figure I-1Goldilocks And The Two Tails Chart I-14Making Up For Lost Time We cannot rule out the possibility of virus-resistant mutations or new rounds of outbreaks from a weary populace that lets its guard down, but a failure to vaccinate at a pace consistent with achieving herd immunity by the end of September looks to be the most likely route to disappointment. To that end, we are monitoring vaccination progress against the pace required to get 50-80% of the population inoculated by the end of the third quarter (Chart I-14). The US got off to a slow start, but we are confident that it will catch up by early spring under an administration that has made crushing the virus its top priority and a Congress that is providing the resources to enable local health authorities to get the job done. The case for an upside near-term surprise stems from the notion that America’s solons have provided considerably more aid to households than was strictly necessary. As Chart I-7 showed, total employment fell by 25 million at the trough in April and close to 9 million fewer people are employed now than at the pre-pandemic peak. They can surely use a lifeline, along with the many Americans who are involuntarily working part time and those who are barely holding on even if they are fully employed. But they number far less than the 100 million households4 (two-thirds of all taxpayers) that received the full $1,800-per-adult economic impact payments ($1,200 last spring and $600 in January), and will be in line for another $1,400, as soon as March, under the terms of the new bill. Households who did not need the largesse have presumably saved the distributions, helping contribute to the $1.5 trillion of excess savings accumulated during the pandemic. Thanks to the transfers provided for by the CARES Act, our US Investment Strategy service estimates that aggregate household income from March through December was $450 billion greater than it would have been in the absence of COVID-19 (Table I-2). With the second round of direct payments amounting to about $150 billion and the third round likely to be more than double the second, household incomes will be boosted by another $500 billion and the excess savings horde will be on its way to $2 trillion and beyond. Even in a $21 trillion economy, that much dry powder has the potential to move the needle. Table I-2Households' Excess Pandemic Savings In the absence of even a somewhat related antecedent, no one can say for sure how much of the excess savings will be spent. Ricardian equivalence, which posits that households will be reluctant to spend fiscal windfalls if they anticipate that they will have to pay for them with higher future taxes, and Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, which posits that consumption decisions are based on lifetime earnings, both suggest that the multiplier effect of the direct payments to households may not be all it's cracked up to be. Empirical evidence does not definitively support either model, but increased income has only accounted for a third of households’ mountain of savings in any event. The remaining two-thirds, amounting to over a trillion dollars, came from reduced consumption. Even if Ricardo’s and Friedman’s hypotheses are mostly on the mark, if much of the $1 trillion of 2020’s reduced consumption was merely deferred rather than destroyed (Box I-1), pent-up consumer demand could be significant. The range of potential outcomes is wide: on the one hand, money has tended to burn a hole in US households’ pockets; on the other, Ricardo and Friedman aren’t exactly Larry Kudlow or Peter Navarro. It is hard to assert with any conviction how much of the savings cache will be spent, or how quickly, but we highlight its presence to point out that near-term US growth could surprise to the upside. BOX I-1 Demand Deferral Or Demand Destruction? February’s Bank Credit Analyst presented a table with simple estimates of the US pandemic spending gap. It showed that spending on goods is tracking above the level that would have been expected if the pandemic had not occurred but that spending on services is down sharply, with an enormous gap in categories like food service, recreation and transportation. The fate of US households’ massive excess savings might come down to what happens to the forgone consumption. Consumption that is not deferred to some later period will simply disappear. Given that the consumption shortfall is entirely confined to services, the key question becomes: Is forgone services consumption more likely to turn into demand destroyed than forgone goods consumption? We suspect the answer is yes. Considering it from the perspective of the categories that suffered the biggest shortfalls, one cannot catch up by eating multiple restaurant dinners in a day, going back in time to attend last season’s sports and entertainment events, or taking more than one flight and staying in more than one hotel room. Services demand may also incorporate more of a discretionary component: one might want to go to a ballgame or a concert, or get out of town over a long weekend, but one eventually has to replace a sputtering car or refrigerator. Some forgone services demand likely turned into accelerated goods demand as white-collar workers redirected workday spending to building out office capabilities at home. Even more may have been diverted to home theater and exercise equipment, or to making one’s outdoor space into a more inviting place to while away the pandemic. The bottom line is that some goods demand appears to have been pulled forward by the pandemic while some services demand has likely been destroyed. There is surely pent-up consumer demand, and it will begin to be released once the pandemic has been subdued, but only some of the accumulated savings will be directed to satisfying it. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations For investors focused on the coming 6-12 months, the key takeaways from our analysis are as follows: Provided that official measures and personal vigilance continue to curtail COVID-19 until vaccinations can stifle it, the growth outlook should steadily improve. In the United States, where the federal government is determined to err on the side of providing too much fiscal support, growth could pick up a lot of steam. If enough pandemic-weary people fail to maintain their vigilance and observe social distancing measures, vaccine distribution efforts become snagged or vaccine-resistant strains emerge, growth could fall short of the consensus expectation embedded in financial market prices. Based on its plans to double down on its initial infusion of fiscal support, the US is the major economy most likely to exceed expectations, perhaps even to the point of overheating. After drilling into the increased income/foregone consumption components of the mountain of savings American households have amassed during the pandemic, however, we reiterate our conclusion that all of the savings will not be spent. The US economy will accelerate smartly this year but overheating is a low-probability event. Chart I-15The Coming Regional And Style Rotation Given these conclusions, we recommend the following investment stance over the next 6-12 months: Overweight equities, which will generate excess returns over sovereign bonds and cash in the absence of a negative COVID surprise, and underweight fixed income. Maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed income portfolios. Underweight US stocks and overweight global ex-US stocks, which will benefit from the reopening of the global economy, and value over growth stocks, which will benefit from reopening and a steeper yield curve. The former broke out in January and held their lead last month (Chart I-15, top panel) while value is testing resistance at its 200-day moving average (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Underweight the US dollar versus the euro in particular and other more cyclical currencies in general. We do not expect the greenback to fall as sharply as it did last year from May through December but we do expect it will resume declining over the rest of the year. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com February 25, 2021 Next Report: March 31, 2021 II. Requiem For Volcker And The Gipper For this month’s Special Report, we are sending you a collaboration between our US Investment Strategy and US Political Strategy teams. US Political Strategy is our newest strategy service and it extends the proprietary framework of our Geopolitical Strategy service to provide analysis of political developments that is relevant for US-focused investors. Please contact your relationship manager if you would like more information or to begin trialing the service. Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … :The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines. … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy. … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant. … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”5 Chart II-1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.6 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart II-1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.7 The Gipper,8 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.9 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart II-3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart II-3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart II-4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table II-1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart II-5). Chart II-4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart II-5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts   Table II-1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart II-6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart II-6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Chart II-7“Limited Government” Falling Out Of Fashion Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart II-7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”10 Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.11 Chart II-8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart II-8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. Chart II-9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart II-9).12 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart II-10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits Chart II-11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart II-12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart II-12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Chart II-13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew ‘Third Way’ Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart II-13). Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart II-14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table II-2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart II-14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart II-15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table II-2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators Chart II-15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked13 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart II-16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart II-16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.14 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart II-17). Chart II-17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table II-3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart II-18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Table II-3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan Chart II-18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators continue to demonstrate that US stocks are running hot. Our technical, valuation, and speculation indicators are very extended, and margin debt has soared since the S&P 500 bottomed last spring. With so little room for error, a near-term pullback in stock prices remains a significant risk. Our monetary indicator extended its downtrend, reflecting a diminished intensity of monetary support, but it remains above the boom/bust line. The upshot is that while the marginal stimulus provided by monetary policy is falling, the level of stimulus from easy monetary conditions remains significant. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a remarkably swift earnings recovery, but after a third consecutive quarter of double-digit earnings beats, the 2021 earnings outlook continues to gather momentum. Net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near multi-decade highs. Among global equities, the US extended its modest underperformance after a decade of leading the pack. China continues to outperform, though at a slower rate since it became the first country to escape COVID-19’s grip, while emerging markets and Australia have also outperformed. Euro area stocks continue to lag, but we expect they will eventually take their place among the cyclical winners later this year. The US 10-Year Treasury yield surged in February, following through on January’s convincing break above its 200-day moving average. Our technical indicator shows that long-dated bonds are firmly in oversold territory, though they remain extremely expensive. Our valuation index points to higher yields over the cyclical investment horizon even if the rate of ascent eventually slows. The technical and valuation profile is similar for the US dollar. The greenback is technically oversold, even after its modest rally, but it remains expensive according to our models. If our base-case Goldilocks scenario unfolds globally this year, the counter-cyclical dollar should encounter a mild headwind. As with Treasuries, we expect valuation to trump technicals and see the USD continuing to trend lower over the full year. Commodity prices are surging across the board, ex-gold. Sentiment is bullish and speculative positioning in the CFTC’s 17-commodity aggregate grouping is at its post-GFC high, although it may have peaked for the time being. The move in commodities underscores the risk-on profile across financial markets and aligns with EM, Chinese and Australian equity outperformance. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes   Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist   Footnotes 1 Every single adult taxpayer with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 or less (and every married filing jointly taxpayer with AGI of $150,000 or less) was eligible for the full payments, and taxpayers with AGIs below $99,000 and $198,000, respectively, were eligible for partial payments. 2 Giles, Chris. “OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending,” Financial Times, January 4, 2021. OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending | Financial Times (ft.com) Accessed February 20, 2021. 3 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Fiscal Monitor: Policies for the Recovery. Washington, October. p. ix. 4 An additional 20 million households have received partial payments. 5 August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 6 Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 7 April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 8 As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 9 July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 10 Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu. 11 Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 12 “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 13 Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 14 Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns