Europe

Special Report

Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart 1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart 1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table 1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Table 1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. The US output gap would close more rapidly under a President Biden, likely triggering a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance.  At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart 3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart 3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 45%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 30%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 20%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 5%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 80%, versus a 20% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 80%, 35 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market Chart 4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart 4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. A complete re-convergence to long-run fed funds rate estimates would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart 5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart 5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart 6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart 5How High For Treasury Yields? Chart 6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart 6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart 7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart 8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart 7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart 8, bottom panel).6 Two More Curve Trades Chart 9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart 9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. The Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. Chart 10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart 10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart 11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart 11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart 12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart 12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Long-term investors should seek companies and sectors that facilitate and support a new way of doing things: specifically, a way of life and business that is more de-centralised and de-urbanised… …and a way of life in which we live, work, and interact more online, remotely, and digitally. The long-term winners will be technology, biotechnology, healthcare, and communications: the growth defensives. The long-term losers will be banks, oil and gas, and resources: the value cyclicals. The European stock market’s substantial underweighting to the growth defensives will weigh on its relative performance, both in the short term and in the long term. Fractal trade: Overweight the US 30-year T-bond versus the French 30-year OAT. Also, we have closed our tactical underweight to equities versus bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekYield Chasers Get A Rude Awakening As Dividends Collapse For the world’s yield chasers, 2020 has been a rude awakening. What seemed to be safe and attractive dividend yields have vanished into smoke, as blue-chip company after blue-chip company has slashed its dividend. To name just a few, HSBC has cut its dividend to zero for the first time ever; Barclays has cut its dividend to zero for the first time since 2009; and Royal Dutch Shell has slashed its dividend by 34 percent, taking it back to where it was in 2009. More generally, the high-yielding sectors have slashed their dividends: the world oil and gas sector by 60 percent (Chart of the Week) and the world bank sector by 33 percent (Chart I-2). The basic resources sector has cut its dividend by a more modest 15 percent, but the dividend now stands at the same level as it was in 2009 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Dividend Cuts From High-Yielding Banks... Chart I-3...And High-Yielding Resource Companies In contrast, the low-yielding technology and healthcare sectors have managed to grow their dividends consistently over the past decades, and then maintain the dividends during the current crisis (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Dividend Growth And Continuity From ##br##Low-Yielding Healthcare... Chart I-5…And Low-Yielding ##br##Tech The world’s yield chasers have had a rude awakening because they often confuse yield with return. One reason for this confusion is that for cash and for high-quality government bonds held to redemption, yield and return are broadly the same.1  But for an equity, yield and return are not the same. As we have seen with the oil and gas sector and banks, an equity could start with a seemingly safe and attractive dividend yield yet end up generating a deeply negative return.2 The lesson is that long-term investors should never search for yield, they should always search for return. Mental Accounting Bias, And The Irrational Search For Yield The confusion between yield and return is not just an issue of semantics. It is a well-known phenomenon in behavioural finance known as mental accounting bias.3 This psychological bias describes the tendency to group financial gains and losses into separate mental accounts or buckets. This causes people to treat money differently according to the bucket that the money occupies. One version of this bias is a distinction between the return that an investment provides from yield and that which it provides from capital appreciation. The distinction between yield and capital appreciation is irrational. Assuming an equal tax treatment, the money that comes from yield and the money that comes from capital appreciation is perfectly fungible. Yet psychologically, the distinction is very stark. Behavioural finance postulates that because of fears about self-control, some people tend to categorize an investment’s yield as spending money, and its capital as saving money. Long-term investors should never search for yield, they should always search for return. Hence, those people who want their assets to generate spending money – say, retirees – have an irrational bias towards investments that generate yield. Whereas those people that are saving for the long term have a bias towards investments that generate capital growth. To reiterate, these biases are completely irrational.  Under normal circumstances, the irrational biases are not a problem because there are enough investments available for both buckets. But in today’s world of zero and negative interest rates, the assets that would normally generate the safe income for the spending bucket – cash and government bonds – are no longer doing so (Chart I-6). In the ensuing ‘search for yield’, income focussed investors have flocked to the dwindling number of investments that appear to generate the required income, such as high-yielding equities. But in irrationally focussing on yield rather than on expected return, the world’s yield chasers have lost a lot of money. Chart I-6Equities Are The Only Yield-Generating Mainstream Asset-Class The Halo Effect, And The Shattered Halo The matter is made worse by a second phenomenon in behavioural finance known as the halo effect. This is the tendency to worship – place a halo – on someone or something based on some narrow criteria. For a company, the narrow criteria can mean its dividend history. The dividend is one of the few financial metrics over which the company has substantial control, giving it totemic significance with the company’s investors. Investors place a halo on companies with dividend continuity, a lengthy absence of a dividend cut. The distinction between yield and capital appreciation is irrational. However, if the company cuts its dividend, even slightly, then the halo shatters. Given this stigma, companies try very hard not to cut the dividend until it is unavoidable. But when they do cut, they usually cut big, and for an extended period – because the halo is shattered anyway (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7When Firms Cut Their Dividends, They Usually Cut Big... Chart I-8...And For An Extended ##br##Period Realising this, investors flip the company from saint to sinner, meaning that they demand a higher cost of capital. The upshot is that even after the dividend cut, the stock can suffer a prolonged period of underperformance. Low Yield To Deliver High Return To repeat, long-term investors should never search for yield, they should always search for return. Today, this search for return boils down to two questions: Which companies will be able to grow or, at the very least, maintain their dividends in the post-pandemic world? What is the likely direction of bond yields, and specifically the long-duration T-bond yield, given its pivotal role in setting the discount rate on all investments? To the first question, the winning companies will be the ones that facilitate and support a new way of doing things: specifically, a way of life and business that is more de-centralised and de-urbanised. And one in which the way we live, work, and interact – both socially and economically – is more remote, online, and digital. The pandemic is the accelerant, and not the cause, of the structural shift in our way of life. Crucially, this means that when a credible treatment for Covid-19 eventually arrives, it will not reverse the major changes that our way of life is now undergoing. To the second question, the Federal Reserve’s recent strategic review has made its reaction function blatantly asymmetric, especially to the labour market. The central bank has told us that it will be thick-skinned to reflationary shocks or lower unemployment, but trigger-happy to the slightest further deflationary shock or higher unemployment. The pandemic is the accelerant, and not the cause, of the structural shift in our way of life. Hence, when the slightest further deflationary shock comes – and sooner or later it will – the Fed will either follow the Bank of England in a volte-face about adding negative interest rate policy into its toolbox. Or more likely, the Fed will follow the Bank of Japan in formally implementing yield curve control. Either way, US long-duration bond yields will eventually converge with those in the UK and Japan at zero. The result of our two answers is that long-term investors should seek companies that can thrive off the major changes in the way we live, work, and interact; and investors should seek companies with long-duration cashflows that benefit most from a further compression in the long-duration T-bond yield. In combination, the long-term winners will be technology, biotechnology, healthcare, and communications: the growth defensives (Chart I-9). And the long-term losers will be banks, oil and gas, and resources: the value cyclicals (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Growth Defensives Are The Long-Term Winners Chart I-10Value Cyclicals Are The Long-Term##br## Losers For the European stock market, the unfortunate consequence is that its substantial underweighting to the growth defensives sectors will weigh on its relative performance, both in the short term and in the long term. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the US 30-year T-bond versus the French 30-year OAT. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.2 percent. The tactical underweight to equities versus bonds (short DAX versus 10-year T-bond) reached the end of its holding period. Although it closed in slight loss, the fractal signal correctly identified that the majority of the strong rally in the DAX was over by mid-July after which the DAX has traded broadly sideways. The countertrend move in the Italian BTP’s rally versus the German bund did not materialise, so this trade was closed at its stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 57 percent. Chart I-1130-Year Govt. Bonds: US Vs. France When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Assuming no reinvestment risk on the bond’s income. 2 This is because unlike the government bond, the equity does not generate a predetermined stream of cash flows. 3 See Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Misunderstanding 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its short-term mortality rate. In fact, the danger of Covid-19 is its long-term mortality and morbidity rate. Misunderstanding 2: The government-imposed lockdown causes the pandemic recession. In fact, the pandemic causes the pandemic recession. Misunderstanding 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is output. In fact, the pandemic’s main economic casualty is employment. Misunderstanding 4: The pandemic is a temporary shock to the way we live, work, and interact. In fact, the pandemic is accelerating long-term shifts in the way we live, work, and interact. Misunderstanding 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe apart. In fact, the pandemic is pulling Europe together. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Pandemic Is Pulling Europe Together Covid-19 is a novel disease. And living through a pandemic is a novel experience for most of us. The result is that many things are not fully understood. In this report, we pull together five major misunderstandings about the Covid-19 pandemic. Or at least, five topics on which we disagree with the mainstream narratives. Misunderstanding 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its short-term mortality rate. Truth 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its long-term mortality and morbidity rate. Some people argue that the danger of Covid-19 is overstated. The mortality rate seems low, especially in the new waves of the pandemic. These people argue that we should just let the pandemic rip to achieve so-called ‘herd immunity’. Yet this focus on the low immediate mortality rate misunderstands the true danger (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Focussing On Covid-19’s Low Immediate Mortality Rate Misunderstands The Danger The true danger might come from the long-term impact on mortality and morbidity. A good analogy is a non-lethal dose of radiation. It won’t kill you straightaway, and you might not even feel any immediate ill effects, but the exposure does irreparable long-term harm. Unlike other diseases, Covid-19 appears to have long-term sequelae. Unlike other diseases, Covid-19 appears to have long-term sequelae. It can permanently damage your respiratory, vascular, and metabolic systems. As The Lancet points out:1 “Weeks and months after the onset of Covid-19, people continue to suffer. 78 of 100 patients in an observational cohort study who had recovered from Covid-19 had abnormal findings on cardiovascular MRI and 36 reported dyspnoea and unusual fatigue… these patients are not only those recovering from the severe form of the acute disease, but also those who had mild and moderate disease. Long-term sequelae of Covid-19 are unknown… Other concerns are rising: does it cause diabetes, or other metabolic disorders? Will patients develop interstitial lung disease? We owe good answers on the long-term consequences of the disease to our patients and healthcare providers.” Until we know these answers, letting the pandemic rip to achieve herd-immunity is a very dangerous misunderstanding. Misunderstanding 2: The government-imposed lockdown causes the pandemic recession. Truth 2: The pandemic causes the pandemic recession. A pandemic is a classic complex adaptive system, in which there is constant feedback from millions of individual human actions to the pandemic, and from the pandemic to millions of individual human actions. It is this complex adaptive behaviour that generates a pandemic’s classic waves of infection, as well as its recessions. In response to an escalating pandemic, our instinct for self-preservation makes us go into our shells. In response to an escalating pandemic, our instinct for self-preservation makes us go into our shells. We shun crowds and public places, with the result that so-called ‘social consumption’ collapses. The misunderstanding is that the government-imposed lockdown causes the collapse in social consumption. In fact, this is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is that the escalating pandemic is making millions of people go into their shells. But to the extent that an escalating pandemic also leads to an escalating lockdown, many people confuse the correlated lockdown with the underlying cause, the escalating pandemic. As we have previously pointed out, Sweden imposed no lockdown, while its neighbour Denmark imposed the most extreme lockdown in Europe. If it was the government-imposed lockdown that caused the recession, then the economy of no-lockdown Sweden should have fared much better than that of lockdown Denmark. In fact, based on the rise in unemployment rates, no-lockdown Sweden performed worse than lockdown Denmark (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Performed No Better... Chart I-4...Than Lockdown Denmark Misunderstanding 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is output. Truth 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is employment. The widespread use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. These activities are concentrated in three highly labour-intensive sectors: hospitality, retail, and transport. Using the US as a template, hospitality, retail, and transport contribute 12 percent of economic output, but employ 25 percent of all workers (Table I-1). If the pandemic forces these sectors to operate one third below full capacity, the economy will lose a tolerable 4 percent of output. But it will lose a devastating 8.3 percent of jobs. And on less optimistic assumptions, the job destruction could rise to well over 10 percent. Table I-1Sectors Hurt By Social Distancing Employ 25% Of All Workers Conversely, sectors which are unaffected by physical distancing and face masks make a much bigger contribution to economic output relative to employment. Financial activities generate 19 percent of economic output, but just 6 percent of jobs. Information technology generates 5 percent of output, but just 2 percent of jobs. Sectors hurt by social distancing employ 25 percent of all workers. Hence, the main economic casualty of the pandemic is not output. The main casualty is employment (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Worse, as employment suffers much more than output, the pandemic is devastating low-paid jobs. Chart I-5The Main Economic Casualty Of The Pandemic Is Employment… Chart I-6…Not ##br##Output Misunderstanding 4: The pandemic is a temporary shock to the way we live, work, and interact. Truth 4: The pandemic is accelerating long-term shifts in the way we live, work, and interact. The pandemic appears to have crystallised many shifts in consumer and business behaviour: for example, de-urbanisation, the shift from offline to online retailing, the shift from office working to remote working, and the shift from business travel to virtual meetings. In fact, these shifts were already in motion well before the pandemic hit (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Pandemic Is Accelerating The Structural Shifts To De-Urbanisation… Chart I-8…And Online ##br##Shopping If the pandemic suddenly ended tomorrow, would people flock back to full-time office work in city centres? Would they flock back to bricks and mortar retailers? Would they return to the same intensity of long-haul business travel? We think not, because the shifts from these activities are not temporary. They are structural. The pandemic is devastating low-paid jobs. The pandemic has accelerated the hollowing out of labour-intensive industries such as bricks and mortar retailing, city centre cafes, bars and restaurants, and commercial travel. Combined with the ongoing threat to jobs from AI, this hollowing out process is blighting the job prospects of a generation, creating large numbers of underemployed and unemployed workers. Misunderstanding 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe apart. Truth 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe together. Let’s end on a positive note. The pandemic has allowed Europe to smash two major taboos: explicit fiscal transfers across countries, and the large-scale issuance of common EU bonds. The EU recovery plan also starts discussions on how the EU can ‘increase its own resources’. Which is to say, raise its own taxes. 2020 might turn out to be the most important year for European integration. The EU’s €750 billion ‘Next Generation’ recovery plan comprises €390 billion of grants whose main beneficiaries will be Italy and Spain – and these grants will be funded by common EU issuance. In breaking the long-standing taboos of fiscal transfers and common issuance, Next Generation constitutes a giant step towards European integration. Specifically, Italy’s net grant entitlement is likely to outweigh its contributions to the EU’s 2021-27 budget cycle. Thereby, Italy will flip from a net contributor to a net recipient of EU funds. The willingness to flip the sign of Italy’s contribution marks a sea-change in the EU’s attitude on fiscal solidarity, whose long-term significance should not be underestimated. 2020 might turn out to be the most important year for European integration. The irony is that it took a global pandemic to achieve it. Investment Conclusions The huge and growing slack in labour markets means that zero and negative interest rate policy will become a permanent feature of our lives. Hence, the relatively higher yielding 30-year US T-bond remains an effective hedge against stock market dislocations, as it did in March. Equity sectors whose profits can thrive off the shifts in the way we live, work, and interact, will outperform – specifically, technology, biotechnology, healthcare, and communications. Thereby, stock markets with an overweighting to these sectors will also outperform. The devastation of low-paying jobs means that bank credit growth is set to remain structurally weak or even non-existent. As such, banks should be bought for tactical countertrend moves (as now), but not for the long term. The yield spreads on euro area ‘periphery’ bonds over Germany and France will continue to tighten, and ultimately reach zero (Chart of the Week and Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Pandemic Is Pulling Europe Together Fractal Trading System* Within the EM universe, the strong outperformance of India versus Czech Republic is vulnerable to a countertrend sell-off. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short MSCI India versus MSCI Czech Republic. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 8 percent. Chart I-10MSCI: India Vs. Czech Republic In other trades, long USD/PLN achieved its 4 percent profit target, and short AUD/CHF reached the end of its holding period in profit. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 57 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see The Lancet, Long-term consequences of Covid-19: research needs, September 1, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Bank credit 6-month impulses are plunging, and the pandemic is resurging. Maintain an overweight to growth defensives (technology and healthcare). In the short term, profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. The European stock market’s massive underweighting to growth defensives will weigh on its relative performance. Go underweight China economy plays. Fractal trade: Fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal. Within value cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Greatest Ever Monetary Stimulus Is Over... For Now Monetary stimulus, as measured by the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows, reached an all-time high during the summer months. But now, the greatest ever monetary stimulus is fading (Chart of the Week). In the US and China, the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows peaked at $700 billion and $800 billion respectively during May. In the euro area, the increase peaked at over $1 trillion during July. The combination constituted the greatest ever global monetary stimulus, trumping even the stimulus that followed the 2008 financial crisis (Charts I-2 - I-4). Chart I-2US Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-3China Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-4Euro Area Monetary Stimulus To Fade However, the increase in six-month credit flows has recently slumped to around $200 billion in both the US and China. The euro area has yet to update its data beyond July, but we expect it to fade too. The upshot is that the greatest ever monetary stimulus is over… for now. Bond Yields Are No Longer Stimulating Our preferred metric for assessing the transmission of monetary stimulus on an economy is the increase in the banks’ six-month credit flows. In turn, this depends on the six-month deceleration in the bond yield – meaning, the bond yield decline in the most recent six months must be greater than the decline in the previous six months. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive. Why focus on the bond yield’s deceleration rather than its plain vanilla decline? Box 1 explains how it follows from a fundamental accounting identity of GDP statistics.   Box 1 Why The Bond Yield’s Deceleration Matters GDP is a flow statistic. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a period. Hence, the GDP flow receives a contribution from the bank credit flow in that period. In turn, the bank credit flow is established by the decline in the bond yield (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Decline In The Bond Yield Establishes The Bank Credit Flow It follows that GDP growth receives a contribution from bank credit flow growth. Which, in turn, receives a contribution from the bond yield deceleration. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Finally, our preferred period is six months because it empirically equals the time to fully spend a bank credit flow. A quarter is too short: a year is much too long.   Admittedly, during this year’s pandemic recession and rebound, the link between monetary stimulus and the real economy has weakened. Fiscal stimulus has played a more important role. Even when it comes to bank credit, much of the recent increase was not due to new loans. It was due to firms tapping pre-arranged credit lines, which they used to reinforce cash buffers, rather than to spend. Nevertheless, some impact of monetary stimulus will reach the real economy. This means that while this year’s earlier deceleration of bond yields was good news for the economy, the more recent acceleration of bond yields is bad news (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Recent Acceleration Of Bond Yields Is Bad News Tactically Underweight China Plays Through the summer months, 10-year bond yields flipped from sharp six-month decelerations to sharp accelerations. But the reversals were much more extreme in China and the US than in the euro area. Seen in this light, it is hardly surprising that the increase in six-month bank credit flows has already slumped in China and the US, and could soon turn negative. If so, they would be a contractionary force on the economy. One tactical investment conclusion is to underweight China economy plays. Specifically, with China’s bank credit six-month impulse in freefall, the 40 percent outperformance of basic resources versus financials is vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-7). This is also confirmed by fractal analysis (see later section). Chart I-7With China's Bank Credit 6-Month Impulse In Freefall, Basic Resources Are Vulnerable Stay underweight cyclicals. But within cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. A Resurgent Pandemic Will Force People Back Into Their Shells A resurgence of the pandemic will create a further headwind to the economy, irrespective of whether governments impose fresh lockdowns or not. This is because most of us have an instinct for self-preservation as well as protecting our loved ones. In response to a resurgent pandemic, we will go back into our shells. Shunning public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, some might even think twice about letting their children go to school. But if this cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why do governments need to impose lockdowns? The answer is that while the majority behaves responsibly, a minority behaves irresponsibly. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all Covid-19 infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. At first glance, it appears that the lockdown is causing the recession. In fact, this is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is the pandemic, which forces people into their shells. But to the extent that severity of the lockdown correlates with the severity of the pandemic, many people confuse the correlated lockdown with the underlying cause, the pandemic. The ultimate proof comes from Scandinavia. Sweden imposed no lockdown, while its neighbour Denmark imposed the most extreme lockdown in Europe. If it was the lockdown that caused the recession, then the economy of no-lockdown Sweden should have fared much better than that of lockdown Denmark. In fact, the two Scandinavian economies suffered identical 9 percent recessions (Chart I-8). Chart I-8No-Lockdown Sweden Suffered An Identical Recession To Lockdown-Denmark Focus On Sectors That Can Thrive In The New World Tactically we have recommended an underweight to stocks versus bonds since July 9, and this tactical position is broadly flat. Stick with it for now.1 A crucial question is: can bond yields go significantly lower? It is a crucial question because it was the collapse in bond yields earlier this year that saved the aggregate stock market. As long-duration bond yields plunged by 1 percent, the forward earnings yield of long-duration technology and healthcare stocks also plunged by 1 percent (Chart I-9). This surge in the valuation of the growth defensive sectors compensated for the collapsed profits of the value cyclical sectors – banks, basic resources, and oil and gas (Chart I-10). A resurgent pandemic combined with the end of the greatest ever monetary stimulus means that this playbook may get a rerun in the coming months. Chart I-9The Collapsed Bond Yield Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Saved The Aggregate Stock Market The worry is that, from current levels, long-duration bond yields will struggle to plunge by another 1 percent and provide the same boost to valuations that they did in the first wave of the pandemic. In which case, the outlook for stocks and sectors will hinge more on their profits. On this basis, we still favour the growth defensives – which we define as technology and healthcare – both for the short term and the long term. In the short term, their profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, their profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. One unfortunate consequence is that the European stock market’s massive underweighting to the growth defensives sectors will weigh on its relative performance, both in the short term and in the long term. Fractal Trading System* Supporting the fundamental analysis in the main body of this report, fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal versus financials. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long financials versus basic resources. One way of implementing this is: long XLF, short XLB. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long ZAR/CLP reached the end of its holding period flat, and is now closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 58 percent.   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Expressed as short DAX versus 10-year T-bond. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields     Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations