Asset Allocation

Highlights Underweighting T-bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area are all just one massive correlated trade. Get the direction of the T-bond yield right, and you will get the whole correlated trade right. The rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent… …because the level of the yield is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Hence, on a 6-month horizon, fade the massive correlated trade. When allocating to stock markets, don’t confuse a ‘stock effect’ for a ‘country effect’. Fractal trade shortlist: European autos and European personal products. The Pareto Principle Of Investment Chart of the WeekCorrelated Trade: Tech And The US One of the guiding principles of investment is that: Investment is complex, but it is not complicated. The words complex and complicated are often used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Investment is not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything. This is also known as the Pareto Principle, or the 20:80 rule. Just 20 percent of the input determines 80 percent of the output.1 Right now, the 20 that is determining the 80 is the bond yield. Higher bond yields are hurting high-flying tech stocks. This is because the ‘net present value’ of cashflows that are weighted deep into the future are highly sensitive to rising yields. Therefore, underweighting T-bonds means underweighting tech versus the market. Which extends to growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, US versus the euro area, and so on. In effect, all these positions have become one massive correlated trade (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Correlated Trade: T-Bond, And Growth Vs. Value Chart I-3Correlated Trade: Growth Vs. Value, ##br##And Tech Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. You will be a hero. Get the direction of the bond yield wrong and your whole investment strategy will be wrong. You will be a zero. Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. The hero/zero decision for investors is: from the current level of 1.7 percent, at what level will the 10-year T-bond yield peak and reverse? If the answer is, say, 3 percent, then the recent direction of this correlated trade has much further to go, and investors should stay on the ride. But if the answer is, say, 2 percent, then this correlated trade does not have much further to go, and it will soon be time to get off. To repeat, investment is not complicated, but it is complex. The evolution of the bond yield is not fully analysable or predictable. Still, our assessment is that the rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent. This is because the level of yields is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Specifically: The global stock market rally has stalled since mid-February because high-flying growth stocks have been reined back by rising bond yields. Recent margin calls and liquidations in the hedge fund space presage points of fragility in the financial system. Note, there is never just one cockroach. US mortgage applications for home purchases and building permits for new housebuilding appear to be rolling over (Chart I-4). Admittedly, these are just straws in the wind. But straws in the wind can be the first sign of a brewing storm. Chart I-4Are Higher Bond Yields Starting To Weigh On The Housing Market? On a 6-month horizon, fade the underweighting to bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area correlated trade. Sectors Still Rule The Stock Market World The evolution of the pandemic, the pace of vaccination roll-outs, and the size of fiscal stimuluses have become polarised by region and country, with clear leaders and laggards. This raises the question: are the regions and countries that are winning against the pandemic the investment winners too? For the major stock markets, the answer is an emphatic no. Compared with the US, the euro area is experiencing an aggressive third wave of infections, is lagging in its vaccination roll-outs, and is unleashing much less fiscal stimulus. Yet euro area equities have not been underperforming US equities. Proving that the outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. The outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. By far the biggest driver of euro area versus US stock market performance is the euro area’s massive underweighting to tech stocks vis-à-vis the US. Hence, the tech sector’s recent travails have boosted the euro area stock market’s relative performance. Similar types of sector skews explain the relative performance of all the major stock markets (Table I-1). For example, developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM) is nothing more than healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-5). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Major Stock Markets Chart I-5DM Vs. EM Is Nothing More Than Healthcare Vs. Basic Resources Exchange rates can also have a bearing on stock market relative performance – though the main transmission mechanism is not through competitiveness, but through the so-called ‘currency translation effect.’ Specifically, the multinationals that dominate the major stock markets have their cost bases diversified across multiple currencies. Hence, for a euro-listed multinational company, a weaker euro doesn’t boost its competitiveness. But it does boost the translation of its multi-currency profits into euros, the currency of its stock market listing. Thereby, the weaker euro boosts its stock price. Don’t Confuse A ‘Stock Effect’ For A ‘Country Effect’ Many people think that there is also a strong ‘country effect’ in stock market selection. For example, if US tech hardware outperforms euro area tech hardware, then this is clearly not a sector effect. It must be to do with a difference between the US and the euro area, meaning a country effect. The truth is more nuanced. Many sectors are now highly concentrated in one or two dominant stocks. US tech hardware is concentrated in Apple while euro area tech hardware is concentrated in ASML. Hence, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, it is because Apple is outperforming ASML (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Is US Tech Vs. Euro Area Tech A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? Likewise, if euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, it is because the dominant euro area pharma stock, Sanofi, is outperforming the dominant UK pharma stock, AstraZeneca (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Is Euro Area Pharma Vs. UK Pharma A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? So, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, and euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, are these ‘country effects’, or are they ‘stock effects’? We would argue that, in truth, they are stock effects. Meaning they have little to do with what is happening in the country of listing, and much more to do with the specifics of the company. For example, if UK pharma is underperforming, it is because AstraZeneca is underperforming. And if AstraZeneca is underperforming, it is more likely to do with the performance of its Covid-19 vaccine than the performance of the UK economy. The problem is that most performance attributions will incorrectly count what are stock effects as country effects. And the more concentrated that sectors become, the more pronounced this error becomes. Yet nowadays, extreme concentration in one or two stocks per sector is the norm rather than the exception. Hence, what appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. What appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. The important lesson is that when allocating to the major stock markets, do not think in terms of regions or countries because the country effect is, in truth, negligible. Think in terms of the sectors and the dominant stocks that you want to own, and the regional and country allocation will resolve itself automatically. On this basis our high-conviction structural position to be overweight DM versus EM simply follows from our high-conviction structural position to be overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In the DM versus EM decision, everything else is largely irrelevant. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week’s candidates for countertrend reversal are European autos, and European personal products. The euphoria towards electric vehicles (EVs) has taken European auto stocks to a technically overbought extreme (Chart I-8). Chart I-8European Autos Are Overbought Conversely, the euphoria towards economic reopening plays has taken European personal products stocks to a technically oversold extreme (Chart I-9). Chart I-9European Personal Products Are Oversold Our recommended trade is overweight European personal products versus European autos (Chart I-10), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent. Chart I-10Overweight European Personal Products Versus European Autos   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The exact numbers 20 and 80 are simply indicative of the Pareto Principle rather than set in stone, they could also be 5 and 95, or indeed 5 and 99 as they do not need to sum to 100. Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II_7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations ​​​​

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.

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

Highlights Markets largely ignored the uproar at the US Capitol on January 6 because the transfer of power was not in question. Democratic control over the Senate, after two upsets in the Georgia runoff, is the bigger signal. US fiscal policy will become more expansive yet the Federal Reserve will not start hiking rates anytime soon. This is a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the short and medium run. Politics and geopolitics affect markets through the policy setting, rather than through discrete events, which tend to have fleeting market impacts. The current setting, in the US and abroad, is negative for the US dollar. The implication is positive for emerging market stocks and value plays. Go long global stocks ex-US, long emerging markets over developed markets, and long value over growth. Cut losses on short CNY-USD. Feature Chart 1Market's Muted Response To US Turmoil Scenes of mayhem unfolded in the US Capitol on January 6 as protesters and rioters flooded the building and temporarily interrupted the joint session of Congress convened to count the Electoral College votes. Congress reconvened later and finished the tally. President-elect Joe Biden will take office at noon on January 20. Financial markets were unperturbed, with stocks up and volatility down, though safe havens did perk up a bit (Chart 1). The incident supports our thesis that the US election cycle of 2020 was a sort of “Civil War Lite” and that the country is witnessing “Peak Polarization,” with polarization likely to fall over the coming five years. The incident was the culmination of the past year of pandemic-fueled unrest and President Trump’s refusal to concede to the Electoral College verdict. Trump made a show of force by rallying his supporters, and apparently refrained from cracking down on those that overran Congress, but then he backed down and promised an orderly transfer of power. The immediate political result was to isolate him. Fewer Republicans than expected contested the electoral votes in the ensuing joint session; one Republican is openly calling for Trump to be forced into resignation via the 25th amendment procedure for those unfit to serve. The electoral votes were promptly certified. Vice President Mike Pence and other actors performed their constitutional duties. Pence reportedly gave the order to bring out the National Guard to restore order – hence it is possible that Pence and Trump’s cabinet could activate the 25th amendment, but that is unlikely unless Trump foments rebellion going forward. Vandals and criminals will be prosecuted and there could also be legal ramifications for Trump and some government officials. Do Politics And Geopolitics Affect Markets? The market’s lack of concern raises the question of whether investors need trouble themselves with politics at all. Philosopher and market guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb tweeted the following: If someone, a year ago, described January 6, 2021 (and events attending it) & asked you to guess the stock market behavior, admit you would have gotten it wrong. Just so you understand that news do not help you understand markets.1 This is a valid point. Investors should not (and do not) invest based on the daily news. Of course, many observers foresaw social unrest surrounding the 2020 election, including Professor Peter Turchin.2 Social instability was rising in the data, as we have long shown. When you combined this likelihood with the Fed’s pause on rate hikes, and a measurable rise in geopolitical tensions between the US and other countries, the implication was that gold would appreciate. So if someone had told you a year ago that the US would have a pandemic, that governments would unleash a 10.2% of global GDP fiscal stimulus, that the Fed would start average inflation targeting, that a vaccine would be produced, and that the US would have a contested election on top of it all, would you have expected gold to rise? Absolutely – and it has done so, both in keeping with the fall in real interest rates plus some safe-haven bonus, which is observable (Chart 2). Chart 2Gold Price In Excess Of Fall In Real Rates Implies Geopolitical Risk The takeaway is that policy matters for markets while politics may only matter briefly at best. Which brings us back to the implications of the Trump rebellion. What Will Be The Impact Of The Trump Rebellion? We have highlighted that this election was a controversial rather than contested election – meaning that the outcome was not in question after late November when the court cases, vote counts, and recounts were certified. This was doubly true after the Electoral College voted on December 14. The protests and riots yesterday never seriously called this result into question. Whatever Trump’s intentions, there was no military coup or imposition of martial law, as some observers feared. In fact the scandal arose from the President’s hesitation to call out the National Guard rather than his use of security forces to prevent the transfer of power, as occurs during a coup. This partially explains why the market traded on the contested election in December 2000 but not in 2020 – the result was largely settled. The Biden administration now has more political capital than otherwise, which is market-positive because it implies more proactive fiscal policy to support the economic recovery. Trump’s refusal to concede gave Democrats both seats in the Georgia Senate runoffs, yielding control of Congress. Household and business sentiment will revive with the vaccine distribution and economic recovery, while the passage of larger fiscal stimulus is highly probable. US fiscal policy will almost certainly avoid the mistake of tightening fiscal policy too soon. Taken with the Fed’s aversion to raising rates, greater fiscal stimulus will create a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the next 12 months. The primary consequence of combined fiscal and monetary dovishness is a falling dollar. The greenback is a counter-cyclical and momentum-driven currency that broadly responds inversely to global growth trends. But policy decisions are clearly legible in the global growth path and the dollar’s path over the past two decades. Japanese and European QE, Chinese devaluation, the global oil crash, Trump’s tax cuts, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 lockdowns all drove the dollar to fresh highs – all policy decisions (Chart 3). Policy decisions also ensured the euro’s survival, marking the dollar’s bottom against the euro in 2011, and ensuring that the euro could take over from the dollar once the dollar became overbought. Today, the US’s stimulus response to COVID-19 – combined with the Fed’s strategic review and the Democratic sweep of government – marked the peak and continued drop-off in the dollar. Chart 3Euro Survival, US Peak Polarization, Set Stage For Rotation From USD To EUR Chart 4China's Yuan Says Geopolitics Matters The Chinese renminbi is heavily manipulated by the People’s Bank and is not freely exchangeable. The massive stimulus cycle that began in 2015, in reaction to financial turmoil, combined with the central bank’s decision to defend the currency marked a bottom in the yuan’s path. China’s draconian response to the pandemic this year, and massive stimulus, made China the only major country to contribute positively to global growth in 2020 and ensured a surge in the currency. The combination of US and Chinese policy decisions has clearly favored the renminbi more than would be the case from the general economic backdrop (Chart 4). Getting the policy setting right is necessary for investors. This is true even though discrete political events – including major political and geopolitical crises – have fleeting impacts on markets. What About Biden’s Trade Policy? Trump was never going to control monetary or fiscal policy – that was up to the Fed and Congress. His impact lay mostly in trade and foreign policy. Specifically his defeat reduces the risk of sweeping unilateral tariffs. It makes sense that global economic policy uncertainty has plummeted, especially relative to the United States (Chart 5). If US policy facilitates a global economic and trade recovery, then it also makes sense that global equities would rise faster than American equities, which benefited from the previous period of a strong dollar and erratic or aggressive US fiscal and trade policy. Trump’s last 14 days could see a few executive orders that rattle stocks. There is a very near-term downside risk to European and especially Chinese stocks from punitive measures, or to Emirati stocks in the event of another military exchange with Iran (Chart 6). But Trump will be disobeyed if he orders any highly disruptive actions, especially if they contravene national interests. Beyond Trump’s term we are constructive on all these bourses, though we expect politics and geopolitics to remain a headwind for Chinese equities. Chart 5Big Drop In Global Policy Uncertainty US tensions with China will escalate again soon – and in a way that negatively impacts US and Chinese companies exposed to each other. Chart 6Geopolitical Implications Of Biden's Election The cold war between these two is an unavoidable geopolitical trend as China threatens to surpass the US in economic size and improves its technological prowess. Presidents Xi and Trump were merely catalysts. But there are two policy trends that will override this rivalry for at least the first half of the year. First, global trade is recovering– as shown here by the Shanghai freight index and South Korean exports and equity prices (Chart 7). The global recovery will boost Korean stocks but geopolitical tensions will continue to brood over more expensive Taiwanese stocks due to the US-China conflict. This has motivated our longstanding long Korea / short Taiwan recommendation. Chart 7Global Economy Speaks Louder Than North Korea Chart 8China Wary Of Over-Tightening Policy Chart 9Global Stock-Bond Ratio Registers Good News Second, China’s 2020 stimulus will have lingering effects and it is wary of over-tightening monetary and fiscal policy, lest it undo its domestic economic recovery. The tenor of China’s Central Economic Work Conference in December has reinforced this view. Chart 8 illustrates the expectations of our China Investment Strategy regarding China’s credit growth and local government bond issuance. They suggest that there will not be a sharp withdrawal of fiscal or quasi-fiscal support in 2021. Stability is especially important in the lead up to the critical leadership rotation in 2022.3 This policy backdrop will be positive for global/EM equities despite the political crackdown on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s opponents will occur despite this supportive policy backdrop. The global stock-to-bond ratio has surged in clear recognition of these positive policy trends (Chart 9). Government bonds were deeply overbought and it will take several years before central banks begin tightening policy. What About Biden’s Foreign Policy? Chart 10OPEC 2.0 Cartel Continues (For Now) Iran poses a genuine geopolitical risk this year – first in the form of an oil supply risk, should conflict emerge in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, or elsewhere in the region. This would inject a risk premium into the oil price. Later the risk is the opposite as a deal with the Biden administration would create the prospect for Iran to attract foreign investment and begin pumping oil, while putting pressure on the OPEC 2.0 coalition to abandon its current, tentative, production discipline in pursuit of market share (Chart 10). Biden has the executive authority to restore the 2015 nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). He is in favor of doing so in order to (1) prevent the Middle East from generating a crisis that consumes his foreign policy; (2) execute an American grand strategy of reviving its Asia Pacific influence; (3) cement the Obama administration’s legacy. The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also has a clear interest in returning to the deal before the country’s presidential election in June. This would salvage his legacy and support his “reformist” faction. The Supreme Leader also has a chance to pin the negative aspects of the deal on a lame duck president while benefiting from it economically as he prepares for his all-important succession. The problem is that extreme levels of distrust will require some brinkmanship early in Biden’s term. Iran is building up leverage ahead of negotiations, which will mean higher levels of uranium enrichment and demonstrating the range of its regional capabilities, including the Strait of Hormuz, and its ability to impose economic pain via oil prices. Biden will need to establish a credible threat if Iran misbehaves. Hence the geopolitical setting is positive for oil prices at the moment. Beyond Iran, there is a clear basis for policy uncertainty to decline for Europe and the UK while it remains elevated for China and Russia (Chart 11). Chart 11Relative Policy Uncertainty Favors Europe and UK Over Russia And China The US international image has suffered from the Trump era and the Biden administration’s main priorities will lie in solidifying alliances and partnerships and stabilizing the US role in the world, rather than pursuing showdown and confrontation. However, it will not be long before scrutiny returns to the authoritarian states, which have been able to focus on domestic recovery and expanding their spheres of influence amid the US’s tumultuous election year. Chart 12GeoRisk Indicators Say Risks Underrated For These Bourses The US will not seek a “diplomatic reset” with Russia, aside from renegotiating the New START treaty. The Democrats will seek to retaliate for Russia’s extensive cyberattack in 2021 as well as for election interference and psychological warfare in the United States. And while there probably will be a reset with China, it will be short-lived, as outlined above. This situation contrasts with that of the Atlantic sphere. The Biden administration is a crystal clear positive, relative to a second Trump term, for the European Union. The EU and the UK have just agreed to a trade deal, as expected, to conclude the Brexit process, which means that the US-UK “special relationship” will not be marred by disagreements over Ireland. European solidarity has also strengthened as a result of the pandemic, which highlighted the need for collective policy responses, including fiscal. Thus the geopolitical risks of the new administration are most relevant for China/Taiwan and Russia. Comparing our GeoRisk Indicators, which are market-based, with the relative equity performance of these bourses, Taiwanese stocks are the most vulnerable because markets are increasingly pricing the geopolitical risk yet the relative stock performance is toppy (Chart 12). The limited recovery in Russian equities is also at risk for the same reason. Only in China’s case has the market priced lower geopolitical risk, not least because of the positive change in US administration. We expect Biden and Xi Jinping to be friendly at first but for strategic distrust to reemerge by the second half of the year. This will be a rude awakening for Chinese stocks – or China-exposed US stocks, especially in the tech sector. Investment Takeaways Chart 13Global Policy Shifts Drive Big Investment Reversals The US is politically divided. Civil unrest and aftershocks of the controversial election will persist but markets will ignore it unless it has a systemic impact. The policy consequence is a more proactive fiscal policy, resulting in virtual fiscal-monetary coordination that is positive both for global demand and risk assets, while negative for the US dollar. The Biden administration will succeed in partially repealing the Trump tax cuts, but the impact on corporate profit margins will be discounted fairly mechanically and quickly by market participants, while the impact on economic growth will be more than offset by huge new spending. Sentiment will improve after the pandemic – and Biden has not yet shown an inclination to take an anti-business tone. The past decade has been marked by a dollar bull market and the outperformance of developed markets over emerging markets and growth stocks like technology over value stocks like financials. Cyclical sectors have traded in a range. Going forward, a secular rise in geopolitical Great Power competition is likely to persist but the macro backdrop has shifted with the decline of the dollar. Cyclical sectors are now poised to outperform while a bottom is forming in value stocks and emerging markets (Chart 13). We recommend investors go strategically long emerging markets relative to developed. We are also going long global value over growth stocks. We are not yet ready to close our gold trade given that the two supports, populist fiscal turn and great power struggle, will continue to be priced by markets in the near term. We are throwing in the towel on our short CNY-USD trade after the latest upleg in the renminbi, though our view continues to be that geopolitical fundamentals will catch yuan investors by surprise when they reassert themselves. We also recommend preferring global equities to US equities, given the above-mentioned global trends plus looming tax hikes.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 January 6, 2020, twitter.com. 2 See Turchin and Andrey Korotayev, "The 2010 Structural-Demographic Forecast for the 2010-2020 Decade: A Retrospective Assessment," PLoS ONE 15:8 (2020), journals.plos.org. 3 Not to mention that 2021 is the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary – not a time to make an unforced policy error with an already wobbly economy.

Special Report

Dear Client, I am writing as the US Capitol goes under lockdown to tell you about a new development at BCA Research. Since you are a subscriber of Geopolitical Strategy, we wanted you to be the first to know. This month we are launching a new sister service, US Political Strategy, which will expand and deepen our coverage of investment-relevant US domestic political risks and opportunities. Over the past decade, we at Geopolitical Strategy have worked hard to craft an analytical framework that incorporates policy insights into the investment process in a systematic and data-dependent way. We have learned a lot from your input and have refined our method, while also building new quantitative models and indicators to supplement our qualitative, theme-based coverage. While our method served us well in 2020, the frantic US election cycle often caused clients to lament that US politics had begun to crowd out our traditional focus on truly global themes and trends. We concurred. Therefore we have decided to expand our team and deepen our coverage. With a series of new hires, we are now better positioned to provide greater depth on US markets in US Political Strategy while redoubling our traditional global sweep in the pages of Geopolitical Strategy. Going forward, US Political Strategy will cover executive orders, Capitol Hill, federal agencies, regulatory risk, the Supreme Court, emerging socioeconomic trends, and their impacts on key US sectors and assets. It will be BCA Research’s newest premium investment strategy service and will include the full gamut of weekly reports, special reports, webcasts, and client conferences. Meanwhile Geopolitical Strategy will return to its core competency of geopolitics writ large – including the US in its global impacts, but diving deeper into the politics and markets of China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, the Middle East, and select emerging markets.  Both strategies will utilize our proprietary analytical framework, which relies on data-driven assessments of the “checks and balances” that shape policy outcomes (i.e. comparing constraints versus preferences). As you know best, we are agnostic about political parties, transparent about conviction levels and scenario probabilities, and solely focused on getting the market calls right. To this end, we offer you a complimentary trial subscription of US Political Strategy. We aim to become an integral part of your work flow – separating the wheat from the chaff in the political and geopolitical sphere so that you can focus on honing your investment process. We know you will be pleased to see Geopolitical Strategy return to its roots – and we hope you will consider diving deeper with us into US politics and markets. We look forward to hearing from you. Happy New Year! All very best, Matt Gertken, Vice President BCA Research   The outgoing Trump administration is powerless to stop the presidential transition and the US military and security forces will not participate in any “coup.” Investors should buy the dip if social instability affects the markets between now and President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day. Democrats have achieved a sweep of US government with two victories in Georgia’s Senate election. The Biden administration is no longer destined for paralysis. Investors no longer need fear a premature tightening of US fiscal policy. Fiscal thrust will expand by around 6.9% of GDP more than it otherwise would have in FY2021 and contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022. Democrats will partly repeal the Trump tax cuts to pay for new spending programs, including an expansion and entrenchment of Obamacare. Big Tech is the most exposed to the combination of higher corporate taxes and inflation expectations. Investors should go long risk assets and reflation plays on a 12-month basis. We recommend value over growth stocks, materials over tech, TIPS over nominal treasuries, infrastructure plays, and municipal bonds. The special US Senate elections in Georgia produced a two-seat victory for Democrats on January 5 and have thus given the Democratic Party de facto control of the Senate.Financial markets have awaited this election with bated breath. The “reflation trade” – bets on economic recovery on the back of ultra-dovish monetary and fiscal policy – had taken a pause for the election. There was a slight setback in treasury yields and the outperformance of cyclical, small cap, and value stocks, which rallied sharply after the November 3 general election (Chart 1). The Democratic victory ensures that US corporate and individual taxes will go up – triggering a one-off drop in earnings per share of about 11%, according to our US Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou (Table 1). But it also brings more proactive fiscal policy. Since the Democrats project larger new spending programs financed by tax hikes, the big takeaway is that the US economic recovery will gain momentum and will not be undermined by premature fiscal tightening. Chart 1Markets Will Look Through Unrest To Reflation   Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Chart 2Democrats Won Georgia Seats, US Senate Republicans Snatch Defeat From Jaws Of Victory The results of the Georgia runoffs, at the latest count, are shown in Chart 2. Republican Senator David Perdue has not yet officially lost the race, as votes are still being tallied, but he trails his Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff by 16,370 votes. This is a gap that is unlikely to be changed by subsequent vote disputes or recounts (though it is possible and the results are not yet declared as we go to press). President-elect Joe Biden only lost 1,274 votes to President Trump when ballots were recounted by hand in November. The Democratic victory offers some slight consolation for opinion pollsters who underestimated Republicans in the general election in certain states. Opinion polls had shown a dead heat in both of Georgia’s races, with Republican Senators Perdue and Kelly Loeffler deviating by 1.4% and 0.4% respectively from their support rate in the average of polls in December. Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock differed by 1.3% and 2.3% from their final polling (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3AOpinion Pollsters Did Better … Chart 3B… In Georgia Runoffs By comparison, in the November 3 general election, polls underestimated Perdue by 1.3% and overestimated Warnock by 5.3% (Chart 4). On the whole, the election shows that state-level opinion polling can improve to address new challenges. Our quantitative Senate election model had given Republicans a 78% chance of winning Georgia. This they did in the first round of the election, but conditions have changed since November 3, namely due to President Trump’s refusal to concede the election after the Electoral College voted on December 14.1 Our model is based on structural factors so it did not distinguish between the two Senate candidates in the same state. For the whole election, the model predicted that Democrats would win a net of three seats, resulting in a Republican majority of 51-49. Today we see that the model only missed two states: Maine and Georgia. But Georgia has made all the difference, with the result to be 50-50, for Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie (Chart 5). Chart 4Ossoff In Line With Polls, Warnock Slightly Beat Chart 5Our Quant Model Missed Maine And Georgia – And Georgia Carries Two Seats To Turn The Senate COVID-19 likely took a further toll on Republican support in the interim between the two election rounds. The third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has not peaked in the US or the Peach State. While the number of cases has spiked in Georgia as elsewhere, the number of deaths has not yet followed (Chart 6). Chart 6COVID-19 Surged Since November Lame Duck Trump Risk Before proceeding to the policy impacts of the apparent Democratic sweep of both executive and legislative branches, a word must be said about the presidential transition and President Trump’s final 14 days in office. First, the Joint Session of Congress to count the Electoral College ballots to certify the election of the new US president has been interrupted as we go to press. There is zero chance that protesters storming the proceedings will change the outcome of the election. The counting of the electoral votes can be interrupted for debate; it will be reconvened. Disputes over the vote could theoretically become meaningful if Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, as the combined voice of the legislature could challenge the legitimacy of a state’s electoral votes. But today the Republicans only control the Senate, and while some will press isolated challenges, based on legal disputes of variable merit, these challenges will not gain traction in the Senate let alone in the Democratic-controlled House. What did the US learn from this controversial election? US political polarization is reaching extreme peaks which are putting strain on the formal political system, but Trump lacks the strength in key government bodies to overturn the election. Second, there was no willingness of state legislatures to challenge their state executives on the vote results. This has to do with the evidence upon which challenges could be lodged, but there is also a built-in constraint. Any state legislature whose ruling party opposes the popular result will by definition put its own popular support in jeopardy in the next election. Third, the Supreme Court largely washed its hands of state-level disputes settled by state-level courts. Historically, the Supreme Court never played a role in presidential elections. The year 2000 was an exception, as the high court said at the time. The 2020 election has established a high bar for any future Supreme Court involvement, though someday it will likely be called on to weigh in. Hysteria regarding the conservative leaning on the court – which is now a three-seat gap – was misplaced. The three Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump took no partisan or interventionist role. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative leaning will be one of the Trump administration’s biggest legacies. The marginal judge in controversial cases is now more conservative and will take a larger role given that Democrats now have a greater ability to pass legislation by taking the Senate. President Trump is still in office for 14 days. There is zero chance of a successful military coup or anything of the sort in a republic in which institutions are strong and the military swears allegiance to the constitution. Attempts to oppose the Electoral College and Congress will be opposed – and ultimately they will be met with an overwhelming reassertion of the rule of law. All ten of the surviving secretaries of defense of the United States have signed an open letter saying that the election results should no longer be resisted and that any defense officials who try to involve the military in settling electoral disputes could be criminally liable.2 With Trump’s options for contesting the election foreclosed, he will turn to signing a flurry of executive orders to cement his legacy. His primary legacy is the US confrontation with China, so he will continue to impose sanctions on China on the way out, posing a tactical risk to equity prices. The business community will be slow to comply, however, so the next administration will set China policy. There is a small possibility that Trump will order economic or even military action against Iran or any other state that provokes the United States. But Trump is opposed to foreign wars and the bureaucracy would obstruct any major actions that do not conform with national interests. Basically, Trump’s final 14 days may pose a downside risk to equities that have rallied sharply since the November 9 vaccine announcement but we are long equities and reflation plays. Sweeps Just As Good For Stocks As Gridlock The balance of power in Congress is shown in Chart 7. The majorities are extremely thin, which means that although Democrats now have control, there will remain high uncertainty over the passage of legislation, at least until the 2022 midterm elections. Investors can now draw three solid conclusions about the makeup of US government from the 2020 election: The White House’s political capital has substantially improved – President-elect Joe Biden no longer faces a divided Congress. He won by a 4.5% popular margin (51.4% of the total), bringing the popular and electoral vote back into alignment. He will have a higher net approval rating than Trump in general, and household sentiment, business sentiment, and economic conditions will improve from depressed, pandemic-stricken levels over the course of his term. The Senate is evenly split but Democrats will pass some major legislation – Thin margins in the Senate make it hard to pass legislation in general. However, the budget reconciliation process enables laws to pass with a simple majority if they involve fiscal matters. Hence, Democrats will be able to legislate additional COVID relief and social support that they were not able to pass in the end-of-year budget bill. They can pass a reconciliation bill for fiscal 2022 as well. They will focus on economic recovery followed by expanding and entrenching the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). We fully expect a partial repeal of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, if not initially then later in the year. Democrats only have a five-seat majority in the House of Representatives – Democrats will vote with their party and thus 222 seats is enough to maintain a working majority. But the most radical parts of the agenda, such as the Green New Deal, will be hard to pass. Chart 7Democrats Control Both Houses With the thinnest possible margin, the Senate has a highly unreliable balance of power. Table 2 shows top three Republicans and Democrats in terms of age, centrist ideology, and independent mentality. Four senators are above the age of 85 – they can vote freely and could also retire or pass away. Centrist and maverick senators will carry enormous weight as they will provide the decisive votes. The obvious example is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has opposed the far-left wing of his party on critical issues such as the Green New Deal, defunding the police, and the filibuster. Table 2The Senate Will Hinge On These Senators The Democrats could conceivably muster the 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote majority to pass most legislation, but it will be very difficult. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D, CA), Angus King (I, ME), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), Jon Tester (D, MT), and Manchin are all skeptical of revoking this critical hurdle to Senate legislation.3 We would not rule it out, however. The US has reached a point of “peak polarization” in which surprises should be expected. By the same token, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins often vote against their party. Collins just won yet another tough race in Maine due to her ability to bridge the partisan gap. There are also mavericks like Rand Paul – and Ted Cruz will have to rethink his populist strategy given his thin margins of victory and the Trump-induced Republican defeat in the South. Not shown are other moderates who will be eager to cross the political aisle, such as Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. None of the above means Democrats will fail to raise taxes. All Democrats voted against Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which did not end up being popular or politically beneficial for the Republicans. The Democratic base is fired up and mobilized by Trump to pursue its core agenda of increasing the government role in US society and the economy and redressing various imbalances and disparities. This requires revenue, especially if it is to be done with only 51 votes via the budget reconciliation process. The two Democratic senators from Arizona are vulnerable, but they will toe the party line because Trump and the GOP were out of step with the median voter. Moreover, Arizonians voted for higher taxes in a state ballot measure in November. Since 1980, gridlocked government has resulted in higher average annual returns on the S&P500. But since 1949, single-party sweeps have slightly edged out gridlocked governments in stock returns, though the results are about the same (Chart 8). The point is that gridlock makes it hard for government to get big things done. Sometimes that is positive for markets, sometimes not. The macro backdrop is what matters. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to start tightening until late 2022 at earliest and fiscal thrust in 2021-22 will be more expansionary now that the Democrats have control of the Senate. This policy backdrop is negative for the dollar and positive for risk assets, especially equity sectors that will suffer least from impending corporate tax hikes, such as energy, industrials, consumer staples, materials, and financials. Chart 8Sweeps Don’t Always Underperform Gridlock Meanwhile, Biden will have far less trouble getting his cabinet and judicial appointments through the Senate (Appendix). His appointees so far reflect his desire to return the US to “rule by experts,” as opposed to Trump’s disruptive style of personal rule. Investors will cheer the return to technocrats and predictable policymaking even if they later relearn that experts make gigantic mistakes too. Fiscal Policy Outlook The critical feature of the Trump administration was the COVID-19 pandemic, which sent the US budget deficit soaring to World War II levels relative to GDP. In the coming years, the change in the budget deficit (fiscal thrust) will necessarily be negative, dragging on growth rates (Chart 9). Fiscal policy determines how heavy and abrupt that drag will be. Chart 9US Budget Deficit Surged – Pace Of Normalization Matters Chart 10 presents four scenarios that we adjusted based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline would see an extraordinary 6.7% of GDP contraction in the budget deficit that would kill the recovery, which the Georgia outcome has now rendered irrelevant. The “Republican Status Quo” scenario is now the minimum. Chart 10Democratic Sweep Suggests Big Fiscal Thrust In FY2021 And Less Contraction FY2022 The “Democratic Status Quo” scenario assumes that the $600 per household rebate will be increased to $2,000 per family and that the remaining $2.5 trillion of the Democrats’ proposed HEROES Act will be enacted. The “Democratic High” scenario adds Biden’s $5.6 trillion policy agenda on top of the Democratic status quo, supercharging the economic recovery with a fiscal bonanza. Biden will not achieve all of this, so the reality will lie somewhere between the solid blue and dotted blue lines. This Democratic status quo implies a 6.9% of GDP expansion of the deficit in FY2021. It also implies that the deficit will contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022, instead of 13.5% in the Republican status quo scenario. The economic recovery will be better supported. So, too, will the Fed’s timeline for rate hikes – but the Fed’s new strategy of average inflation targeting shows that it is targeting an inflation overshoot. So the threat of Fed liftoff is not immediate. The longer the extraordinary fiscal largesse is maintained, the greater the impact on inflation expectations and the more upward pressure on bond yields (Chart 11). Big Tech will be the one to suffer while Big Banks, industrials, materials, and energy will benefit. Chart 11Bond Bearish Blue Sweep Our US Political Risk Matrix There is no correlation between fiscal thrust and equity returns. This is true whether we consider the broad market, cyclicals/defensives, value/growth stocks, or small/large caps (Chart 12). Normally, fiscal thrust surges when recessions and bear markets occur, leading to volatility in asset prices. However, in the new monetary policy context, the risk is to the upside for the above-mentioned sectors, styles, and segments. Looking at sector performance before and after the November 3 election and November 9 vaccine announcement, there has been a clear shift from pandemic losers to pandemic winners. Big Tech and Consumer Discretionary (Amazon) thrived during the period before the vaccine, while value stocks (industrials, energy, financials) suffered the most from the lockdowns. These trends have reversed, with energy and financials outperforming the market since November (Chart 13). The Biden administration poses regulatory risks for Big Oil and arguably Big Banks, but these will come into play after the market has priced in economic normalization and the emerging consensus in favor of monetary-fiscal policy coordination, which is very positive for these sectors. Chart 12Fiscal Thrust Not Correlated With Stocks Chart 13Energy And Financials Turned Around With Vaccine In the case of energy, as stated above, the Biden administration will still struggle to get anything resembling the Green New Deal approved in Congress. Nevertheless, environmental regulation will expand and piecemeal measures to promote research and development, renewables, electric vehicles, and other green initiatives may pass. Large cap energy firms are capable of adjusting to this kind of transition. Coal companies are obviously losers. In the case of financials, Biden’s record is not unfriendly to the financial industry. His nominee for Treasury Secretary, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen, approved of the relaxation of some of its more stringent financial regulations under the Trump administration. Big Banks are no longer the target of popular animus like they were after the 2008 financial crisis – in that regard they have given way to Big Tech. Our US Investment Strategist Doug Peta argues that the Democratic sweep will smother any gathering momentum in personal loan defaults, which would help banks outperform the broad market. Biden’s regulatory approach to Big Tech will be measured, as the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley persists, but tech stands to suffer the most from higher taxes, especially a minimum corporate tax rate. With a unified Congress, it is also now possible that new legislation could expand tech regulation. There is a bipartisan consensus emerging on tech regulation so Republican votes can be garnered. Tech thrives on growth-scarce, disinflationary environments whereas the latest developments are positive for inflation expectations. In the recent lead-up to the Georgia vote, industrials, financials, and consumer discretionary stocks have not benefited much, even though they should (Chart 14). These are investment opportunities. Chart 14Upside For Energy And Financials Despite Regulatory Risk In our Political Risk Matrix, we establish these views as our baseline political tilts, to be applied to the BCA Research House View of our US Equity Strategy. The results are shown in Table 3. When equity sectors become technically stretched, the political impacts will become more salient. Table 3US Political Risk Matrix Investment Takeaways Over the past few years our sister Geopolitical Strategy has written extensively about “Civil War Lite,” “Peak Polarization,” and contested elections in the United States. We will dive deeper into these themes and issues in forthcoming reports, but for now suffice it to say that extremist events will galvanize the majority of the nation behind the new administration while also driving politicians of both stripes to use pork-barrel spending to try to stabilize the country. Congress will err on the side of providing too much fiscal stimulus just as surely as the Fed is bent on erring on the side of providing too much monetary stimulus. That means reflation, which will ultimately boost stocks in 2021. We also expect stocks to outperform government bonds, at least on a tactical 3-6 month timeframe. As the above makes clear, we prefer value stocks over growth stocks. Specifically we favor cyclical plays like materials over the big five of Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook. An infrastructure bill was one of the few legislative options for the Biden administration under gridlock, now it is even more likely. Infrastructure is popular and both presidential candidates competed to see who could offer the bigger plan. Moreover, what Biden cannot achieve under the rubric of climate policy he can try to achieve under the rubric of infrastructure. The BCA US Infrastructure Basket correlates with the US budget deficit as well as growth in China/EM and we recommend investors pursue similar plays. In the fixed income space, Treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) are likely to continue outperforming nominal, duration-matched government bonds. Our US Bond Strategist Ryan Swift is on alert to downgrade this recommendation, but the change in US government configuration at least motivates a tactical overweight in TIPS. The chances of US state and local governments receiving fiscal support – previously denied by the GOP Senate – has increased so we will also go long municipal bonds relative to treasuries.   Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Perdue defeated Ossoff on November 3 but fell short of the 50% threshold to avoid a second round; meanwhile the cumulative Republican vote in the multi-candidate special election outnumbered the cumulative Democratic vote on November 3. 2     Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, et al, “All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory,” Washington Post, January 3, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 3    Jordain Carney, “Filibuster fight looms if Democrats retake Senate,” The Hill, August 25, 2020, thehill.com.  

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Q3/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark by +19bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +10bps, led by overweights in US (+13bps), Canada (+2bps) and Italy (+4bps) that favored allocations to inflation-linked government bonds out of nominals. Spread product generated a similar-sized outperformance (+9bps), led by overweights to US investment grade corporates (+8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar. Feature As we enter the final quarter of 2020, global financial markets are dealing with many near-term uncertainties related to the upcoming US presidential election, potential next moves in global policy stimulus and, perhaps most worrying, a second wave of coronavirus infections in Europe and the US. That means the “easy money” has been made in global fixed income from the unwind of the blowout in credit spreads, and collapse of government bond yields, seen following the COVID-19 related market turbulence of February and March. Investors should expect substantially lower fixed income returns in the coming months. Relative performance between countries and sectors will be the more dominant influence on bond portfolio returns in the absence of big directional moves in yields or spreads. Alternatively put, expect alpha to win out over beta. This week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Another Positive Quarter, Led By Linkers & Corporates Chart of the WeekQ3/2020 Performance: Gains From Both Sides Of The Portfolio The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was 3.14%, modestly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +19bps (Chart of the Week).1 This is the second consecutive positive quarter, lifting the year-to-date outperformance into positive territory (+12bps) – an impressive accomplishment given the sharp drawdown that occurred during the market volatility of February and March. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +10bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +9bps. That government bond return includes a substantial gain (+17bps) from inflation-linked bonds, which we added as a new asset class in our model portfolio framework back on June 23.2 In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the relatively higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada and Italy was an important source of outperformance, delivering a combined excess return of +19bps (including inflation-linked bonds). This was only partially offset by the negative active returns from underweights in low-yielding countries such as Germany, France, and Japan (a combined drag of -9bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Overall Return Attribution In spread product, our overweights in US investment grade corporates (+8bps), UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) and US Agency CMBS (+4bps) were the main sources of outperformance, while the negative active return from underweighting Euro Area high yield (-2bps) was minimal. Our preference to favor higher-rated US high-yield relative to lower-rated US junk bonds, even as riskier credit rallied, did little damage to portfolio performance, with a combined excess return across all three US junk credit tiers of just -2bps. The moderate outperformance of the model bond portfolio versus the benchmark in Q3 is in line with our cautious recommended stance on what are always the largest drivers of the portfolio returns: overall duration exposure and the relative allocation between government debt and spread product. We have stuck close to benchmark exposures on both, eschewing big directional bets on bond yields or credit spreads while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors – particularly in sectors most strongly supported by central bank easing actions, like US investment grade corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Long US TIPS (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade industrials (+5bps) Overweight US Agency CMBS (+4bps) Overweight UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) Overweight US high-yield Ba-rated corporates (+3bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight French government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-4bps) Underweight US high-yield B-rated corporates (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2020. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2020 The top performing sectors within our model bond portfolio universe in Q3 were well distributed among government bonds and spread products: Italian government bonds (relative index return of +3.8), New Zealand government bonds (+3.0%), EM USD-denominated sovereign (+2.6%), US high-yield corporates (2.4%), Spanish government bonds (+2.3%), and investment grade corporates in the UK (+2%) and US (1.9%). Importantly, we were overweight or neutral all of those markets during the quarter, driven by our main investment themes of “buying what the central banks are buying” and “yield chasing.”4 On the other side, we had limited exposure to the worst performing sectors during Q3, with underweights to government bonds in Germany and Japan, US Agency MBS and euro area high-yield. Cutting our long-standing overweight on UK Gilts to neutral in early August also benefitted the portfolio performance, with Gilts being the worst performer in our model bond universe by far in Q3. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio modestly outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +19bps – a positive result driven by our relative positioning that favored higher yielding government debt and spread product sectors directly supported by central bank purchases. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. This is in line with the current strategic investment recommendations of the BCA Research fixed income services. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. The overall duration of the portfolio is in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 5), consistent with our strategic investment recommendation to be neutral on exposure to changes in interest rates. With central banks actively seeking to keep policy rates as low as possible until inflation returns – i.e. aiming to push real rates even lower - we expect the negative correlation seen between global inflation breakevens and real bond yields to persist over at least the next 6-12 months. Offsetting moves in both will continue to dampen the volatility of nominal bond yields, as has been the case over the past six months (Chart 6). Chart 5Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: At Benchmark Central banks aiming for an inflation overshoot and negative real rates will also continue to boost the relative performance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal equivalents. Chart 6Within Governments, Continue Overweighting Linkers Vs Nominals We see this as a similar environment to the years following the 2008 financial crisis, with central banks keeping rates at 0% while rapidly expanding their balance sheets via quantitative easing and cheap liquidity provision for banks. The result was a multi-year period where linkers outperformed nominal government bonds (Chart 7). Thus, we are maintaining a large core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy and Canada. Chart 7The Strategic Case For Inflation-Linked Bond Outperformance Chart 8Overall Portfolio Allocation: Moderately Overweight Credit Vs Governments In terms of country allocations on the government bond side of the portfolio, we continue to favor overweights in higher-yielding markets with overall global yield volatility likely to remain subdued. Chart 9Global QE Continues To Support Credit Markets That means overweighting the US, Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, while underweighting Germany, France and Japan. The UK belongs in that latter list, but we are maintaining a neutral stance on the UK, for now, given the near-term uncertainty surrounding final Brexit negotiations and the surge in new UK COVID-19 cases. Turning to spread product, we are maintaining only a moderate aggregate overweight allocation versus government bonds, equal to 4% of the portfolio (Chart 8). The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy and expansion of central bank balance sheets that is good for relative inflation-linked bond performance also benefits global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has proven to be an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 9). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 40% pace, corporate bonds are likely to continue to outperform government debt over the next 6-12 months. Thus, our allocation to inflation-linked bonds and corporate credit, both out of nominal government bonds, are both motivated by the same factor – monetary policy reflation. The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. At the same time, we continue to maintain a cautious stance on allocations to countries and sectors within that overall overweight tilt towards spread product in the model bond portfolio. We prefer to stay relatively up-in-quality within global corporate debt, even with high-yield bonds in the US and Europe offering relatively high spreads using our 12-month breakeven spread metric (Chart 10).5 Chart 10US & European HY Offer Relatively Wide Breakeven Spreads Chart 11US & European HY Offer No Spread Cushion Against Rising Defaults The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. Our measure of the default-adjusted spread, calculated by taking the option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays high-yield index and subtracting default losses, shows that high-yield spreads on both sides of the Atlantic will be dwarfed by expected default losses over the next year, assuming a typical pattern of defaults after recessions (Chart 11). We continue to prefer staying up-in-quality within our recommended corporate allocations, favoring Ba-rated US high-yield over B-rated and Caa-rated credit while also underweighting euro area high-yield relative to euro area investment grade corporates. This strategy lowers the yield of the model portfolio, which is currently in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 12), at the expense of stretching for yields in riskier credit that may not be sustainable over the medium-term. Chart 12Overall Portfolio Yield: At Benchmark Chart 13Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate At the same time, our measured stance on relative corporate exposure also acts to reduce portfolio risk – a useful outcome as we are targeting a relatively moderate tracking error (relative portfolio volatility versus that of the benchmark) within the model portfolio (Chart 13). Given the near-term uncertainties over the US elections and the potential second wave of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, staying relatively cautious on the usage of the “risk budget” of the portfolio seems prudent. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In past quarterly reviews of our model bond portfolio, we have presented forecasts for the performance of the overall portfolio based off scenario analysis and some simple quantitative model-based predictions of various fixed income sectors. Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 shock, we chose to avoid such model driven forecasts based on historical coefficients and correlations that may not be applicable. As it turns out, we may have been too cautious in that decision. The “risk-factor” models that we have used to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A) - have actually done a reasonable job of predicting yield changes over the past year. This can be seen in the charts shown in the Appendix on pages 18-20. Only in the case of US Caa-rated high-yield and EM USD-denominated corporates – two sectors where we are underweight given our concerns about valuation - have yields fallen by a far greater amount than implied by our models. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. For the government bond side, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those into changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Chart 14Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs (Chart 14): Base Case: The US election result is initially uncertain, but a clear winner is determined within a few days. COVID cases continue to increase, but with less severe economic restrictions than during the first wave. Global growth continues to show steady improvement. There will be some additional global fiscal stimulus, with central banks keeping foot on monetary accelerator. There is mild bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with moderate widening of US inflation breakevens. The VIX reaches 25, the USD dollar depreciates by -5%, oil prices climb 10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. Optimistic Scenario: The US election goes smoothly and a clear winner is declared on election night. The current uptick in global COVID cases does not turn into a full-blown second wave requiring severe economic restrictions. Global growth continues to steadily improve, with additional global fiscal stimulus and central banks staying highly dovish. The US Treasury curve bear steepens as US inflation expectations steadily increase. The VIX falls to 20, the USD dollar depreciates by -7%, oil prices climb 20%, and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 15US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Pessimistic Scenario: There is a contested US election result taking weeks to resolve, leading to major US social unrest. A full-blown second COVID-19 wave hits the world and severe economic restrictions are implemented. Governments become more worried about debt/deficits and deliver underwhelming stimulus. Central banks do not provide enough additional stimulus to offset the shocks. The US Treasury curve bull-flattens as US inflation breakevens plunge. The VIX soars to 35, the USD dollar rise by 5%, oil prices fall -20%, while the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B and Chart 15). The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +17bps in the base case and +27bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -1bp in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of lobal Inflation Expectations", dated June 23 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 The 12-month breakeven spread measures the amount of spread widening that must take place for a credit product to have the same return over a one-year horizon as a duration-matched position in government bonds. We compare those breakeven spreads to their own history in a percentile ranking to determine the relative attractiveness of a credit product strictly from a spread and spread volatility perspective. Appen dix Appendix Chart 1US Investment Grade Sectors Appendix Chart 2US High-Yield Credit Tiers Appendix Chart 3US MBS & CMBS Appendix Chart 4Euro Area And UK Credit Appendix Chart 5Emerging Markets USD-Denominated Debt 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 Portfolio Strategy We opt to stay patient and refrain from deploying fresh capital especially in the tech sector in the near-term; a better entry point will likely materialize between now and the end of the year. The softening demand backdrop that is weighing on selling prices, the rekindling of the US/China tech-related trade war and the risk of a reflex rebound in the US dollar, all warn to shy away from semi cap stocks. A balanced outlook keeps us on the sidelines in the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities tried to regain their footing last week, but risks still lingering on the (geo)political front should sustain the tug of war between bulls and bears and rekindle volatility. While monetary and fiscal policies will remain loose, the intensity of easing is waning as both the Fed’s impulse (i.e. second derivative) of asset purchases has ground to a halt and Congress has hit a stalemate over the next round of stimulus. Crudely put, the thrust of monetary and fiscal policies is at heightened risk of shifting from stimulative to contractive (Chart 1). As a result, we remain patient with fresh capital and will wait to deploy it when the dust settles hopefully by the end of the year. Turning to equity market internals and other high frequency financial market data is instructive in order to get a clearer picture of the direction of the broad equity market. The value line arithmetic and geometric indexes and small cap stocks that led the March 23 SPX trough are emitting a distress signal (Chart 2). Chart 1Running Out Of Thrust Chart 2Market Internals... Drilling deeper on a sector basis, hypersensitive chip stocks, energy shares, and discretionary versus staples equities will likely weigh on the prospects of the broad equity market (Chart 3). The VIX index, the vol curve and the yield curve, all excellent leading indicators of the S&P 500, have crested and warn that the shakeout phase has yet to run its course (VIX shown inverted ,Chart 4). Chart 3...Say It Is Prudent... Chart 4...To Remain On The Sidelines Trying to quantify the SPX drawdown, we turn to CBOE’s equity put/call (EPC) ratio. The EPC ratio is nowhere near recent extreme readings. SPX pullbacks since the early-2018 “Volmageddon” have corresponded to significantly higher EPC ratio readings. In the past 10 such iterations, the median EPC ratio has been 0.86, the mean 0.93, with a range of 0.77 to 1.28 (Table 2). Currently, the EPC ratio is hovering near 0.58 suggesting that downside risks persist (EPC ratio shown inverted, Chart 5). Chart 5Downside Risks Persist Table 2Equity Put/Call (EPC) Ratio During Pullbacks Since 2018 Finally, the commodity complex is also firing warnings shots. Lumber has collapsed nearly $300/tbf from the recent peak, oil is trailing gold bullion and silver is also cresting versus the yellow metal, iron ore is petering out and the Baltic dry index is wobbling. True, copper and materials stocks are holding their own, but overwhelmingly commodity market internals are waving a yellow flag (Chart 6). Chart 6Commodity Yellow Flags Netting it all out, we opt to stay patient and refrain from deploying fresh capital especially in the tech space in the near-term; a better entry point will likely materialize between now and the end of the year. This week we reiterate our underweight stance in a niche technology index and shed more light on our recent downgrade to neutral of a key consumer discretionary subgroup. Chip Equipment Update: Tangled Up In The Trade War We remain committed to our intra-tech strategy of preferring defensive software and services tech names to aggressive hardware and equipment tech stocks. In that light, we reiterate our underweight stance in the niche S&P semi equipment index. Recent news of the Trump administration’s potential tightening of the noose on Chinese chip company SMIC (the country’s largest foundry) was a net negative for US semi cap names, similar to export restrictions of American technology to Huawei was a net negative for US semi cap names. As a reminder, these manufacturers count China as one of their largest export market alongside Taiwan and South Korea. Thus, this flare up in the US/Sino trade war bodes ill for semi cap companies’ future sales and profit growth projections (Chart 7). There are high odds that relative share prices have plateaued earlier this month and a fresh down cycle has commenced. Under such a backdrop, this hyper-sensitive manufacturing group will likely overshoot to the down side as is evident in the historical tight correlation with the ISM manufacturing survey: these violent oscillations are warning that a cooling off in the ISM will be severely felt in this niche manufacturing intense index (Chart 8). Chart 7Lofty Expectations Chart 8Violent Oscillations On the global demand front, there is an element that COVID-19 is stealing sales from the future and bringing demand forward. Already global semi sales are rolling over, and a couple of industry pricing power proxies are deflating at an accelerating pace: Asian DRAM prices are topping out in the contraction zone and Taiwanese export prices are sinking like a stone, warning that a deficient demand down cycle will squeeze semi cap profit margins (Chart 9). Importantly, Taiwanese tech capex, which TSMC dominates, has crested, warning that all the euphoria behind 5G deployment and uptake is likely baked in the relative share price ratio. The implication is that semi cap names remain vulnerable to any global 5G-related hiccups (top panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Waning Selling Price Backdrop Chart 10Cresting Finally, the tight positive correlation between Bitcoin prices and the relative share price ratio remains intact. Were a knee-jerk rebound in the US dollar to knock down Bitcoin, at least temporarily, it would serve as a catalyst to shed chip equipment stocks (bottom panel, Chart 10). Moreover, 90% of the industry’s sales originate abroad, thus a rise in the greenback would eat into their P&L via FX translation losses. Adding it all up, a softening demand backdrop that is weighing on selling prices, the rekindling of the US/China tech-related trade war and a reflex rebound in the US dollar, all warn to shy away from semi cap stocks. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P semiconductor equipment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5SEEQ – AMAT, KLAC, LRCX. Home Improvement Retailers: Stay On The Sidelines Two weeks ago our trailing stop was triggered in the S&P home improvement retail index (HIR) and we monetized gains of 15% since the mid-April inception and moved to the sidelines. Today we reiterate our benchmark allocation in this consumer discretionary sub group. Clearly, HIR was a major beneficiary of the lockdown as the US and Canadian governments deemed these retailers “essential” and allowed them to stay open during the peak of the pandemic. These Big Box retailers saw their sales soar as the fiscal easing package replenished consumers’ wallets, and coupled with the lockdown, caused a surge in DIY remodeling activity. Our portfolio also greatly benefited from the stellar performance of the S&P HIR index, as existing home sales staged a significant comeback and inventories of homes for sale receded substantially thus further tightening the residential real estate market (top & middle panels, Chart 11). As reminder, historically a vibrant housing market is synonymous with handsome returns in relative share prices and vice versa. But now a number of stiff headwinds, which our HIR model encapsulates, signal that a lateral digestive move is in store in the coming months (Chart 12). Chart 11Unsustainable Front Running Chart 12Stiff Headwinds First, a repeat of the spike in demand for home improvement projects is highly unlikely, especially given that demand was brought forward. Also during the autumn and winter months there is a natural slowdown in the take-up of remodeling projects until the spring home selling season arrives. Second, the industry’s sales-to-inventories (S/I) ratio is literally off the charts (bottom panel, Chart 11). An inventory build-up and easing in demand will bring back the S/I ratio back to a more reasonable level. Lastly, lumber prices have taken a beating of late collapsing from over $900/tbf to below $600/tbf. This drubbing of this economically hypersensitive commodity directly cuts into HIR earnings. These Big Box retailers make a set margin on lumber sales so as prices fall they take a big bite out of profits (bottom panel, Chart 13). Nevertheless, a few offsets prevent us from turning outright bearish in this early cyclical retailers. Namely, the industry’s profit growth bar is on a par with the broad market and thus does not pose a large hurdle to overcome. Importantly, given that HIR earnings have kept pace with the massive run-up in stock prices (second panel, Chart 14), they have kept relative valuations at bay. While, the S&P HIR 12-month forward P/E trades at a market multiple, the relative forward P/E changes hands at a 20% discount to the historical mean. Thus, HIR enjoy a significant valuation cushion (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Timber! Chart 14But There Are Powerful Offsets Finally, the Fed just explicitly committed to stay on the zero interest rate line until 2023! This easy monetary policy as far as the eye can see is a powerful tonic to early cyclical and interest rate-sensitive home improvement retailers (fed funds rate shown inverted, top panel, Chart 14). Netting it all out, a balanced outlook keeps us on the sidelines in the S&P HIR index.  Bottom Line: Stick with a benchmark allocation in the S&P home improvement retail index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HOMI – HD, LOW.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth

Special Report

Highlights In a world with low expected returns from various asset classes and still-elevated target returns among largely underfunded pension funds, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to meet liability requirements. Canadian pension funds have been more open to using leverage than their US counterparts, but even the very conservative Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) has an allocation to levered asset classes such as private equity, albeit at a very low weight. Retail investors do not have access to low-cost financing as institutional investors do. Still, they too can add leverage via ETFs and Liquid Alts mutual funds. When leverage is used at the asset-class level such as in alternative asset classes, financing costs play an important role in investment decisions. For pension funds with access to low-cost financing, “direct investing” in alternative assets is more advantageous than indirect investment via alternative funds. When leverage is used at the portfolio level, such as via a risk-parity structure, the financing cost impacts mostly just the return, but the leverage constraints impact both return and volatility. Risk-parity strategy is more advantageous when it’s used as one of the strategies in a total portfolio, rather than at the total-fund level because usually a sub-portfolio can have a much higher leverage ratio than the total fund. Leverage should be managed in a centralized risk-management system at the total-fund level, together with all other risk exposures. 1. Why Should Leverage Be Considered? In a Global Asset Allocation Special Report on long-term return assumptions,1 the key conclusion was that, for the next decade, investors would not be able to achieve the kind of return targets they were used to over the previous two decades because all asset classes would see much lower returns going forward, with the largest reductions coming from fixed-income and alternative assets such as farmland, REITs, and commodities. This is bad news for investors, especially pension fund investors with long-term liabilities to match. For example, according to Wilshire Consulting,2 at the end of 2018, the aggregate funded ratio (defined as the fund assets as a percentage of the fund obligations) of 134 US state retirement systems was 72.2%, which is better than the low at the end of 2016 (Chart 1). However, as shown in Chart 2, there were still about 11% of the funds with assets at less than 50% of liabilities. Chart 1US Pensions' Funded Status* Chart 2US Pensions' Funded Ratio Distribution* Over the past two decades, the risk-return profile of traditional assets like equities and government bonds has already been much less attractive than historical averages, as shown in Chart 3, but investors have diversified into credit and alternative asset classes (which contain embedded leverage) to enhance their portfolios’ risk-return profile. Chart 3Future Risk-Return Profiles Less Attractive Than Historical Averages According to the above-mentioned Global Asset Allocation Special Report, with a conventional 50/30/20 (equities/bonds/alts) allocation, a US investor could comfortably achieve a 7% annual return over the past two decades. Now, alternative asset classes have become mainstream, likely producing a much lower future return. The same 50/30/20 portfolio would currently generate only about 4.9% annually, much less than what’s required to match liabilities. In fact, alternatives’ future return expectations have been cut to 6.1% from their past 20-year average of 15.1% annually, meaning that even if 100% of assets are fully invested in alternatives, the expected return will still be lower than the 7% that’s still assumed by some US state pension funds.3 Not to mention that at the end of 2018, over 34% of US retirement pension funds had long-term rate-of-return expectations higher than 7.5%, as shown in Chart 4. Chart 4Challenging Long-Term Return Expectations Chart 5Why Should Leverage Be Considered? According to Modern Portfolio Theory, to achieve a higher return investors can take higher risk in three different ways, as shown in Chart 5:  1) Allocating more funds to higher-return/higher-risk assets, i.e. moving upwards to the right along the efficient frontier (red line) – for example, a 60-40 equity/bond portfolio is well to the upper-right side of the “optimal” allocation; 2) Levering up one or more assets to alter the shape of the frontier (grey line) – for instance, incorporating private-equity and infrastructure funds that contain embedded leverage; and 3) Levering up the “optimal” (in terms of return per unit of risk) risky portfolio with funds borrowed at the total-fund level (green line). Risk parity is a close proximation. For more detail about the basics of leverage, please see Appendix 1 on pages 21-22. Chart 5 illustrates three different frontiers based on the assumed risk-return forecast for US equities, US Treasurys, and alternative assets.4 We can observe the following: When the target return is low (at target 1), leverage does not provide significant benefit no matter which form is used; As the return target moves up relative to what the underlying assets can provide (target 2), direct leverage produces a better return/risk profile than embedded leverage, which in turn is better than the portfolio without any leverage; When the target return is higher than what any efficient combination from the available asset classes can achieve (target 3), investors must consider the use of direct leverage. In theory, investors should always prefer to use leverage at the total-fund level to lever up the “optimal” portfolio. In reality, however, some investors are constrained from borrowing. In addition, some investors do not have the expertise or infrastructure to manage the additional complexity that results from the use of direct leverage. In fact, direct leverage has typically been considered dangerous by many investors. Misuse of leverage was attributed to some high-profile failures, such as Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and Lehman Brothers in 2008. So how has leverage been used by asset allocators? What are the key factors that determine if and how leverage should be used? What are the key risks associated with the use of leverage, and how should leverage be managed? In the sections below, we first review how some pension funds and retail investors have been using leverage (we ignore hedge funds, even though they are the most obvious users of leverage, because they are a part of the “alternative” asset class with embedded leverage). From there, we attempt to address, 1) How does financing cost impact leverage at the asset-class level? and 2) How does financing cost impact the decision to use leverage at the portfolio level if investors are constrained by the amount of leverage that can be used? Finally, we suggest a centralized leverage management framework to monitor and manage leverage at the total-portfolio level. 2. Use of Leverage By Pension Funds Leverage can be applied in many different ways. In general, the use of leverage by pension funds can be grouped into four categories: First, with a focus on return-seeking. This is achieved mainly by using alternative asset funds such as private-equity funds, hedge funds, real-estate funds, and infrastructure funds. These funds have embedded leverage, but with much higher costs. They provide diversification and higher risk-adjusted returns, partly because of their embedded leverage and lock-up advantages. Large pension funds, especially the Canadian pension funds which all have excellent credit ratings and strong in-house talent, have also taken advantage of their solid balance sheets to acquire low-cost financing to invest directly in alternatives. For example, the first bond issued by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) in 2001 was $600 million at 5.7%, while the Canada Public Pension Investment Board (CPPIB) even issued euro-denominated bonds in both 2017 (2 billion euros, 7-year, 0.375% coupon) and 2018 (1 billion euros, 15-year, 1.5% coupon).5 Proceeds from these bond issues have mostly been used to invest in alternative assets, which now account for a large proportion of the major Canadian pension funds’ assets under management (Table 1). Table 1“Alternatives” Have Become Mainstream For The Canadians                     Most US state pension funds are more conservative than their Canadian peers. They too have been gradually adding exposure to alternatives with embedded leverage such as private equity, real estate, and hedge funds, as shown in Chart 6. Even Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), the very conservative Japanese sovereign wealth fund, in its current operating guideline has a 5% allocation to alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and infrastructure.6 That’s an impressive amount considering its first investment in the space was in 2013, as shown in Chart 7. Chart 6The Americans Are Catching Up On Alternatives Chart 7GPIF’s Push Into Alternatives* However, the push into alternative asset classes by large pension funds has made it increasingly difficult to allocate funds to alternative assets. For example, CalPERS has only an 8% allocation to private equity,7  yet its most recent exposure as of June 2019 stood at only 7.1% – because it could not find enough suitable private-equity investments to build the asset class to the desired scale.8 Second, with a focus on liability matching. Pension funds who follow the liability-driven investing (LDI) approach often construct two portfolios. One is the liability-matching portfolio and the other is the active portfolio. The former matches the liabilities, while the latter generates alpha to cover management fees and to provide a cushion for estimation errors. Since most pension liabilities are indexed to inflation, liabilities are often modelled as a combination of nominal bonds and inflation-linked bonds with leverage. The leverage ratio can often be higher than two or three times because of the ultra-long duration of the liabilities versus the available bond instruments. For example, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) uses an LDI approach, which is why its leverage ratio is much higher than some other pension plans, as shown in Chart 8.  Chart 8Use Of Leverage By Some Pension Funds Third, with a focus on risk diversification. Risk-based strategies such as risk parity generate a more diversified portfolio with lower absolute returns compared to a conventional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, but in general have a much higher Sharpe ratio, and therefore require leverage to achieve the required return/risk objective.9 Even though most risk-parity believers dedicate a portion of their assets to risk-parity strategies (either internally with direct leverage or externally with embedded leverage), some pension funds have adopted such a risk-diversification approach at the total-fund level. Danish pension fund ATP and the Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) are two examples. As shown in Chart 8, as of June 2019, MOSERS’ leverage was about 50%,10 a lot higher than CalPERS’ newly augmented total-fund leverage limit of 20% (from 5% previously),11 because CalPERS does not use the same approach to apply leverage. Fourth, with a focus on more tactical moves, such as tail-risk hedging, revenue generation, and opportunistic strategies to take advantage of short-term dislocations in the marketplace. These tactics are achieved mostly using derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps. For example, equity and bond futures or swaps are often used to tactically adjust asset allocation at the total-fund level without impacting the underlying asset-class management. 3. Use of Leverage By Retail Investors Retail investors do not enjoy low-cost financing as large institutions do. They can use lines of credit or margin accounts to invest, and they can also use derivatives if they are qualified to do so. For those who are not qualified or not comfortable using leverage themselves, there are two types of retail products with embedded leverage: Levered or inverse ETFs and “Liquid Alts” mutual funds or ETFs. Levered or Inverse ETFs: These products are rebalanced daily to a fixed leverage multiple, often -3X, -2X, -1X, 2X, and 3X of the underlying assets. As such, only daily performance matches the intended performance objective. Because of the daily realization of gain and loss, they are not suitable for long-term buy-and-hold investors because the longer the holding period, the larger the drift due to the compounding effect. For example, Chart 9 shows the Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) and the associated levered ETFs. It’s interesting to note that in several annual periods ending in 2011, 2016, 2018 and 2019, QQQ’s one-year return was slightly positive, yet 3X ETF’s corresponding returns were negative! This is due to the “negative diversification return” effect as defined by Qian.12 Chart 9NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* Liquid Alternative Mutual Funds/ETFs: These are the “liquid” version of alternative investment strategies aimed at retail investors. They are easy to buy and sell. In Canada, since National Instrument 81-102 became effective in January 2019, retail investors who do not have the sophistication to directly invest in alternatives now have access to such investments via mutual funds and ETFs. As shown in Table 2,13 these funds can utilize leverage up to 3X based on gross aggregate exposure by borrowing or short-selling. In the US, liquid alts have been available to retail investors since 2013, and the market has grown rapidly to over US$225 billion.14 Now there are signs emerging that even some institutional investors are starting to look into liquid alts ETFs.15 Table 2Canadian Regulation On Liquid Alts Mutual Funds 4. Leverage At Asset-Class Level Alternative funds, such as funds that invest in private equity, private debt, and infrastructure, typically use leverage. These funds carry a high cost because 1) investors in these funds must pay a premium for not managing leverage, and 2) these funds often have much higher financing costs. For example, the average financing cost for leveraged buyouts in 2014 was more than 5%,16 while the average risk-free rate in 2014 was 0.03%. Research has shown that private-asset performance can be proxied by using leverage and the corresponding public asset. In Table 3, the base case is based on the forecast for US equities and Treasurys without leverage, and a risk-free rate of 2.6%.17 Then equities are leveraged by 1.5 times to proximate private equity. The low-cost case has a financing cost of 1.57% (which is what the average 3-month T-Bill rate was in 2019), while the high-cost case with a financing cost of 3.92%, which is 2.5 times the low-cost rate. Table 3Assumed Returns/Risks* Chart 10Financing-Cost Impact On The Use Of Embedded Leverage Chart 10 shows the corresponding frontiers of the three cases. It’s clear that leverage expands the frontier to the right, meaning that leverage helps to achieve a higher return with better diversification, albeit with higher volatility. However, the financing cost plays a very important role in the feasibility of the leverage decision. When the financing cost is low, leverage is better than the base case at any return-target level. When the financing cost is high, however, leverage is worse – so long as the return target is lower than what the underlying assets can achieve without leverage. This supports the shift to “direct investing” by some institutional investors with access to lower financing when investing in alternative asset classes. 5. Leverage At Portfolio Level Risk parity is an obvious example of using leverage at the portfolio level. As shown in our previous report on risk parity, there are different approaches to implementing risk parity, and they can generate different results – especially when there are more than two assets.18 To analyze the impact of leverage constraints and financing costs, we use a two-asset (US equity/Treasury) risk-parity portfolio as the basis of our analysis. One definitive conclusion we arrived at in our previous report was that risk-parity approach historically always outperforms in recessions. This conclusion has passed the real-time test in the most recent pandemic-induced recession. As shown in Chart 11A, risk-parity portfolios that target the same volatility as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio have outperformed the latter significantly. The same holds true for the portfolios that target the same volatility as an equity portfolio (Chart 11B).   Chart 11AUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Chart 11BUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks However, as described in the previous Special Report on risk parity, we did not impose any cap on the use ofleverage. As such, some strategies that use a relatively short lookback period to calculate historical statistics required very high leverage ratios at some time periods in our back-tests. What would happen if we set a cap on the leverage ratio? And what if the financing cost is higher than the 3-month T-bill rate assumed in most academic research, and also in our previous report? Chart 12A and Chart 12B show the results when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost is Libor +25 basis points. It’s clear that Chart 12A looks the same as Chart 11A because the leverage cap is higher than the required leverage employed, while the cost impact is negligible for such a short period. But Chart 12B shows that, even though the risk-parity portfolio still outperformed, the outperformance has been much less so far this year because the required leverage was a lot higher than three times. Chart 12AImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Chart 12BImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity The impact of financing costs in Chart 12A is barely seen because the time period was short and the interest rate was low. What is the long-run impact of leverage restrictions and financing costs then? Chart 13A and Chart 13B show the long-run statistics from April 1945 to July 2020 based on a 180-month look-back period for two portfolios: RPL1, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility target as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio; and RPL2, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility as MSCI US equity index. Chart 13C shows the risk-adjusted returns for three portfolios with constant volatility targets at 10%, 12%, and 15%, respectively. Chart 13ALong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With Low Vol Target* Chart 13BLong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With High Vol Target*     Chart 13CLong-Tem Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity Portfolio* Some observations are worth highlighting: Financing costs mainly impact average return, but have very little impact on volatility. As such, higher financing costs reduce risk-adjusted returns. When there is no financing cost, all risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets should have the same risk-adjusted return as the underlying unlevered risk-parity portfolio. When financing costs are present, however, this is no longer the case. Leverage constraints impact both returns and volatility in the same direction – i.e., stricter constraints on leverage reduce both return and volatility, and vice versa. The magnitude of the impact from leverage constraints, however, varies because the target volatility of the portfolio plays a key role in the required leverage. For a constant-volatility target, a tighter control on leverage will reduce volatility more than return, resulting in a higher risk-adjusted return (Chart 13C); for a variable-volatility target such as RPL1 and RPL2, however, the same conclusion cannot be drawn (Charts 13A and 13B) Long-run statistics do not tell the full story because they really depend on the period chosen. Chart 14A shows the dynamic impact of financing when there were no constraints on leverage, and Chart 14B shows the dynamic impact of leverage when there were no additional financing costs. Chart 15 shows the combined impact when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost at Libor+25 basis points. They are for five different risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets with a lookback window length of 180 months. (For different lookback window, please see Appendix 2 on pages 23-25). Chart 14ADynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Chart14BDynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Chart 15Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X It is interesting to note the following: When there is no restriction on leverage, additional financing cost eats away cumulative total return in a much more significant way when an risk parity portfolio has a higher-volatility target than a lower-volatility target (Chart 14A). This is simply because a higher-volatility target requires higher leverage. When there was no additional cost of financing, constraint on leverage ate away total returns – mostly in the early years of the back-test when required leverage was often very high. In recent years, the impact was significant only when the leverage cap dropped to three times or lower. Also, the higher the volatility target, the more reduction in return risk-parity portfolio would suffer compared to its base case (Chart 14B). When the lookback window length is changed, the impact of leverage and financing cost also changes. The shorter the window length, the larger the impact (Charts in Appendix 2). A 180-month lookback period was the preferred choice in our previous report, and it is still more appropriate to use than 36 months or 360 months. Since additional cost and restriction on leverage eat away total return so much, is it really worthwhile to even consider using a risk-parity approach at all? Charts 16A and 16B show that overall total returns were worse during the entire period from April 1945 to July 2020, when additional cost and leverage constraints are applied. Since the burst of the tech bubble, however, risk-parity portfolios with the same volatility target as US 60/40 and also MSCI US have generated higher total returns than US 60/40 and MSCI US, respectively.  Chart16ADoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperform US 60/40? Chart 16BDoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI USI Outperform MSCI US? We are in a low interest-rate environment, and rates may stay low for a long time to come. In addition, when futures contracts are used to implement leverage, the implied cost is very close to 3-month T-Bills; Libor or Libor + may be present mostly when swaps are used due to factors such as supply/demand and counterparty risk. As such, financing costs will likely play less of a role than leverage constraints until interest rates rise significantly. Given that total-fund leverage is much lower than individual strategy/portfolio leverage, the implication is that risk-parity is more advantageous when it is used as a strategy in a sub-portfolio other than at the total fund level. 6. Suggestion For Leverage Management In a low-return environment, asset allocators face more challenges to meet return targets than in the past. Unless return targets are lowered to what the underlying assets can reasonably provide, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to beef up overall portfolio returns. However, leverage is also a double-edged sword because it also increases portfolio volatility. As such, we suggest a centralized risk-management system to monitor and manage all risks, including risks associated with leverage, in line with our suggestion on currency hedging outlined in our 2017 Special Report. Appendix 1: Leverage Basics Leverage is an investment strategy of using borrowed money – specifically, the use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital – to increase the potential return of an investment. It also amplifies the loss potential if the levered investment does not work out as expected. This is why it is also often called a “double-edged sword.” Leverage has many different forms and is used in many different places. For example, residential home mortgages are a form of leverage that the general public understands very well, yet the leverage embedded in a futures contract may sound alien to some retail investors. For asset allocators, the most important decision on leverage is whether to apply leverage directly at the total-portfolio level or use assets with embedded leverage. For example, issuing bonds to lever up a diversified portfolio (a mean-variance optimal portfolio or a suboptimal risk-parity portfolio) is an example of the former. On the other hand, investing in a private equity fund is an example of the latter. Research has shown that for large pension funds with excellent credit ratings, the latter is less efficient than the former due to the much higher cost of financing.1  For example, in 2014, the average cost of financing for leveraged buyouts was in excess of 5% when the short-term interest rate was close to zero.2 It’s not surprising that pension investors have formed joint ventures to invest in alternative assets directly instead of relying on specialty funds. In terms of financing, there is on-balance-sheet leverage and off-balance-sheet leverage. On-balance-sheet leverage raises liabilities, such as via bond issuance. Off-balance-sheet leverage uses the balance sheet of a counterparty, such as OTC financial derivatives. A repo agreement is a repurchase agreement that involves selling a security (often a government bond) to a counterparty (a lender) with the promise of buying it back after a pre-defined period at a pre-defined price. It’s often used for short-term liquidity management.  Depending on the form of financing, the measurement of leverage differs. Accounting leverage or balance-sheet leverage is calculated as total assets divided by net assets. This measurement is accurate only if on-balance-sheet leverage is used for long-only investments. When off-balance-sheet leverage is used or when shorting is involved, then accounting leverage severely understates the actual leverage. For example, Appendix Table A1 below is a snapshot from the 2018 annual report of Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP). The notional value of its derivatives was $333 billion, which is over 10 times the fair value of these instruments, and over four times the fund’s net asset value. Appendix Table A1HOOPP's Use Of Derivatives* So, when derivatives are used, accounting leverage is often adjusted for derivative exposure by taking the delta-adjusted notional value of derivative contracts.3 When there are short positions, leverage can be measured as Gross and Net Leverage after derivatives exposure is delta-adjusted. Gross Leverage is defined as the total exposure of long and short positions divided by net assets. This is accurate when the long and short positions are totally separate active bets. Net Leverage, is defined as the net exposure between long and short positions, divided by net assets. This is an accurate measure of leverage when the long and short positions are taken as hedges for one another. 1  Dr. Serguei Zernov, “Leverage to Meet the Pension Promise,” Global Risk Institute, Jan 24, 2019. 2  L’her, J.F., Stoyanova, R., Shaw, K., Scott, W. and Lai, C, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market”, Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 2016. 3  Andrew Ang, Sergiy Gorovyy and Gregoty B. van Inwegen, “Hedge Fund Leverage,” Journal of Financial Economics, January 25, 2011. Appendix 2: Impact Of Leverage Caps And Financing Costs With Different Lookback Window Lengths In Section 5, Chart 14A, Chart 14B and Chart 15 were presented using a lookback window of 180 months, a prefered window length based on our previous research on risk parity. However, practioners have been using different lookback windows. Below are the corresponding charts showing lookback windows of 360 months and 36 months, respectively. It’s easy to see that, the shorter the lookback window, the more significant the impact of  both financing costs and leverage constraints. The reason is simple: a shorter lookback window generates much higher leverage compared to a longer lookback window. APPENDIX 2 Chart 1AImpact Of Financing With 360-Month Lookback APPENDIX 2 Chart 1BImpact Of Financing With 36-Month Lookback   APPENDIX 2 Chart 2AImpact Of Leverage Cap With 360-Month Lookback APPENDIX 2 Chart 2BImpact Of Leverage Cap with 36-Month Lookback   APPENDIX 2 Chart 3AImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 360-Month Lookback APPENDIX 2 Chart 3BImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 36-Month Lookback   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 2 Ned McGuire and Brice Shirimbere, "2019 Wilshire Consulting Report on State Retirement Systems: Funding Levels and Asset Allocation," Wilshire Associates, March 2019. 3 “State Pension Funds adjust to ‘New Normal’ of Lower Returns,” Chief Investment Officer, January 2, 2020, 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 5 Martha Porado, “A look at how Canadian pension funds are using leverage,” dated Aug 10, 2018. 6GPIF (Government Pension Investment Fund) 2018 annual report. 7 "2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,"CalPERS. p106, 2018 annual report. 8 "CalPERS Falling Short of Private Equity Goals," dated November 18, 2019. 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019. 10 https://www.mosers.org/funding/annual-reports 11 Arleen Jacobius, "CalPERS shifts $150 billion as part of new strategic asset allocation," Pensions And Investments, dated August 20, 2019. 12 Edward Qian, “Rebalance and Diversification Returns of Leveraged Portfolios,” Investment Insight, Panagora, December 2011. 13https://www.mackenzieinvestments.com/content/dam/mackenzie/en/2019/03/mm-investing-in-liquid-alternatives-en.pdf 14 https://perspectives.scotiabank.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Liquid-A… 15 "5 Use Cases for Liquid Alt ETFs," Institutional Investor dated November 18, 2019. 16 L’ her et al, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market,” Financial Analysts Journal, 72(4), 2016. 17 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 18 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019.

Special Report

Highlights Along with momentum, quality has been the best performing factor over the past 30 years. It has also been less volatile and has exhibited milder drawdowns than other factors. There are multiple traits that are considered as signs of quality. However, profitability explains the lion’s share of the quality premium, though accounting quality and payout dilution also play a role. The reason why quality stocks outperform remains a mystery, though the preference for lottery stocks as well as the failure to account for the persistence of quality are plausible explanations. Both small caps and value stocks have negative tilts to quality. Adjusting for this tilt by buying small-cap quality indices or value indices with quality filters, can help investors exploit these factors more effectively. Feature “Investment must always consider the price as well as the quality of the security” – Benjamin Graham & David Dodd, Security Analysis, Principles and Technique, 1934 Legendary investor Benjamin Graham is one of the most significant figures in the history of finance. His two books, The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis, stand as foundational pillars in the field of fundamental analysis. Moreover, as the mentor of the most famous investor ever, Warren Buffet, he has influenced a generation of investors into caring deeply about not overpaying for stocks. Thanks to these feats, Graham has come to be known as the “father of value investing”. And yet this moniker, though well-deserved, ignores a substantial portion of his legacy. Graham was not solely concerned with valuations.1 In fact, out of the seven criteria that he used to pick securities, only two of them focused on valuation measures. The rest, focused on metrics like profitability, leverage, and stability. These attributes encompass what is broadly known today as quality. But what exactly is quality? While certain traits have historically been associated with this factor, quality was not seen until more recently as something that you could easily define. Instead, a more holistic approach to quality was preferred.2 It wasn’t until the work of Robert Novy-Marx in the early 2010s, and US investment firm AQR thereafter, that the possibility of measuring quality, as well as systematically exploiting it, became prominent within the factor literature. Since then, quality has become a more popular strategy, with various commercial providers offering quality indices in recent years. However, much remains unknown about this newly discovered factor. Thus, in this report we take a deep dive into quality with the intent of providing some clarity on the following three issues: Definition of quality: What metrics are used to determine if a stock is a “quality” stock? Which of the many quality traits have the best track record? Characteristics of quality: What has been the historical performance of quality? What is its sector exposure? Why does it work? Implementation of quality: How can the quality factor be used in conjunction with other factors to increase returns? In order to answer these questions, we explore the historical performance of the MSCI Quality indices – though we also touch on quality indices by other providers. Moreover, we survey the academic literature around quality, and we propose a couple of ways by which investors can use this factor to exploit the value and small-cap premia more effectively. Definition Of Quality There is no universal agreement on how to measure quality, though there are some general traits that are agreed upon by the academic literature. An often used definition of quality is the “Quality Minus Junk” (QMJ) factor by AQR. In their research, Assness et al. use three traits, each of which is measured by five to six different metrics3 (Table 1). All the metrics are standardized and then averaged to arrive at a single quality measure. This quality measure is then used to build a quality portfolio. Table 1Metrics Used In AQR's Quality Minus Junk Factor (QMJ) However, not all quality indices take so many measures into account. In fact, most commercial providers limit themselves to three or four variables to construct their quality indices. As an example, MSCI determines quality using three criteria: Return on equity, earnings variability, and leverage. All three variables are then winsorized,4 standardized, and then averaged to create a quality score. This quality score determines the weight of each stock within the index. Table 2 expands on the methodology of the quality benchmarks offered by various index providers. Table 2Quality Metrics For Popular Index Providers The lack of a homogenous definition for quality makes performance evaluation of quality problematic. After all, the outperformance of quality could simply be a function of data mining by optimizing for a group of variables that produce excess returns in a backtest. This approach can lead to a large outperformance in-sample, but which might not necessarily replicate when applied in a real-world portfolio.5 To address this issue, some academics have tried to pinpoint which among the many quality traits truly add value in order to build a simpler and more parsimonious factor. In “What is Quality?”, Hsu et al. found that profitability is the most important quality characteristic, having a large and significant multifactor alpha6 (Table 3). Accounting quality and payout dilution have also been relatively reliable sources of excess returns. On the other hand, there is little evidence that most metrics for capital structure, profitability growth, or earnings stability, provide a premium that is not captured by other factors. Table 3Drivers Of The Quality Premium Given the preponderance that profitability has in the overall performance of the quality factor, some academics have suggested that the quality factor should be reduced to profitability.7 However, not everybody agrees with this approach. In fact, other researchers have advocated for including more metrics such as ESG or corporate governance, in an effort to bring back the more holistic approach that Graham practiced.8 Overall, much disagreement about how to measure quality remains, and the subject is still an open debate. Characteristics Of Quality Historical Performance, Composition And Valuation Over the past 30 years, the MSCI Quality Index has, along with momentum, been the best performing factor in the equity markets (Chart 1, top panel). During this time frame, quality stocks have outperformed minimum volatility stocks by 2.6% per year, the global benchmark by 3.5% per year, and value stocks by 4% per year. The performance of quality has also been relatively robust, though the factor has performed better in some countries than others (Chart 1, bottom panel). Quality has performed best in European countries and Canada, while its outperformance has been more muted in Australia and Japan. Historically, quality has been the second most defensive factor after minimum volatility (Chart 2, panels 1 and 2). Moreover, it has exhibited lower volatility, and smaller drawdowns than the overall market. The defensive tilt of quality seems to arise because of the “flight to quality” phenomenon, where investors flock to higher quality assets during periods of markets stress. Interestingly, quality tends to outperform in equity markets and bond markets at the same time (Chart 2, bottom panel). This suggests that quality might be a common risk factor that is captured across asset classes. Chart 1Quality Has Outperformed Most Other Factors Chart 2Quality Is A Defensive Factor Chart 3Quality Overweights Expensive Sectors What about composition? Within the global index, the quality factor currently has a large country bias to defensive markets like the US and Switzerland. This is mostly the result of its overweight to Information Technology, Consumer Staples and Health Care, and a large underweight position in Financials (Chart 3, top panel). This sector positioning also results in quality having high valuations relative to the overall market (Chart 3, bottom panel). It must be noted that valuations for quality stocks have risen significantly over the past few years. It is hard to know how this valuation compares to the past for the MSCI indices, given that valuation measures for MSCI Quality are only available starting in 2013. However, research by AQR has shown that relatively high prices for quality tend to result in lower returns.9 Thus, high valuations could pose a risk for quality going forward. Explanations For The Quality Anomaly Using a dividend-discount framework, one can show that, in theory, high-quality companies should trade at higher price-to-book values than low quality ones (for more details please see Appendix 1). Asness et at have shown that this is the case empirically – high-quality stocks trade at a valuation premium to low-quality stocks (Chart 4, top panel). Chart 4Analysts Are Most Optimistic On Low Quality Stocks However, the mystery of quality lies in the fact that this premium does not appear to be as large as it should be. In other words, while analyst and market participants correctly assign higher multiples to high-quality stocks, this multiple is not large enough, and results in high-quality stocks being undervalued. Ultimately, this leads to the outperformance of high-quality stocks versus low-quality ones (Chart 4, bottom panel). Why do market participants overvalue low quality/junk stocks and undervalue high quality stocks? One reason could be a preference for lottery-like stocks. As we discussed in our January report on the low- volatility anomaly, investors tend to prefer “home-run” stocks – a result of behavioral biases as well as the incentives in the money management industry.10 Thus, distressed companies with low levels of profitability and large levels of debt, may attract some investors betting on a turnaround in the hope of a large windfall if the company survives.11 On the flip side, investors might perceive that high-quality companies – which are usually stable, profitable, and more expensive – cannot produce the same type of extreme payoff, and may even be prone to mean reversion, given that their success is evident and well known.  But this last assumption is a mistake. Quality is a highly persistent characteristic, which means that a high-quality stock today is very likely to remain a high-quality stock in the future (Table 4). It is easy to see why this is the case. A company with very high levels of profitability has likely achieved this by building a moat around its business through a strong brand, proprietary technology, or network effects. It is possible that failure to take this into account results in an undervaluation of high-quality stocks.  Table 4Quality Is Persistent BOX 1 The Behavior Of Quality In Equity And Credit Markets Chart 5Quality Delivers A Different Premium In Different Asset Classes While there is a very tight correlation between the performance of quality in credit and equity markets, the structural premium obtained from this factor in each market is very different. Over a long period, investors are rewarded for investing in high-quality equities, while the opposite occurs when investing in high-quality credit issues (Chart 5). Why would the same risk factor provide a positive premium in one market but provide a negative one in another? The exact reason remains unclear, but the behavioral explanations for the quality factor might provide a clue. As opposed to equity markets, returns in credit markets – even if very high – are naturally capped. As an example: An investor who buys a low-quality issue with a 20% yield-to-maturity, knows that in the absence of a default, the most he or she can earn from holding the issue to maturity is 20%. The fact that the maximum return is well established beforehand might prevent investors from displaying behavioral biases. Specifically, a well-defined upside might cause investors to think more rationally and mechanically about an investment. In contrast, securities where the upside is high but not well-defined might make it more likely for investors to see a very risky investment as a lottery, since extraordinary returns are technically within the realm of possibility. Whatever the reason is, the different premium that this factor offers in these two asset classes presents a potentially attractive opportunity for asset allocators. We will explore how investors could take advantage of this discrepancy in future reports on factor allocation.   Implementation Of Quality Using Quality And Size Chart 6The Small-Cap Premium Is Higher When Adjusted For Quality Historically, small-cap stocks have delivered excess returns over large cap-stocks – a well-documented phenomenon known as the size premium. However, this premium has been very unstable and extremely seasonal, occurring mostly in the month of January, and providing no excess returns in all other months. Moreover, some research has suggested that the size premium cannot be harvested easily in practice, since most of the premium is concentrated in the very smallest stocks (microcaps), which are highly illiquid.12 The issues surrounding the size premium have prompted some academics to question its existence. However, recent research on the interaction of quality and size has brought back interest to this topic. In the paper “Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk”, Assness et al show that many of the problems with the size premium are caused by the bias that small caps have to low quality. Once this low-quality bias is accounted for, the size premium becomes much larger and stable – a result that also holds when controlling for a quality proxy like profitability (Chart 6). Notably, the concentration of returns in January and in microcaps also disappears when the bias is removed.13 This bias to low quality is a significant problem in most popular small-cap indices. The profitability of indices like the S&P 600 has historically been lower than its large-cap counterparts (Chart 7,  top panel). Moreover, a similar story holds for leverage: While the much maligned increase in corporate debt is evident in small-cap indices, it is virtually nonexistent when looking at large-cap indices like the S&P 500, where leverage measures stand barely above 30- year lows (Chart 7, bottom panel). How can this bias be removed? Stock-level filters for quality might be difficult to implement for many investors. Instead, an easier solution is to exploit the size premium through a small-cap quality index. S&P currently offers the S&P 600 Quality Index, which selects the 120 highest-quality stocks out of the S&P 600. Importantly, since this quality adjustment removes some of the low-quality bias from the S&P 600, the S&P 600 Quality index is able to maintain performance on the upside, while also limiting the sharp periods of underperformance that usually affect small caps during bear markets (Chart 8). Chart 7Small-Cap Stocks Have A Lot Of Junk Chart 8Small-Cap Quality Is A Better Way To Exploit The Size Anomaly   Using Quality And Value The intersection between value and quality – a pair of factors that have a negative correlation – has been a topic of interest since quality was first discovered.14 They stand as perfect complements of each other: The value factor tries to find cheap stocks, regardless of their quality, while the quality factor tries to find quality stocks regardless of their price. Together they make for a powerful combination: Quality stocks at affordable prices. Some research has suggested that this combination of value and quality lies behind the success of Graham’s greatest student. According to the seminal paper titled “Buffet’s Alpha”, the biggest factor exposures of the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio from 1980 to 2011, outside of overall market risk, were quality and value15 (Chart 9). Exposure to these factors, along with low beta, as well as the ability of Berkshire Hathaway to obtain cheap leverage thanks to its insurance business, explained most of the excess returns that Warren Buffet was able to achieve. Chart 9Buffett's Motto: High Quality, Cheap, And Low Risk Commercial providers have started to offer indices which combine value and quality. As an example, MSCI offers the Prime Value indices, where stocks are first screened for quality and then ranked according to a value score. This methodology has outperformed its normal value counterparts in both the euro area and the US (Chart 10). Chart 10Quality Adjustments By MSCI Improve Value In The Euro Area Chart 11Stronger Quality Filters Are Needed In The US To Enhance Value   Interestingly, despite value’s recent doldrums, the quality adjustment done in the Prime Value index has helped value perform relatively well in the euro area for the past couple years. However, the same cannot be said in the US where performance of Value and Prime Value has been almost identical since 2003. This suggest a couple of options: It could be that, even when adjusting for quality, value behaves fundamentally differently in different countries. Alternatively, it could also mean that the US market is more efficient at pricing quality, which would imply that a simple quality filter would not do much, since quality at an attractive valuation would be harder to find. We suspect the reason might be the latter. In this case a stronger quality filter might be needed to substantially enhance the performance of value. The newly released Russell 1000 QARP (Quality At A Reasonable Price) Index follows this methodology. It applies a double quality filter and then compounds it by a value score. This index has substantially enhanced performance relatively to the Russell 1000 Value index (Chart 11). Moreover, it has also been able to fare better relative to the broad market and has avoided the large underperformance that value has undergone since 2018. Bottom Line Quality has been one of the most successful factors over the past three decades. But will this performance continue? While the exact reason behind the quality anomaly remains unclear, the evidence suggests that institutional incentives and behavioral biases, which are likely to persist in the future, might be responsible for the outperformance of quality in the market. Thus, investors should consider adding quality stocks to their portfolios. Moreover, quality can also be used to enhance the performance of other popular factors in the following ways: Correcting for the low-quality bias of small caps, makes the small-cap premium larger and much more stable over the long term. A practical way to correct for this low-quality bias is to buy small-cap quality portfolios such as the S&P 600 Quality Index. Value stocks also tend to have low quality. Investors can improve the performance of the value factor by using quality filters to find quality stocks that are also cheap. The quality filters in the MSCI Prime Value Index has significantly improved the performance of value in the euro area. Meanwhile, the Russell 1000 QARP index, which selects for value stocks using a stronger quality filter than MSCI, has kept pace with the overall market even amidst value’s collapse.   Juan Correa Ossa, CFA  Associate Editor juanc@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1 Footnotes 1  Robert Novy-Marx, “Quality Investing,” Working Paper, 1-28 (2014) 2  In Graham’s own words: “An indefinite and approximate measure of the intrinsic value may be sufficient. To use a homely simile, it is quite possible to decide by inspection that a woman is old enough to vote without knowing her age or that a man is heavier than he should be without knowing his exact weight.” 3  Asness, C.S., Frazzini, A. & Pedersen, L.H. “Quality minus junk,” Rev Account Stud 24, 34–112 (2019). 4 Winsorization is a way to remove the effects of outliers in the data. In this case all the values above the 95th percentile are set to the 95th percentile value and all the values below the 5th percentile are set to the 5th percentile value. 5 Robert Novy-Marx, “Backtesting Strategies Based on Multiple Signals,” NBER Working Paper No. w21329 (2015). 6 Jason Hsu, Vitali Kalesnik, Engin Kose, “What Is Quality?” Financial Analysts Journal, 75:2, 44-61 (2019). 7 Amanda White, “Quality is Explained by Profitability,” Top1000funds.com, (2015). 8 Dan Hanson and Rohan Dhanuka, “The ‘Science’ and ‘Art’ of High Quality Investing,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27:2 (2015). 9 C.S. Asness, A. Frazzini, and L.H. Pedersen, “Quality minus junk,” Rev Account Stud 24, 34–112 (2019). 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets”, dated January 29, 2020. 11 This theory on the quality anomaly might explain the different performance of quality in credit and equity markets. For more details, please see Box 1. 12 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth?” dated April 7, 2020. 13 Cliff S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, and Lasse Heje Pedersen, “Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk,” CEPR Discussion Paper, No. DP12684 (2018). 14 Robert Novy - Marx, “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial Economics, 108(1) , 1 - 28, (2013) and “The Quality Dimension of Value Investing,” University of Rochester, Working Paper (2014). 15 Andrea Frazzini, David Kabiller, and Lasse Heje Pedersen,  "Buffett’s Alpha," Financial Analysts Journal, 74-4, 35-55 (2018).