Financial Markets

Highlights The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profits slump will not be short-lived. The fear is not just of a lasting hit to aviation and a slower recovery in road mobility, but an existential fear for fossil-fuelled road transportation in the post-pandemic world. Stay structurally underweight oil and gas. Within the cyclical and value segments of the equity market, overweight metals and miners versus oil and gas. Structurally underweight the stock markets of Norway and the UK which are oil and gas heavy. Structurally overweight the stock markets of Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark which have zero exposure to oil and gas or basic resources. Fractal trade: tin’s near-vertical rally is at high risk of correction. Feature Chart of the WeekOil Production Has Gone Nowhere The Brent crude oil price recently hit $65, not far below its pre-pandemic level of $69. Yet in the stock market, oil and gas equities remain the dogs, languishing 32 percent below their pre-pandemic price level. Relative to the market, the oil and gas sector has underperformed by 42 percent, and the underperformance has been almost a straight line down. Moreover, since last June when the crude oil price has risen by 50 percent, oil and gas equity prices have gone nowhere. This massive divergence of a surging crude oil price from slumping oil and gas equities raises the obvious question, what can explain this dichotomy? (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) Chart I-2Oil And Gas Equities Have Slumped In Absolute Terms... Chart I-3...And In Relative ##br##Terms One apparent puzzle is that the oil sector’s profits have underperformed their established relationship with the crude oil price. In fact, there is no puzzle. The oil sector’s profits might appear to track the oil price, but the reality is that profits track the value of oil production, meaning the product of oil production and the oil price. Clearly though, if output is flat, then profits will appear to track the oil price.  But as it took a massive cut in oil output to support the oil price, the value of oil production and therefore, the oil sector’s profits, have significantly underperformed the oil price. Put another way, if you need to cut output to boost the commodity price it might help the commodity price, but it doesn’t much help the equity sector’s profits! (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Oil And Gas Profits Appear To Track The Oil Price Chart I-5In Reality, Oil And Gas Profits Track The Value Of Oil Output Will Fossil-Fuelled Road Transportation Be Driven To Extinction? We can now explain the 42 percent underperformance of oil equities, and perhaps more importantly, forecast what will happen next. When the pandemic took hold, and economic mobility ground to a halt, the oil sector’s 12-month forward profits slumped. Bear in mind that aviation accounts for 8 percent of oil consumption but, more crucially, road transportation accounts for half of all oil consumption. However, as the pandemic’s impact was expected to be short-lived, the multiple paid for those depressed 12-month forward profits rose. This partly compensated for the profit slump, but still left oil equity prices much lower. The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profit slump will not be short-lived. When profits started to recover – albeit, as just discussed, by much less than the oil price rise – it should have boosted oil equity prices. The problem was that the multiple paid for those profits fell by much more than the recovery in profits, with the result that oil equities continued to underperform. Begging the question, why is the multiple paid for oil sector profits collapsing? (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Why Is The Multiple Paid For Oil Sector Profits Collapsing? The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profit slump will not be short-lived. The fear is not just of a lasting hit to aviation and a slower recovery in road mobility. The fear has become existential. Governments’ plans for pandemic stimulus and recovery have put green energy at front and centre stage. Thereby the recovery has fast-tracked the ultimate nemesis of the oil industry – the extinction of fossil-fuelled road transportation. Are the fears for oil consumption justified? Yes. Aviation is not likely to reach its pre-pandemic level of oil consumption for many years, and long-haul aviation may never get there. But the much bigger threat is fossil-fuelled road transportation. From October 2021, London will extend its Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to an 8 mile radius from the city centre.1 The effect will be to banish from London all diesel-fuelled vehicles made before 2015 as well as some older petrol-fuelled vehicles. We expect other major cities to follow London’s example. In most cases, this initiative will happen regardless of the success (or not) of electric vehicles (EVs). Combined with other green initiatives around the world, policymakers’ unashamed aim is to drive fossil-fuelled road transportation to extinction. To repeat, road transportation accounts for half of all oil consumption. The upshot is that the structural downtrend in oil consumption will persist unless the shift away from fossil-fuelled road transportation hits a brick wall, or at least a bottleneck. We do not see such a brick wall or a bottleneck in the foreseeable future. We conclude that though the sector may offer occasional countertrend tactical buying opportunities, long-term equity investors should underweight oil and gas. Structurally Prefer Metals And Miners To Oil And Gas The preceding analysis of the oil sector can be extended to other commodity equities, like the metals and miners. To reiterate, it is the total value of commodity output – the product of commodity production and the commodity price – that drives the profits of commodity equities. On this basis, the long-term prospects for the metals and miners appear somewhat brighter than for oil and gas equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Commodity Sector Profits Track The Value Of Commodity Output Looking at the production of copper, it has increased by around 25 percent over the past decade, albeit this is just in line with world real GDP. By comparison, the production of oil has gone nowhere (Chart of the Week). It is the total value of commodity output that drives the profits of commodity equities. Turning to price, relative to the 2011 high the copper price is around 15 percent lower, whereas the oil price is 50 percent lower (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Copper Price Has Outperformed The Oil Price Hence, on the all-important value of output, copper has moved in a sideways channel over the past decade while oil has been in an unmistakeable structural downtrend, with lower highs and lower lows (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Value Of Output Is Trending Sideways For Copper, But Downwards For Oil This relative trend is likely to continue as the shift from fossil-fuelled road transportation to EVs will weigh on oil demand, while supporting copper (and other metal) demand. We do not recommend an outright overweight in metals and miners given that their profits are just moving in a sideways channel. However, within the cyclical and value segments of the equity market, a good structural position is to overweight metals and miners versus oil and gas. When Oil And Gas Underperforms, So Does Norway’s OBX And The UK’s FTSE 100 Regional and country equity market performances is driven by the dominant sectors within each stock market. In relative terms, it is also driven by the sectors that are missing. If the oil and gas sector is a structural underperformer, then oil and gas heavy stock markets such as Norway and the UK will be structural underperformers too. If the oil and gas sector is a structural underperformer, it inevitably means that oil and gas heavy stock markets such as Norway and the UK will be structural underperformers too (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10When Oil And Gas Underperforms, Norway's OBX Underperforms... Chart I-11...And The UK's FTSE 100 ##br##Underperforms The corollary is that stock markets which are under-exposed to the structurally underperforming sector will be at a relative advantage. This supports our structural overweighting to the stock markets of Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark, which all have zero exposure to oil and gas and basic resources. Fractal Trading System* Tin’s near-vertical rally is at high risk of correction based on fragility on all three fractal structures: 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day. A good trade is to short tin versus lead, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. In other trades, the underweights to China and Korea surged, but short AUD/JPY and short copper/gold reached their stop-losses. The rolling 12-month win ratio stands at 57 percent. Chart I-12Tin Vs. Lead 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   ULEZ will be the zone inside London’s North Circular and South Circular Roads. 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 - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   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  

Special Report

For this month’s Special Report, we are sending you a collaboration between our US Investment Strategy and US Political Strategy teams. US Political Strategy is our newest strategy service and it extends the proprietary framework of our Geopolitical Strategy service to provide analysis of political developments that is relevant for US-focused investors. Please contact your relationship manager if you would like more information or to begin trialing the service. Highlights Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … :The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines. … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy. … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant. … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. Feature The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”1 Chart II-1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.2 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart II-1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.3 The Gipper,4 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.5 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart II-3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart II-3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart II-4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table II-1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart II-5). Chart II-4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart II-5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts   Table II-1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart II-6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart II-6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Chart II-7“Limited Government” Falling Out Of Fashion Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart II-7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”6 Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.7 Chart II-8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart II-8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. Chart II-9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart II-9).8 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart II-10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits Chart II-11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart II-12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart II-12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Chart II-13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew ‘Third Way’ Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart II-13). Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart II-14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table II-2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart II-14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart II-15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table II-2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators Chart II-15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked9 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart II-16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart II-16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.10 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart II-17). Chart II-17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table II-3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart II-18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Table II-3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan Chart II-18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 2 Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 3 April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 4 As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 5 July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 6 Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu. 7 Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 8 “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 9 Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 10 Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … : The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines.  … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy.  … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant.  … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. Feature The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”1 Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.2 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart 1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. Chart 1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.3 The Gipper,4 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.5 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart 2). Chart 2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart 3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart 3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart 4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table 1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart 5). Chart 4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart 5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts Table 1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart 6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart 6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart 7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Chart 7"Limited Government" Falling Out Of Fashion Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”6  Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.7 But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart 8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart 9).8 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Chart 8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration Chart 9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart 10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart 11). Chart 10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. Chart 11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart 12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart 12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart 13). Chart 13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew 'Third Way' Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart 14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table 2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart 14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart 15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table 2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators Chart 15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked9 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart 16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart 16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.10 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart 17). Chart 17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table 3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart 18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Chart 18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Table 3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments       Footnotes 1     August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 2     Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 3    April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 4    As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 5    July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 6    Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu.   7     Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 8    “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 9    Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 10   Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Global equity valuations are at a level where they are very sensitive to changes in the discount rate. Chart 1 shows that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield on the S&P 500 is slightly below its 2000 low. Equity investors have thus far taken comfort from the fact that US bond yields have been depressed, and taking into consideration low bond yields the US equity market is not as bubbly as it was in the 2000s. Chart 1Rising US Bond Yields Threatens US Equity Valuations However, the fact that the US equity market’s valuations after accounting for the level of interest rates are not as expensive as they were in 2000 does not mean share prices cannot experience a meaningful shakeout. Notably, there is a lot of speculation and euphoria among investors, reminiscent of the late 1990s (please refer to Charts 24-26 below). Critically, when equity multiples are very elevated and bond yields are extremely low, the sensitivity of multiples to interest rates is most pronounced. Hence, rising US Treasury yields could result in a setback in share prices. All in all, our themes for now are as follows: Chart 2A Full-Fledged Mania In Asian TMT Stocks Enormous US fiscal and monetary stimulus, strong economic growth and supply bottlenecks will push up the US core inflation rate. As a result, the ongoing sell-off in long-term US bond yields will continue. EM and DM credit spreads are currently very tight and credit spreads might not be able to compress further to offset the rise in US Treasury yields. Hence, rising US Treasury yields will trigger higher corporate and EM sovereign bond yields. In brief, rising EM bond yields is the key risk to EM share prices. Charts 5 and 6 below illustrate these points. Given that the US trade-weighted dollar is extremely oversold, rising US Treasury yields will likely trigger a countertrend rally in the greenback. This will cause a shakeout in EM currencies, fixed-income markets and commodities prices. Historically, the greenback has not had a stable relationship with US Treasury yields – they were both positively and negatively correlated in different periods. In such an environment, DM growth stocks will underperform DM value stocks. We have less conviction in growth/value performance in the EM space. The reason lies in the speculative frenzy taking place in Chinese new economy stocks trading in Hong Kong as well as tech share prices in Korea and Taiwan. As Chart 2 reveals, the Hang Seng Tech index and EM TMT stocks have been rising exponentially. Visibility is very low. The timing of a reversal of this equity euphoria is impossible to predict. Outside these TMT stocks, the relative performance of EM equities has been rather underwhelming, as is illustrated in Charts 71-73. Notably, the economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies (please refer to Charts 63 and 66). This will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. In addition, peak stimulus in China means that the mainland’s construction and infrastructure investment will slow meaningfully in H2 2021. This is another risk to EM economies supplying to China. Weighing pros and cons, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to EM in a global equity portfolio. The same is true for EM credit (sovereign and corporate) within a global credit portfolio. For local bonds, inflation in EM – including China – is still very low and will likely stay depressed. As a result, we continue recommending receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, Malaysia, India and China. Investors should use a rebound in the US dollar  to transition from receiving rates to being long on cash bonds. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Yellow Flags For Share Prices Rising US corporate bond yields pose a risk to the equity rally. Interestingly, New Zealand’s stock market has begun correcting. Often but not always, this development heralds a pullback in EM share prices (albeit for unknown reasons). Chart 3Yellow Flags For Share Prices Chart 4Yellow Flags For Share Prices Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Historically, rising EM corporate USD bond yields led to a selloff in EM share prices. If rising US Treasury yields begin pushing up EM sovereign and corporate bonds yields, which is quite likely, the EM equity rally will be jeopardized. Chart 5Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Chart 6Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery So far, the EM equity index has snubbed the rollover in China’s credit impulse and plummeting gold prices in non-US dollar currencies. The ongoing EM corporate earnings recovery has justified the rally in of share prices. However, much  of the good news has already been priced in. Chart 7EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 8EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 9EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery   Investors Are Super Bullish European investors are very bullish on EM equities and European growth. From a contrarian perspective, this does not always herald a bear market but suggests that odds of a meaningful shakeout are non-trivial. Chart 10Investors Are Super Bullish Chart 11Investors Are Super Bullish Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Our proxy for global growth expectations as well as EM net EPS revisions are elevated. Similarly, analysts’ EM 12-month forward EPS growth differential vs. US are the widest since 2001. Chart 12Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Chart 13Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High US Inflation And Rates US core goods inflation has been rising due to strong US household demand and supply bottlenecks. When the economy fully reopens, US core service inflation will rise as pent-up demand for services is unleashed. This will push up US bond yields regardless of the Fed’s rhetoric. Chart 14US Inflation And Rates Chart 15US Inflation And Rates   Chart 16US Inflation And Rates Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space A rise in US TIPS and nominal yields will likely send shockwaves through EM risk assets and commodities that have greatly benefited from the plunge in TIPS yields. Watch out for cracks in the EM high-yield bond space. Chart 17Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 18Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 19Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 20Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space   EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Although cyclically and for some countries structurally speaking EM currencies have more upside and their appreciation path will not be without major setbacks. In fact, several key currencies like MXN and ZAR are facing an important technical resistance. Investors should not chase them higher but accumulate them on a relapse. Chart 21EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are OverboughtChart 23EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Chart 22EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought   Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Certain measures of stock market activity – like the call-put ratio, trading volumes and margin loans –  reveal engulfing speculative behavior not only in the US but also in other markets like Korea. Chart 24Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 25Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 26Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild   A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision The IPO boom is not as expansive as it was at its 2000 and 2007 peaks and there is some US dollar cash left to be put to work. Visibility is very low. Chart 27A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 28A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 29A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision   Steep Equity Volatility Curves A steep equity volatility curve heralds a correction. Chart 30Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 31Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 32Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 33Steep Equity Volatility Curves   Volatilities Across FX, Bonds And Commodities Oil volatility has been and remains in a bull market – making higher lows. Currency volatility remains elevated while US bond volatility is still very low and is bound to rise. Chart 34Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 35Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 36Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 37Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Chart 38Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 39Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Global cyclical stocks’ relative performance versus defensive stocks might be due for a pause. Growth will underperform value in DM due to rising bond yields. We are less convinced about the growth/value performance in the EM equity space due to the mania occurring in EM TMT stocks. Chart 40Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 41Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 42Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 43Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance   Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Many global equity indexes excluding US or TMT have either not broken out or have done so only marginally. Chart 44Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 45Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 46Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 47Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Excluding TMT stocks, EM equity indexes have not broken above their previous highs. It has been a mania in TMT stocks that has boosted the EM overall equity index. Chart 48EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 49EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 50EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 51EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive   A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chinese offshore stocks ex-TMT and onshore equal-weighted and small caps have done rather poorly. The latest euphoria in Hong Kong-listed Chinese stocks has been due to an increased quota for mainland investors to buy offshore stocks. This has led to massive southbound outflows and has propelled Chinese stock trading in Hong Kong. Chart 52A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chart 53A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks   Chart 54A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Rollover in credit and fiscal stimulus in Q4 2020 entails weak growth in H2 2021 in segments leveraged to stimulus. Chart 55The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 56The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Chart 57The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 58The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Commodity Prices The end of commodities restocking in China, weaker demand from mainland construction in H2 and elevated investor net long positions in commodities constitute the basis for a setback in commodities prices this year. Nevertheless, such a pullback will occur only if the USD rebounds and global equity prices sell off. Chart 59Commodity Prices Chart 60Commodity Prices Chart 61Commodity Prices Chart 62Commodity Prices   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued The economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies. Chart 63The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 64The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 65The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 66The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag EM ex-North Asia’s economic underperformance will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. Besides, their banks are reluctant to lend due to high NPLs. Chart 67The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 68The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 69The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 70The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming A slow recovery in EM ex-TMT industries explains why EM equity performance outside TMT stocks has been underwhelming. Chart 71EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 72EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 73EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming   Footnotes

Highlights The post-2008 boom in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate is a ‘rational bubble’, because the relationship between risk-asset valuations and falling bond yields is exponential. But the ‘rational bubble’ is turning into an ‘irrational bubble’. Stay tactically neutral to stocks for the next few weeks to see whether valuation can revert to rationality. This means keep existing investments in the market, but hold fire on new deployments of cash. If valuation reverts to rationality, then investors can safely deploy new cash into the market. But if valuation moves into irrationality, then it will require a completely different investment mindset, in which fractal analysis will become crucial in identifying the bursting of the bubble, just as it did in 2000. Fractal trade: the Chinese stock market is vulnerable to correction. Feature Chart of the WeekA 'Rational Bubble' And An 'Irrational Bubble' Regular readers will know that we have characterised the post-2008 boom in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate as a ‘rational bubble’. Rational, because the nosebleed valuations are justified by a fundamental driver. And not just any fundamental driver, but the most fundamental driver of all – the bond yield. However, the ‘rational bubble’ is turning into an ‘irrational bubble’, akin to the dot com mania in which valuations became totally disconnected from fundamentals (Chart of the Week). What should investors do? The Relationship Between Bond Yields And Risk-Asset Valuation Is Exponential Everyone realises that a lower bond yield justifies a lower prospective return from competing investments, such as stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate. As valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, a lower bond yield justifies a higher valuation for all risk-assets. (Chart I-2). Chart I-2House Prices have Decoupled From Rents Again (And It Didn't End Happily Last Time) But few people realise that a lower bond yield justifies an exponentially higher valuation for risk-assets. To visualise this exponential relationship, look again at the Chart of the Week. The bond yield is plotted on a logarithmic (and inverted) left scale, while the stock market forward price-to-earnings is plotted on a linear right scale. The inverted log versus linear scales demonstrate that, in the ‘rational bubble’, the lower the bond yield, the greater the impact of a given decline in the bond yield on stock market valuation. Few people realise that a lower bond yield justifies an exponentially higher valuation for risk-assets. Chart I-3 and Chart I-4 also demonstrate the exponential relationship using the earnings yield as a proxy for the prospective return on stocks. A 1.5 percent decline in the bond yield had a smaller impact on the earnings yield when the bond yield started at 4 percent in 2014 than when the bond yield started at 3 percent in 2019. At the higher bond yield, the prospective return on stocks fell by 1 percent, but at the lower bond yield, the prospective return on stocks plunged by 2.5 percent. Chart I-3A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-4…Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent To repeat, the lower the bond yield, the greater the impact of a given move in the bond yield on the prospective return from stocks. The intriguing question is, why? To answer this question, we must venture into a branch of behavioural psychology developed by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, called Prospect Theory. Prospect Theory Explains The ‘Rational Bubble’ Prospect Theory’s key finding is that we consistently overvalue the prospect of a tail-event, both positive and negative. For example, if there is a one in a million chance of winning a million pounds, then the expected value of this prospect is one pound. Yet we will consistently pay more than one pound for this positive tail-event. This willingness to overpay for a positive tail-event is the foundation of the multi-billion pound gambling and lottery industry. Now consider an ‘inverse lottery’, in which there is a one in a million chance of losing a million pounds. In theory, we should take on the risky prospect for one pound. Yet in practice, we will consistently demand more than one pound to take on this negative tail-event. In other words, we will demand a substantial ‘risk premium’. Prospect Theory explains that we overvalue tail-events because we are bad at comprehending small probabilities. Hence, the prospect of winning a million pounds, while in practice a negligible possibility, generates excessive optimism which results in overpayment for the bet. Likewise, the possibility of losing a million pounds, while in practice a negligible possibility, generates excessive pessimism, for which we demand payment of a ‘risk premium’. In the financial markets, stock markets tend to ‘gap down’ much more than they ‘gap up’. Hence, the risk of owning stocks is like the discomfort of the inverse lottery. This explains why investors normally demand a risk premium – an excess prospective return – to own stocks versus bonds. However, the risk relationship between stocks and bonds changes when bond yields approach their lower bound. Now, as bond yields have less scope to move down versus up, bond prices can gap down much more than they can gap up. The upshot is that the risk of owning bonds becomes no different to the risk of owning stocks, and the risk premium to own stocks versus bonds disappears. At ultra-low bond yields, the bond yield and the equity risk premium move up and down in tandem. Given that the prospective return on stocks equals the bond yield plus the risk premium, we can now answer our intriguing question. At ultra-low bond yields, the prospective return on stocks moves by more than the move in the bond yield, because the bond yield and the risk premium are moving up and down in tandem. The result is an exponential relationship between the bond yield and risk-asset valuations. And this explains how the post-2008 collapse in bond yields to unprecedented lows has generated a ‘rational bubble’ in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-5A Rational Bubble In Risk-Assets... Chart I-6...Everywhere   The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational The post-2008 boom in risk-asset valuations is rational given the exponential relationship with a collapsed bond yield. But the rational valuation is turning irrational. Over the past few months, the stock market’s forward price-to-earnings multiple has continued to increase despite a backup in the bond yield. Note that this multiple is calculated on the next 12 months of earnings, so it already incorporates a strong post-pandemic earnings rebound (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational Furthermore, since 2009, the bond yield (plus a fixed constant) has defined a reliable lower limit for the technology sector earnings yield, meaning a well-defined upper limit for the technology sector’s valuation. Since 2009, this valuation limit has effectively defined the limit of the rational bubble and hasn’t been breached. That is, until now. The recent breach of the post-2008 valuation limit means that the rational bubble is turning irrational (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Post-2008 Rational Valuation Limit Has Been Breached There are three ways that an irrational valuation can revert to rationality: Stock prices decline. Bond yields decline. Stock prices and bond yields drift sideways while (forward) earnings gradually rise to improve stock valuations. The Investment Decision The decision to be invested in the stock market is probably the most important decision for all investors, including those in Europe. Furthermore, the direction of the stock market is a global rather than a local phenomenon. Our current recommendation is to stay tactically neutral for the next few weeks to see whether risk-asset valuations can revert to rationality. This means keep existing investments in the market, but hold fire on new deployments of cash. Hold fire on new deployments of cash. If valuation reverts to rationality in any of the three ways listed above, then investors can safely deploy new cash into the market. But if valuation turns into irrationality, then it will require a completely different investment mindset. After all, you cannot analyse an irrational market using rational tools! In this case, technical analysis becomes much more important, and front and centre of these techniques is fractal analysis. Specifically, as investors with longer and longer time horizons join the irrational bubble, there will be well-defined moments of heightened fragility, at which correction risk increases. This is what burst the irrational bubble in 2000 (Chart I-9), and will burst any new irrational bubble. Stay tuned. Chart I-9The Dotcom Bubble Burst When All Investment Time Horizons Had Joined It Fractal Trading System* The recent strong rally and outperformance of the Chinese stock market is fragile on all three fractal structures: 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day. A good trade is to underweight China versus New Zealand (MSCI indexes), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 9 percent. In other trades, the continued momentum of reflation plays has weighed on some recent positions as well as stopping out short MSCI World versus the 30-year T-bond. Nevertheless, the rolling 12-month win ratio stands at 54 percent. Chart I-10MSCI: China Vs. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The Biden administration’s budget reconciliation bill will close the output gap, so markets will have to start thinking about upcoming tax hikes, rising wages, and eventual Fed interest rate hikes. Biden’s lax immigration policies will not have a major negative impact on wage growth. A doubling of the minimum wage, which could still make it into one of two budget reconciliation bills, would include a measure to index the post-2026 minimum wage to the average rate of wage rises. Biden’s industrial policy and support of labor unions would also increase wages. Stay long Treasury inflation-protected securities versus duration-matched Treasuries and long value stocks over growth stocks.  Feature The Senate and House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution on the budget for FY2021, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that will enable Democratic leadership to pass President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan with only a simple majority in the Senate. The budget resolution is a fantasy that the ruling party uses to bypass the Senate filibuster, as was the case under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. The latest such resolution claims that the budget deficit will be smaller, not larger, after the Biden rescue plan than what is currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office (Chart 1). It envisions the entire $1.9 trillion being spent in 2021 and then a huge drop in expenditures in 2022. A fiscal cliff ahead of the 2022 midterm election will not occur. Instead the second budget reconciliation maneuver, for FY2022, will increase spending levels once again with infrastructure and green projects, as per Biden’s campaign platform. Chart 1Democrats Pass Budget Resolution The FY2021 budget resolution does not contain any tax increases, “revenue offsets,” to keep the budget in line because the COVID relief is emergency spending that is one-off, not recurring. The FY2022, however, will aim partially to repeal President Trump’s tax cuts. As such financial markets will continue to “buy the rumor” of additional fiscal spending for now but they will also sell the news given that the next reconciliation bill will push up inflation expectations even further, hasten the Federal Reserve’s policy normalization, and include tax hikes. And the current buy-the-rumor phase could be interrupted anyway by Biden’s immediate foreign policy challenges. Larry Summers And The Output Gap Democrats will err on the larger side of the $1.9 trillion stimulus because they regret erring on the smaller side back in 2009. But it is still possible for the price tag to be knocked down to around $1.5 trillion given that the economy is recovering and several moderate Democrats will balk at the enormous size. After all, $900 billion passed at the end of the year is not yet spent. Biden has already compromised by raising the eligibility requirements for households to receive $1,400 stimulus checks. Larry Summers, a frequent guest at the annual BCA conference and a veteran of the Clinton and Obama White Houses, has stirred up a firestorm over the past month by warning that too much federal money spent on short-term cash handouts today would crowd out the administration’s political capital and the amount of deficit spending that is available for long-term, productivity-enhancing investments. Summers warned that the current proposed stimulus is three times larger than required to fill the output gap. Chart 2 shows the output gap from 2009-12 and projected from 2021-24 alongside the size of the relevant stimulus packages to illustrate his point. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen defended the $1.9 trillion price tag – like Summers, she is not normally one to worry about overheating the economy, but unlike Summers, she is now an administration official. She predicted that this size of package would bring the economy back to full employment by next year. The Congressional Budget Office, based on earlier congressional actions, had predicted employment would not return to its pre-COVID level until around 2024. The administration will look to Yellen now and in future to make the call on when enough stimulus is enough. With inflation expectations recovering rapidly, the Fed could be forced to hike rates as early as late 2022, though we think 2023 is more likely given our methodological bias as political analysts. This means the scope for overheating is quite large – a point reinforced by the comparison with the economic recovery back in 2009 (Chart 3). Summers’s criticism is not remiss and could come back to haunt the administration.1 When inflation picks up, the Fed will have to allow an overshoot according to its new policy of targeting average inflation. But once it is assured, it will have to start hiking rates. And once it starts hiking rates it could trigger a recession. Plus, even if we set recession risks aside, Summers’s critical point is that too much stimulus today will reduce the political and budgetary scope for Biden’s long-term agenda, which includes what will likely be his second major bill focused on infrastructure and renewables. The reconciliation process makes it highly likely that Democrats will drive through this initiative through the Senate but not if moderate Senate Democrats balk in the face of rising budget deficits and inflation. Chart 2How Much Is Too Much Stimulus? Our base case still holds that Democrats will pass both reconciliation bills over the next roughly 12 months but investors should keep Summers’s warning in mind. Chart 3Recovery Is Ahead Of The Previous Cycle There are tailwinds for Biden’s agenda. First, his political capital is moderate-to-strong and likely to strengthen over the coming year. It will get bumped up by improving economic conditions, including most recently a marked decline in bankruptcy filings from Q3 to Q4. Our updated Political Capital Index is shown in the  Appendix. Second, concern about budget deficits has eroded, as Republican fiscal largesse showed under Trump – the pandemic and atmosphere of crisis greatly reinforce this point. Third, divisions in the Republican Party have produced as many as five moderates who could assist Biden in winning close legislative votes – even beyond the relatively easy passage of the American Rescue Plan in his honeymoon period. This Republican Party split is the only significance of President Trump’s second impeachment. Trump’s legal woes will continue after he is acquitted in the Senate. The deeper Republicans are divided over Trump’s legacy the harder time they will have recovering in the 2022 midterms, where opposition parties are normally favored. But the Biden administration’s leftward agenda will bring Republicans together, especially once the country moves out of the crisis. One of the biggest battles looms over the southern border. Bottom Line: The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan will more than close the output gap and yet it is only one of two budget reconciliation bills that the Biden administration will seek to pass over the next 12 months. There are still domestic and international factors that could impede the recovery, not least China’s policy tightening, but the risk of excessively short-term stimulus at the expense of long-term public investment is clear. Republicans Will Regroup Over Immigration To Summers’s warning about Biden’s legislative window of opportunity, recall that President Trump never achieved his signature 2016 policy promise – to build a wall on the border with Mexico – because congressional Republicans led him to prioritize repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (which failed) and passing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (which succeeded). There was no political capital left for a major legislative push on the border and immigration. Immigration is one of the areas where Biden has a major incentive to push his policies aggressively. Immigrants tend to skew Democratic in their party affiliations. Americans increasingly believe immigration should be increased, a trend that accelerated after Trump’s election on an avowedly anti-immigration platform (Chart 4, top panel). Today 34% believe it should be increased in addition to 36% who are comfortable with the current level. Meanwhile the number who believe it should be decreased has fallen to 28%, down from 34%-38% around the time of Trump’s election. An anti-immigration candidate may be able to win within the Republican Party (especially under the specific circumstances of 2015-16) but he or she will have trouble winning general elections. Trump himself discarded the topic in the 2020 race. For Democrats, immigration is also probably the single most effective way to drive a wedge between the populist and establishment factions of the Republican Party. For example, establishment Republican presidents oversaw huge infusions of foreigners into US society, the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act, which granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and the 1990 Immigration Act, which increased the quota of legal immigrants. By contrast Trump rose to power by attacking the bipartisan consensus on “open borders.” As long as a substantial cohort of Republicans defends immigration on free market principles, and upholds the corporate interest in having plentiful availability of lower wage seasonal and specialized workers, the party will be divided. The above points explain why the Biden administration will pursue immigration reform more intently than public opinion would leave one to believe. Polls show that voters want to focus on the economic recovery, the pandemic response, and social and civil rights policies more than immigration. There is no question that Biden is prioritizing the pandemic, the economy, and health care (Chart 4, bottom panel). But the Democratic Party has a strategic interest in expanding immigration so Biden will continue to plow forward with executive orders and comprehensive immigration reform in Congress. The US does need immigration reform – to ensure the flow is orderly. President Trump’s “wall” proposal did not come out of nowhere. Like the “Know Nothing Party” that emerged in the 1840s and rose to prominence in the 1850s, the Trump movement arose amid a historic increase in the foreign-born share of the population (Chart 5). But Trump’s policies hardly made a dent in the flow of legal immigrants into the US. Now Biden will reverse them and encourage more incomers. Therefore immigration will persist as a bone of contention in the 2020s. Granted, immigration has amply attested positive effects on the economy – including most clearly by lifting the US’s fertility rate so that it does not suffer from as rapid of an aging process as other developed countries. Indeed, voters are primarily concerned about illegal, not legal, immigration. Still, Republicans will struggle to walk the line between tighter immigration policies and appealing to an audience beyond “old white folks.” This suggests the Biden administration has room to run. Chart 4Public Not Too Concerned About Immigration Chart 5Historically Large Foreign-Born Population It helps Biden that the post-World War II and post-Cold War booms in legal immigration are relatively measured when compared to the overall population. The inflow of migrants was around 0.3% in 2019, very far from its post-war peak of 0.7% per year (Chart 6). Thus the Biden administration will not be overly concerned about being too progressive on this issue. Chart 6Boom In Legal Immigration Less Impressive Relative To Population Chart 7Detainees On The Mexican Border Illegal immigration is the biggest factor motivating periodic public backlashes such as in 2016. Southwestern border apprehensions – the only credible way to measure the unauthorized flow of people over the Mexican border – spiked under President Obama as well as President Trump, though US agents detained nowhere near the numbers witnessed in the 1980s and 1990s (Chart 7). The stock of illegal immigrants in the US ranges from 10-11 million and has remained flat, or fallen slightly, since the financial crisis of 2008. The weakening of the US economy, in the context of tighter border security, reduced incentives to make the difficult journey (Chart 8). The fact that President Obama and Trump increased detentions suggests that the demand to get into the country recovered over the course of the last business cycle. Based on President Biden’s voting record in the Senate and statements during the 2020 campaign, he is not an ultra-dove on the border – but his party has moved to the left on the issue. This is clear from his rivals’ positions in the Democratic primary election. Even his Vice President Kamala Harris, who was not the most radical on stage, supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings and downgrading Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Still, until Democrats repeal the filibuster in the Senate, they will not have a chance of passing comprehensive immigration reform with Republicans unless they accept stronger enforcement provisions. Biden voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act but more recently has emphasized high-tech upgrades to better monitor crossovers. Harris also accepted high-tech security funding that did not involve building a wall. Even with these compromises, it will still be a stretch to find 10 Republicans willing to cross the aisle on this issue while Trump and his faction remain active to punish them in primary elections. Chart 8Estimate Of Total Illegal Immigrants The demand to enter the US will revive once the pandemic is over. The big surge in illegal border crossings in the 1980s-90s coincided with a period in which US economic growth and wellbeing far outpaced that of Mexico and Central America (Chart 9). The gap in GDP per capita is the crudest possible measure and does not reflect the dramatic differences in quality of life that drive people to relocate. Nevertheless, the gap remains drastic, especially with Mexico. Chart 9The Grass Is Greener On The Other Side The gap in current economic activity, such as manufacturing PMIs, between the US and Mexico is as wide as ever. Even as manufacturing contracts in Mexico, the demand for workers in US service industries is soaring (Chart 10). Moreover the US economic revival will be super-charged by the gargantuan fiscal stimulus of 2020-21 whereas Mexican government support for the economy is comparatively austere (Chart 11) Chart 10Super-Charged US Recovery Opens Big Gap With Mexico Chart 11Less Government Support In Mexico Than US Bottom Line: Biden is opening up the borders at a time of economic disparity between the US and Latin America that will lead to an influx of immigration. This is positive for US labor force growth and productivity but it will be hard to pass a long-term solution through Congress. The Republican Party is deeply divided on the issue today but it is likely to become a rallying cry as numbers of newcomers increase and as Trump-style populism remains an active force within the party. Immigration, Wages, And The Minimum Wage   The macroeconomic and market impact of easier border and immigration controls boils down to the impact on wages. There is a vast literature on this subject and we will not pretend to be comprehensive. We will merely make a few observations. The foreign-to-native-born wage differential has narrowed substantially over the past twenty years. The discount to hire immigrants has shrunk from 24% to 15% (Chart 12). This is a reflection of the high demand for immigrant labor and especially the increase in high-skilled workers alongside the booming tech, legal, financial, personal care, and health care industries in the United States – the fastest growing sectors for foreign-born workers since 2003. Earnings growth for foreign workers is more cyclical than for native workers and has been rising faster in recent decades (Chart 13). Chart 12Immigrants Command A Higher Price Than They Used To Chart 13Immigrant Wages Grow In Boom Times Immigrants work the lowest-wage jobs and hence there is some correlation between the share of foreign-born workers in any given industry and the hourly wage, just as there was at the turn of the century (Chart 14). But it does not follow that an increase in immigration suppresses wages as a whole. Chart 15 shows that, over the last business cycle at least, a change in the foreign worker share of a given industry does not correlate with a change in wage growth. Of course, it stands to reason that increasing the supply of labor decreases the price. But not if demand is growing sufficiently to raise the price for all workers. As we have seen, since migrants are willing to undertake long and dangerous journeys for work, they are likely to go where the demand is strong and the price is right – and the flow drops when the jobs dry up. Chart 14Immigrants Work The Lowest Wage Jobs Chart 15More Immigration Not Necessarily A Pay Cut Academics debate the impact on wages. There could be a negative impact, especially for low-skilled native workers, but the aggregate effect is small. One study showed that wages for native workers fell by three percent cumulatively over the 20-year period from 1980-2000 due to immigration.2  This is not dramatic. We can test the connection between immigration and wage growth informally by plotting the growth of southwest border detentions and legal permanent residence admissions alongside that of real wages. There is no clear relationship either way (Chart 16). The same is true if we test it with real median wages – the surge in border apprehensions under President Trump coincided with a boom in wages across the spectrum.  Chart 16Border Influx Does Not Suppress Wages Thus we cannot rule out the possibility that the Biden administration’s relaxation of border controls will have a dampening effect on wages over the long run but we cannot endorse it either. Chances are that the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and government spending will continue to power a recovery that tightens the labor market and lifts wages for most workers.   What about the administration’s simultaneous policy of doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2026 – and indexing wage growth after that date to the median hourly wage? The minimum wage hike might yet make it into the budget reconciliation bill under negotiation – but Biden has already signaled it can be delayed. There is a growing fear about the negative impact on small businesses struggling during the pandemic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that anywhere from 1 million to 2.7 million jobs could be lost in 2025 if the wage hike were implemented now and businesses would pay $333 billion.3 But the proposal will return when the second budget reconciliation bill is up for consideration unless the Senate parliamentarian rules it out, in which case its passage becomes much less likely. Only about 2% of workers are paid at or below the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour so a minimum wage hike but the CBO estimates that 10 percent of workers would be below the proposed wage level by 2025 (Chart 17). The states with higher proportions of minimum wage workers will be the ones most affected and are mostly in the south, including South Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Texas, though there are a few in the north such as New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (Chart 18). Chart 17Most Workers Earn More Than Minimum Wage Chart 18Minimum Wage Workers By State Previous minimum wage hikes did not prevent the economy from reaching full employment – nor did they lead to a lasting pickup in overall wage growth. But indexation to overall wage growth would mark a big change in favor of an eventual wage-price spiral. It cannot be ruled out given that the reconciliation option might be available to Democrats, though it would not take effect till 2026. Bottom Line: There is no firm link between immigration growth and wage growth. Increased immigration flows often coincide with higher incomes and wages as growth and productivity improve. Meanwhile a change in the minimum wage will have a limited impact from a macro point of view alone but a bigger impact if it is indexed to wage growth after 2026, which is possible. In the coming years the much greater impact of Biden’s policies will stem from the massive infusion of fiscal spending he is likely to pass through Congress, which will close the output gap quickly and put upward pressure on wages.    Investment Takeaways Easier immigration and a higher minimum wage are not the only Biden policies that will affect wages. One of the biggest developments since Biden took office is his confirmation that he will maintain a tougher trade policy than his predecessors, excluding Trump. Biden won the election among Midwestern blue collar voters at least partly by stealing Trump’s thunder on trade and globalization. Since taking office he has issued a “Buy American” executive order and declared that he will maintain “extreme” competition with China. His cabinet appointees – notably Antony Blinken at the State Department and Janet Yellen at the Treasury – have given words of warning to China over trade as well. Geopolitical risk is one reason we are cutting back on our participation in the market’s exuberance at the moment, given that critical foreign policy stances are likely to be tested early in Biden’s term. But there is also a long-term implication of the Democrats’ marginal increase in protectionism.   It was the overall policy context of hyper-globalization that led to sluggish wage growth in the United States over the previous forty years. A major factor was the decline of manufacturing and unionization as a result of a lack of competitiveness in the US as global production came online. The erosion in manufacturing jobs only stopped in recent years (Chart 19). Popular support for unions has risen to levels last seen in the late 1970s and 1990s since the Great Recession – under Trump even Republicans talked up unions. Chart 19Blame Fall In Manufacturing, Not Foreign Workers, For Flat Wages Biden’s policies outlined above are reminiscent of the “third way” Democrats in the 1990s – particularly Bill Clinton, who oversaw an increase in the minimum wage and a surge in both legal and illegal immigration. But on trade Biden is shaping up to be more like Trump than Clinton, albeit directing his protectionism more at China than other trade partners. His spending bills will also use fiscal spending to promote industrial policy. Meanwhile labor protections will go up and unionization will at least stem its multi-decade decline.    For the stock market the risk of higher wages looms mostly due to the super-charging of the economy with stimulus. But shoring up domestic manufacturing, unions, labor perks and protections, and possibly indexing the minimum wage will contribute to faster wage growth and – to corporations – higher employment costs (Chart 20). This is a headwind to the corporate earnings outlook. But like the Biden administration’s tax hikes it is not yet affecting the market’s overall bullishness – and may not until the first reconciliation bill passes and the narrative shifts from stimulus to structural reform. Investors may soon find out that they will be dealing with higher wages, higher taxes, higher inflation, and a higher cost of capital. Chart 20Higher Wages, Lower Corporate Profits Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments     Footnotes 1     See BCA Global Investment Strategy, “Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?” January 8, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 2     George J. Borjas and Stephen J. Trejo, “The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,” in Borjas, ed, Mexican Immigration to the United States (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005), pp.13-55.     3    See “The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2021, cbo.gov.  

Dear client, Next week instead of our regular Strategy Report we will be sending you a Special Report from BCA’s Equity Analyzer service on Inflation and Factor investing penned by my colleague Lucas Laskey, Senior Quantitative Analyst. Finally, on February 22 we will be hosting our quarterly webcast one at 10am EST for North American and EMEA clients and one at 8pm EST for Asia Pacific, Australian and New Zealand clients “From Alpha To Omega With Anastasios”. Mathieu Savary, who heads our Daily Insights service, will be our special guest in the morning webcast. On March 1 we will resume our regular publication schedule. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy China’s engineered economic deceleration, the knee jerk US dollar bounce along with signs of soft US capital expenditures entice us to protect our deep cyclicals versus defensives portfolio gains and institute a 2.5% rolling stop to this share price ratio. Rising relative capital outlays, firming software pricing power and an M&A frenzy more than offset the negative relative profit signal from our models that sell side analysts already anticipate. Continue to overweight the S&P software index.  Recent Changes Last Tuesday we closed out our VIX futures hedge for a gain of 19% since the December 7, 2020 inception. Last Wednesday we re-initiated our long “Back-To-Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade. Feature Equity volatility settled down last week following a ferocious ten-day SPX oscillation that sent the VIX soaring to roughly 38 near the peak at the end of January, courtesy of the GME/Wallstreetbets (WSB) saga before collapsing back down near 21 last week. Chart 1 shows that this was likely an equity-only event: both risk off currencies – the yen and the franc – actually fell versus the USD, junk bond spreads barely budged and the vol curve violently inverted, a move that more often than not signals that complacency has morphed into panic. Importantly, when the Fed embarks on active QE the SPX drawdown maxes out at 10% based on empirical evidence, including the recent September/October 10% drawdown. Using the ES futures low hit two Sundays ago, the S&P 500 experienced a 5.3% peak-to-trough pullback well within the range of previous Fed active QE iterations. As a reminder, the 2010 and 2011, 17% and 20% respective drawdowns took root after the Fed had concluded QE1 and QE2 operations. The implication is that for a more significant drawdown to materialize, likely the Fed has to end the current QE operation and reinject some volatility in the bond markets (bottom panel, Chart 1).  Isolating the true signal from all this noise, convinced us to book handsome gains to the tune of 19% in our VIX June futures hedge (conservatively assuming that no leverage was used), reinitiate the long “Back-To-Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade and put the small cap size bias on our upgrade watch list. As volatility has slowly died down, investors can start to refocus on profit fundamentals. Similar to the steep fall in EPS that the SPX 35% drawdown predicted in March of 2020, in recent research we showed that were we to hold the SPX at current levels, its 12-month rate-of-change would surpass the 61% mark next month and forecast that profit growth would rise by a similar amount. Indeed, sell side analysts’ bottom up earnings estimates corroborate this analysis as quarterly EPS will peter out roughly at a 48% year-over-year (YOY) growth rate next quarter and vault to all-time highs in quarterly level terms in Q3 following a three-year hiatus (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity-only Event Chart 2Joined At The Hip Importantly, the tech sector no longer commands an earnings weight similar to its market cap weight likely because it’s run ahead of itself and also because the rest of the sectors are playing catch up this year as the US economy is slated to reopen on the back of the herculean inoculation efforts (profit weight and mkt cap weight columns, Table 1). Table 1Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights This is most evident on the sector contribution to this year's SPX earnings growth. Historically, the tech sector commanded the lion’s share of profit explanation for the SPX, but not in 2021. In fact, the S&P IT sector is ranked 4th in terms of contribution to overall SPX profits, behind industrials, financials and consumer discretionary (Chart 3).   Delving deeper into 12-month forward earnings growth figures is instructive. Table 2 shows our universe of coverage ranked first by GICS1 sector growth rates and then re-ranked per sub-group. As an aside the energy sector’s EPS is slated to contract in calendar 2020 and thus any YOY growth rate figures are rendered useless for the broad sector and the energy sub-industries. Chart 3Sector Contribution To 2021 SPX EPS Growth Table 2Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards Our portfolio positioning is well aligned with the sector ranking of EPS growth for the coming year. Put differently, given the havoc that COVID-19 wreaked to the US industrial and service bases it is normal that deep cyclical sectors along with financials and the decimated services-heavy parts of the consumer discretionary sector to occupy the top ranks. In contrast, defensives sectors that were largely COVID-19 beneficiaries (especially health care and consumer staples) are near the bottom of the pit. The sole misalignment is the bombed out real estate sector that we remain overweight (Table 2). Netting it all out, our sense is that the market has successfully navigated a tumultuous two-week period and we reiterate our long-held sanguine 9-12 month cyclical view on the prospects of the S&P 500. This week, we update a defensive tech sub-group and put a tight stop in the cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent in order to protect profits. Risks To The Cyclicals Over Defensives Portfolio Bent Last December we highlighted that China’s four year cycle will peter out in the back half of 2021 and could cause some equity market consternation, with stocks likely sniffing out any trouble likely by the end of Q1/2021. It appears that investors have been sleeping at the wheel and largely distracted by the GME/WSB saga. Not only did they neglect the robust SPX profit season, but they also ignored that something is amiss in China as we first showed last week (please refer to Chart 12 here). Importantly, what worries us most is the transition from China being the primary locomotive of global growth to the US taking the reins in coming quarters. Clearly such a handoff is tumultuous, especially given the recent added risk of a reflex rebound in the greenback that we first warned about on January 12 when we set the cyclicals/defensives ratio on downgrade alert. Subsequently, we upgraded the S&P utilities sector to neutral locking in gains of 15% for the portfolio, and today we decide to institute a 2.5% rolling stop in the cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent, in order to participate on further upside but also protect 16% gains for the portfolio since the July 27, 2020 inception in case of a market relapse. Practically, when the rolling stop gets triggered we will move the cyclicals/defensives bent down to neutral via executing the downgrade alert we have in the S&P materials sector. In more detail, China’s slamming on the brakes is the key risk to cyclicals/defensives. Not only are the Chinese authorities trying to engineer a slowdown with the recent reverse repo operations, but also BCA’s China Monetary Indicator, the selloff in the Chinese sovereign bond market and the cresting in the PBOC’s balance sheet are all corroborating the economic deceleration signal (Chart 4). Chinese total social financing has peaked, the 6-month credit impulse is plunging, and the nosedive in Goldman Sachs’ Chinese current activity indicator (CAI) are all firing warning shots that the economy is slated to slowdown (Chart 5).  Chart 4Everywhere… Chart 5…One Looks… Already both the Chinese manufacturing and services PMIs have hooked down with the manufacturing new orders-to-inventories (NOI) in free fall and export orders in outright contraction. Tack on the reversal in the Citi economic surprise index (ESI) for China and the outlook dims further for US cyclicals/defensives (Chart 6). No wonder Chinese demand for loans has turned the corner, infrastructure spending has topped out and railway freight volumes have ticked down as a direct response to the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions (Chart 7). Chart 6…China… Chart 7…Is Slowing… Chinese imports flirting with the zero line best capture all this softening in Chinese data and also warns that the US cyclicals/defensives ratio is nearing a zenith (Chart 8). Beyond the dual risk of a counter trend rally in the USD and China’s undeniable deceleration, returning to US shores reveals another source of potential trouble for cyclicals/defensives. Chart 8…Down The US Citi ESI has come back down to earth, and the ISM manufacturing PMI cooled off last month with the NOI ratio flashing red (Chart 9). Importantly, Goldman Sachs’ US CAI is sinking like a stone corroborating that, at the margin, US economic data is softening (Chart 10). Moreover, US capex is in the doldrums courtesy of the collapse in EPS last year that dealt a blow to CEO confidence. Worrisomely, the rollover in the latest capex intentions from regional Fed surveys along with the downbeat NFIB survey’s capital outlays in 6-months component underscore that CEOs remain reluctant to invest (Chart 9). Chart 9Even US Trouble… Finally, relative valuations have surged to all-time highs leaving no cushion in case of a mishap, while relative technicals are in extreme overbought territory near a level that has marked the commencement of prior relative share price drawdowns (Chart 11). Chart 10…Is Brewing Netting it all out, China’s engineered economic deceleration, the knee jerk US dollar bounce along with signs of soft US capital expenditures entice us to protect our deep cyclicals versus defensives portfolio gains and institute a 2.5% rolling stop to this share price ratio. Bottom Line: Prepare to move the cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent back down to neutral from currently overweight. Today we recommend investors establish a 2.5% rolling stop to the cyclicals/defensives relative share price ratio as a risk management tool in order to protect profits. Chart 11Overstretched And Pricey Software On The Ascend While we remain on the sidelines with regard to the broad S&P technology sector we continue to recommend a barbell portfolio approach preferring defensive software and services stocks to aggressive hardware and equipment equities. In that light, we reiterate our overweight stance in the key S&P software sub-industry that still commands the highest market cap weight in the tech sector just shy of 33%. While overall capex is sluggish as we highlighted above, software capital outlays have recovered smartly and according to national accounts are growing at a 10%/annum pace. Stock market-reported capex confirms that software capital expenditures are on an absolute tear and remain a key pillar of our secular preference for this defensive tech group (Chart 12). On the sales front, COVID-19 accelerated the push to the cloud and 2020 has been a bumper year for industry sales. True there is an element of stealing revenues from the future, but as long-time readers of our publication know we do not believe that SaaS is a fad and the adoption of cloud services remains in the early innings. Impressively, while relative forward top line growth expectations have rolled over, the attempt of the software price deflator to exit deflation suggests that software stocks will easily surpass this lowered revenue bar in coming quarters (Chart 13). Chart 12Primary Capex Beneficiary Amidst the IPO frenzy that has captured investors’ imagination especially given the spectacular increases in both SNOW and PLTR (neither of which is in the SPX yet), software M&A fever remains as high as ever. This constant reduction of software stock supply, coupled with the insatiable appetite of software executives to aggressively retire equity, signals that software equity prices will remain well bid (Chart 14). Chart 13Software Tries To Exit Deflation Chart 14Positive Share Price Dynamics Nevertheless, our relative EPS growth models are waving a yellow flag. The SPX is slated to grow profits north of 25% this year, but according to our profit models software will only manage to grow in the single digits, thus trailing the broad market by a wide margin. Encouragingly, this grim relative profit growth backdrop is already reflected in depressed sell side analysts’ forecasts (Chart 15). Finally, while relative valuations are still lofty they recently have corrected back to one standard deviation above the historical mean. Similarly, relative technicals have worked off overbought conditions and have settled down near the recent historical average (Chart 16). Chart 15Risks… In sum, rising relative capital outlays, firming software pricing power and an M&A frenzy more than offset the negative relative profit signal from our models that sell side analysts already anticipate. Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P software index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ADBE, CRM, ORCL, INTU, NOW, ADSK, ANSS, SNPS, CDNS, FTNT, PAYC, CTXS, NLOK, TYL. Chart 16…To Monitor   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views January 12, 2021  Stay neutral small over large caps July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives (2.5% rolling stop) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, ABNB, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth

Highlights There is too much euphoria and complacency in global markets. The main distinction between the current and previous episodes of speculative equity market excesses is that classic end-of-business cycle conditions – such as economic overheating and policy tightening – are now absent. Yet, it does not mean that the bull market will continue uninterrupted. This rally might be short circuited by gravitational forces as happened with the S&P 500 in 1987 and Chinese onshore stocks in 2015. Investors should consider going long EM equity or EM currency volatility to hedge their exposure. Feature There is growing evidence that the global equity rally has turned into a frenzy. Signs of investor euphoria include: The number of traded call options in the US equity market has surged to an all-time high (Chart 1). The number of put options has spiked only in the past couple of weeks and remains well below the number of call options. Chart 1A Call Buying Frenzy Is A Symptom Of Investor Exuberance Critically, there is currently too much complacency: the US put-call ratio is as low as it was in 2000 (Chart 2). The volume of stocks traded on and off all US stock exchanges has exploded since late October, reaching an all-time high (Chart 3). Chart 2A Sign Of Equity Market Complacency Chart 3US Equity Trading Volumes Are At All-Time Highs Chart 4Retail Investors Haven Been A Powerful Force In Korea And Taiwan Equity fervor is prevalent not only among American individual investors but also in many parts of the world. For instance, the breathtaking rallies in the KOSPI and Taiwanese stocks has been primarily driven by local retail investors, as shown in Chart 4. The surge in Taiwanese share prices is stunning because it completely ignores the escalating geopolitical tensions over Taiwan. BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, recently argued that while China is unlikely to invade Taiwan immediately, a military stand-off cannot be ruled out. China and the US have yet to arrive at a mutual understanding regarding China’s access to computer chips made in Taiwan. Overall, since the lockdowns in March last year, individual investors have rushed into equities in many countries such as the US, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and Brazil, to name a few. Finally, US institutional investors are fully invested, as shown in Chart 5. Besides, Chart 6 reveals that US-domiciled EM equity mutual funds’ liquidity ratio (cash as a percentage of assets) is very low. Chart 5US Institutional Investors Are Long Stocks Chart 6US-Domiciled EM Mutual Funds' Cash Is Low   There have been doubts within the global investment community about the potential for small individual investors to move the needle in the overall market. We believe that their impact has been substantial: First, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that individual traders have been involved in options trading since the pandemic erupted. By purchasing call options, retail investors exert substantial upward pressure on share prices: dealers – who sell/write call options – typically hedge their risks by acquiring and holding the underlying stock for the duration of respective options. In short, by putting even small amounts of money at work to purchase call options, individual traders meaningfully affect share prices. Second, price formation in financial markets is influenced by the marginal investor. Everything else being equal, the entry of a new buyer into the marketplace leads to higher prices. Further, retail investors’ impact on financial markets has not been limited solely to stocks they purchase. Rather, there has been a ripple effect on the broader market. For instance, there is evidence that individual investors flocked to the market in March and April and bought en masse shares of companies most negatively affected by the pandemic, such as cruise operations, hotels, airlines and energy producers. As individual investors provided substantial bids for these stocks, institutional investors were able to offload these stocks and buy others. For instance, in Q2 last year Warren Buffett offloaded his airline stocks and allocated that capital to natural gas storage and pipelines, banks, pharma and auto stocks. If retail investors had not provided support to stocks of companies hit hard by the lockdowns and social distancing, Warren Buffett and other professional investors would not have had the opportunity to exit their positions in these stocks at acceptable prices and acquire other securities. This is the mechanism whereby the impact of new market entrants extends beyond the specific equities they purchase. Chart 7A Mini Call Option Mania Among Retail Investors Finally, Charts 1 and 3 above clearly illustrate the surge in both the number of call options and trading volumes since last March. Among call options, transactions with a small number of options have ballooned (Chart 7). This reflects individual investors activity. Consistently, the number of brokerage accounts for retail investors has mushroomed in the US and elsewhere. Bottom Line: It is obvious that the ongoing equity market euphoria is considerable. Individual investors have been playing a vital role in fostering it. The GameStop stock saga, among others, reinforces this point. When And How Will It End? This bull market shares some similarities with previous market cycles, but it also has its distinct features. Similarities: Retail investors typically rush into financial markets toward the end of a bull market. The current US equity market rally began in 2009. After the S&P 500 showed its resilience by rebounding quickly and making new highs following the selloffs in 2015, 2018 and 2019, retail investors were reassured to jump on the bull market train when the 2020 crash occurred.  In short, it took about 11 years of a US equity bull run for individual investors to feel comfortable enough to play the stock market. This is a characteristic of a late cycle/mature bull market. Speculative instruments and schemes are designed and launched. The IPO boom in SPACs1 will probably go down in history as a key feature of the speculative excesses in this cycle. Valuations overshoot during stock market euphoria but investors find reasons to justify lofty equity multiples. FAANGM stocks and other parts of the US equity market are expensive, but investors are using extremely low US bond yields – artificially suppressed by the Federal Reserve – to justify the current multiples. In such a case, the bond market will likely hold equities hostage. As bond yields rise going forward, equity valuations will be threatened. In fact, we believe rising bond yields, not the outlook for economic growth, to be the primary risk to US share prices akin to the late 1960s (Chart 8). Differences: Typically, retail investors feel comfortable investing in the stock market when the economy is strong. In this cycle, they jumped on the stock market train when the economy crashed due to the pandemic. This is a departure from previous cycles. Massive stimulus and ongoing vaccination deployment suggest the economic outlook for the US and many emerging economies is positive. In particular, EM corporate profits are set to recover (Chart 9). Chart 8The US In The 1960s: Share Prices And Treasury Yields Chart 9EM EPS Is To Recover   Hence, it is hard to be bearish on stocks based on the cyclical outlook for growth, assuming vaccination campaigns will allow many major economies to fully reopen in H2 2021. Yet, a lot of this good news seem to be already priced in. Retail investors arrive to the stock market party usually in the late stage of a business cycle – when unemployment is low, inflation is rising, and policymakers are tightening policies. That combination proves lethal for the equity market and a major top in share prices ensues. Presently, due to the pandemic-induced lockdowns, we have the opposite occurring in the US and in many EM economies. Unemployment is high, inflation remains contained, and policymakers are committed to providing unlimited stimulus. In short, the main distinction between the current and previous episodes of speculative equity market excesses is that classic end-of-business cycle conditions – such as economic overheating and policy tightening – are now absent. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Does it mean that the bull market will continue uninterrupted? Not necessarily. This rally might be short circuited for reasons that may differ from those that terminated previous stock market frenzies. First, speculative bubbles could burst without policy tightening. An example of this is China’s equity bubble in 2015, which crashed without policy tightening due to gravitational forces reasserting themselves. Another example is the 1987 US stock market crash that occurred without an economic or fundamental financial cause. Chart 10 illustrates the cyclical trajectories of US GDP and the Fed funds rate did not change materially before and after the equity market crash. In short, the 1987 equity crash was a case when excessive speculation/overbought conditions rather than policy tightening or a recession caused an abrupt equity sell-off. Second, in the EM equity universe, leadership has been extremely narrow. Only a handful of companies have outperformed the aggregate benchmark, propelling the index to 2007 highs. These include a few Chinese new economy stocks, and Korean and Taiwanese technology stocks (Chart 11). Outside North Asian markets (China, Korea and Taiwan), every single EM bourse has underperformed both the EM and global equity benchmarks in the past year. Chart 10The 1987 S&P 500 Crash Was Not Caused By The Fed Or The Economy Chart 11Euphoria In Asian TMT Stocks Chart 12Global ex-TMT Stocks Have Not Broken Out Yet If these global and EM TMT stocks relapse, they will inflict major damage on the EM and global indexes. The EM index has become extremely concentrated with the top five stocks accounting for 24% of the MSCI EM equity index’s market cap. Interestingly, global ex-TMT stocks have not yet broken out to new highs (Chart 12). Finally, US overall equity and global TMT valuations are vulnerable to rising US bond yields. The latter could rise without the Fed hinting at policy tightening if fixed-income investors decide that the Fed is behind the inflation curve. This could trigger a major selloff even if policymakers do not tighten policy. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Go Long EM Equity And Currency Volatility We are in a euphoria phase where fundamentals are less pertinent. The market can either rally a lot or sell off hard regardless of the profit outlook. Navigating through such markets is challenging. Going long EM equity or EM currency volatility offers a good risk-reward profile (Chart 13). Volatility will likely rise in the coming months in both scenarios: either risk assets continue rallying or they sell off. For global equity and credit portfolios, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM. The long-term US dollar outlook is negative, but it is oversold and odds of a near-term rebound are still high. Our currency strategy remains to short a basket of EM currencies versus an equal-weighted average of the euro, CHF and JPY. This basket of EM currencies includes the BRL, CLP, ZAR, KRW and TRY. We continue receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Korea. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC), also known as “blank check companies”, are organizations with no commercial operations that raise capital through an IPO, which is then deployed to purchase an existing company. This process is done to bypass the lengthy process of launching a traditional IPO for a young company.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

In lieu of the next strategy report, I will be presenting the quarterly webcast titled ‘Five Contrarian Predictions For 2021-22’ on Thursday February 11 at 10.00AM EST (3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT). I hope you can join. Highlights Many of the ‘short squeezed’ investments that day traders have bid up are at, or approaching, collapsed short-term fractal structures. As such, patient long-term investors should take the other side. The biggest risk to the stock market remains the vulnerability of valuations to even a modest rise in bond yields. The happy corollary is that the structural bull market in equities will only end when the 10-year T-bond yield reaches zero. Until then, stay structurally overweight equities. Structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus value-heavy emerging markets (EM) equities. Do not structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus growth-heavy US equities. This is a ‘widow maker’ trade. Fractal trade: short AUD/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekShort-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (Gamestop) There is no divine law that decrees the ‘correct’ time-horizon for any investment. Depending on your objectives and skills, a correct investment horizon could be anything spanning a few milliseconds to a hundred years. Once you absorb this fundamental point, it leads to a profound conclusion:  The ‘correct’ price for any investment depends on your investment horizon. The Most Important Investment Question Is, Who Is Setting The Price? A long-term investor and a day trader will go through completely different thought processes to determine a stock’s ‘correct’ price. The long-term investor, intending to buy and hold the stock for ten years, will receive 40 quarterly dividend payments plus the stock price as it stands in 2031. Hence, the correct price is the discounted value of those expected cashflows. But for the day trader, intending to buy today to sell tomorrow, only one cashflow matters – tomorrow’s price. Hence, the correct price is simply the expected price at which he can sell tomorrow. The longer-term cashflows are irrelevant, unless they set the selling price tomorrow. Yet this is unlikely, because as Benjamin Graham put it:   In the long run the market is a weighing machine, but in the short run it is a voting machine. Therefore, a long-term investor and a day trader are completely different animals, whose price-setting behaviour must be seen through different lenses. This matters because the price is always set by the last marginal transaction. The important question then is, who is setting the price? All of which brings us to the battle raging between a cabal of day traders and a group of hedge funds. The day trader is buying today because he expects that the hedge fund, desperate to cover its short positions, must buy at an even higher price tomorrow. The day trader’s behaviour is rational, so long as it is within the law, and so long as the hedge fund short-covering is the marginal price taker. Eventually though, the desperate hedge fund will not take the price, because there are no more short positions left to cover. At this point, if the day trader wants to exit his position, the marginal buyer will be a longer-term investor who will only buy at a much lower fundamentally-determined price. The day trader will have won the battle, but lost the war. The crucial takeaway is that we should always monitor which time-horizon of investors is setting the marginal price of an investment. We can do this by continually measuring the fractal structure of the investment’s price. We should always monitor which time-horizon of investors is setting the marginal price of an investment. When the fractal structure of an investment has collapsed, it means that the time-horizon of investors setting the price has compressed to a near-term limit. Thereby it signals that the price-setting baton will return to long-term investors who will reset the price to valuation anchors, such as discounted long-term cashflows. The implication is that the preceding trend, fuelled by short-term price setters, is likely to reverse. Today, we observe that many of the investments that day traders have recently bid up are at, or approaching, collapsed short-term fractal structures. As such, patient long-term investors should take the other side (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Short-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (AMC Entertainment) Chart I-3Short-Squeezed Investments Now Have Collapsed Fractal Structures (Blackberry) The Major Misunderstanding About Real Bond Yields A common question we get is, should we compare the prospective returns on equities and bonds in nominal terms or in real terms? In an apples-for-apples comparison it shouldn’t really matter. The problem is that while we know the prospective nominal return from bonds (it is just the bond yield), it is extremely difficult to know the prospective real return from bonds. As the markets are lousy at predicting inflation, the ex-ante real bond yield is a lousy predictor of the ex-post real bond yield. A trustworthy ex-ante real bond yield requires a trustworthy prediction of inflation. But both the inflation forwards market and the breakeven inflation rate implied in inflation protected bonds are lousy at predicting inflation.1 As the markets are lousy at predicting inflation, the ex-ante real bond yield is a lousy predictor of the ex-post real bond yield (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4The Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation In Europe... Chart I-5...And In The ##br##US A second point is that the required excess return on equities versus bonds is a nominal concept. This is because the bond yield’s lower limit is set in nominal terms, at say -1 percent. Proximity to this nominal yield limit makes bonds very risky because there is no longer any upside to price, only downside. As the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, the required nominal return on equities collapses towards the ultra-low nominal bond yield. There are two important takeaways. First, we should always compare the valuation of equities and their prospective nominal return with the nominal bond yield. Second, the valuation of equities is exponentially sensitive to an ultra-low nominal bond yield (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Relationship Between The Bond Yield And Stock Market Valuation Is Exponential We conclude that the biggest risk to the stock market remains the vulnerability of valuations to even a modest rise in bond yields. Yet the happy corollary is that the structural bull market in equities will only end when bond yields can go no lower. In practice, this means when the 10-year T-bond yield reaches zero. Until then, long-term investors should stay in the stock market. The Major Misunderstanding About Valuation Another common question we get is, is it always meaningful to compare an investment’s valuation versus its own history? The answer is no. The comparison with a historical average is meaningful only if the valuation is mathematically stationary, which is to say it has not undergone a ‘phase-shift’. If the valuation has undergone a phase-shift, then the comparison with its own history is meaningless.  As an analogy, nobody would compare their bodyweight with its lifetime average, because we understand that our bodyweight undergoes a phase-shift from childhood to adulthood. If we did compare our bodyweight with its lifetime average, it would give the false signal that we were permanently overweight! Likewise, to avoid getting a false signal from a valuation, we should always ask, has it undergone a phase-shift? If a valuation has undergone a phase-shift, then a comparison with its own history is meaningless. Unfortunately, the structural prospects for financials, oil and gas, and basic resources – sectors that dominate ‘value’ indexes and stock markets – did suffer a major downward phase-shift at the start of the 2000s (Chart I-7). It follows that we cannot compare the valuations of ‘value heavy’ indexes with their long-term history, and draw any meaningful conclusions. Chart I-7Value' Sector Profits Are In A Major Structural Downturn Proving this point, the relationship between value-heavy European valuations and subsequent 10-year return is much worse for periods ending after the global financial crisis compared with periods ending before it. Whereas the relationship between growth-heavy US valuations and subsequent return has barely changed, because the structural prospects for growth sectors have not suffered downward phase-shifts (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Relationship Between Valuation And Future Return Has Changed In Europe... Chart I-9...But Not So Much ##br##In The US Given the ongoing trends in value versus growth profits, it is much safer to overweight value-heavy European equities versus value-heavy emerging markets (EM) equities. Do not structurally overweight value-heavy European equities versus growth-heavy US equities. This is a ‘widow maker’ trade. Fractal Trading System* The rally in AUD/JPY is at a potential a near-term top based on its collapsed 65-day fractal structure. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/JPY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.8 percent. Chart I-10AUD/JPY In other trades, short European basic resources versus the market achieved its 4 percent profit target and is now closed. The rolling 12-month 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 Europe and the US have deep and liquid markets in 5-year 5-year inflation swaps (or forwards), which price the expected 5-year inflation rate 5 years ahead. The current swap measures the annual inflation rate expected through 2026-31. The UK and the US also have deep and liquid markets in inflation-protected government bonds: UK index-linked gilts, and US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The yield offered on such a security is real, which means in excess of inflation. The yield offered on a similar-maturity conventional bond is nominal. This means that the difference between the two yields equates to the market’s expectation for inflation over the maturity, known as the ‘breakeven inflation rate.’ 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 We are hesitant to call a top to the volatility spike just yet. The US dollar is experiencing a counter-trend bounce. We also see political and geopolitical risks flashing yellow. House Democrats are drafting a reconciliation bill that will remind financial markets of looming tax hikes. President Biden faces imminent tests on China/Taiwan and Iran. The tech sector has bounced amid the setback to the reflation trade. Over the long run the Biden administration’s reflationary agenda suggests tech will no longer outperform. Biden’s regulatory risk to the tech sector is not immediate but still a downside risk. No major piece of bipartisan legislation is forthcoming but the Department of Justice, FCC, and FTC can bring negative surprises. We are hitting pause on our S&P trades until Biden passes some early hurdles. Feature Volatility has room to run, judging by past post-crisis periods (Chart 1), and this time we are especially concerned with brewing geopolitical risks, namely the US-China tensions over the Taiwan Strait. This geopolitical risk comes on top of the short squeezes and battles that retail investors are having against hedge funds all over the market. China is reminding the world of its red line against Taiwanese independence while testing the newly seated Joe Biden administration over whether it will seek a technological blockade against the mainland. Economic and trade policy uncertainty have collapsed but they would surge in the event of a crisis incident (Chart 2). While war is not likely, it is possible, so we need to see the Biden administration defuse the situation and pass this first test before we are willing to take on more risk on a tactical three-to-six-month time frame. Chart 1Volatility Can Go Higher Still Chart 2Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Chart 3Biden's Approval Starts At 55% President Biden’s average approval rating in his first two weeks in office is 55%, right where former President Trump’s disapproval rating would have suggested (Chart 3). This is a significant but not extravagant improvement in political capital for the White House. Our Political Capital Index shows Biden’s position as moderate-to-strong (Table 1). Table 1Biden’s Political Capital Moderate-To-Strong The implication is that he still has a chance of passing his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan as a bipartisan bill with 10 Republican senators, a feat that would likely lower the topline value to around $1.3 trillion (Republicans proposed $618 billion) and exclude an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. There is also a strong swing of independents in favor of Democrats in the opinion polling, in the wake of the incident on Capitol Hill on January 6, despite the fact that Republican and Democratic party identification are both stuck at around 30% — meaning that the Biden administration does have something to gain by appearing bipartisan (Chart 4).1 Republicans might cooperate to staunch the bleeding of their own support. Even Republicans approve of stimulus amid the pandemic and they would later be able to oppose Biden’s more controversial proposals with better optics having demonstrated bipartisan intent at the outset. However, House Democrats are already proceeding with a budget resolution, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that enables them to bypass Republicans entirely and get almost everything they want (Diagram 1). Chart 4Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Biden’s political capital should strengthen over the next year as the vaccine rollout improves and the economy comes roaring back. Official economic projections suggest that growth will glide solidly above potential until 2026 and that the output gap will close by 2024 (Chart 5). These estimates will be disappointed in various ways, of course, but in the near-term the risk is to the upside as they do not include Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion rescue plan or his remaining, post-COVID agenda afterwards, which could cost anywhere from $3.7-$6.4 trillion over a ten-year period.2 The economy will be at less risk of relapsing than of overheating. This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s new average inflation targeting strategy, which will discourage rate hikes till next year at the very earliest (and, from a political point of view, we would think 2023). Looking at the chart, Biden’s economic backdrop is far more propitious than that of his former boss Barack Obama’s back in 2009. Biden’s political momentum is therefore sustainable when it comes to the two budget reconciliation bills he wants to pass this year and next year. Republican internal divisions will help him. These were highlighted this week by Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel’s criticism of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s claims of voter fraud after the election and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent scathing criticism of controversial pro-Trump freshman House member Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Republicans are only beginning their internal struggle and it is not certain that it will be resolved in time for the 2022 midterm elections. This is another reason to think that Biden’s political capital will be sustained and that moderate Republicans might assist with some Democratic legislation. The risks to Biden’s momentum stem from foreign policy (China, Iran, Russia), rapidly emerging financial instability, his party’s attempts at social control, and any major (not minor) negative developments involving the still-running pandemic and vaccine rollout. Chart 5US Economic Outlook Over Biden’s Term Macro Reflation Says Stay Underweight Tech The tech sector experienced a manic phase last year when COVID-19 struck and lockdowns kept consumers at home with nothing to do but work, shop, and stare at their phones. The big five companies – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook – together witnessed an extraordinary run up relative to the other 495 companies in the S&P index that has since peaked and dropped off (Chart 6). Chart 6Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Tech stock market capitalization accounts for 34% of American economic output – an extreme sign of over-concentration at a time when the market is generally inflated, according to the Buffett Index of stock market cap relative to GDP (Chart 7). Tech outperformance rests on strong earnings growth – supercharged due to the COVID crisis – as well as the secular fall in bond yields as a result of the global backdrop of excessive savings, low inflation, and scarce growth. Tech stocks are especially sensitive to bond yields because markets are projecting their earnings far into the future, as our colleague Mathieu Savary explained back in August. Ultra-dovish monetary policy with zero interest rates for longer and longer time frames is a perennial gift to these companies (Chart 8). Chart 7Buffett Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Chart 8Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? The catch is when and if growth and inflation expectations pick up. Even during the Dotcom bubble in the 1990s, the tech sector could not withstand rising interest rates (Chart 9). Eventually higher inflation will translate into central bank hikes and rising real interest rates – which should be very bad for tech as future cash flows lose value. Rising rates increase the cost of capital, while cyclical industries perform better in high growth environments with rising commodity prices. A recovery of inflation is becoming a more visible risk to investors over the coming few years. Even though unemployment is still elevated, and the output gap negative, the sea change in fiscal policy is likely to close this gap quickly and put upward pressure on expectations and prices. It will still take time to close the gap but each new dose of government spending on top of what is needed to plug the gap in demand due to the pandemic-stricken service sector will accelerate the time frame in which the labor market will tighten and price pressure will return. Investors are increasingly wary of this inflation risk as it is the logical consequence of the new combination of extreme monetary and fiscal accommodation. Earnings in the tech sector relative to the rest of the market have also peaked – and did not exceed their previous high point in 2010 despite the uniquely favorable backdrop (Chart 10). The big five have nearly saturated a lot of markets which raises the possibility that if the policy backdrop darkens, then they will see earnings disappointments. The Biden administration’s plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on company book income would come as a double whammy for tech earnings, as they are relatively more exposed to increases in effective tax rates than other sectors. Chart 9Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Chart 10Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Finally, there is the long building problem of regulatory risk, as Americans have clearly become more concerned about Big Tech’s power and influence over their daily lives and politics. Here we do not think the Biden administration poses an immediate threat of frontal legislative assault, but we do think the end game is greater regulation, including tougher enforcement from antitrust agencies. Combined with geopolitical risk from Europe and other countries also seeking to tax and regulate these companies, the recent global semiconductor shortage, and the potential for a Taiwanese tech blockade, the political risk is clearly to the downside. Bottom Line: The macro backdrop has darkened for the tech sector. With governments turning more reflationary via a sea change in fiscal policy on top of ultra-easy monetary policy, inflation expectations should recover and inflation-sensitive sectors like tech should underperform. This risk is clear despite the fact that inflation requires the labor market to heal first. Any political, geopolitical, or regulatory risks would only further undermine the case for tech sector outperformance. Tech, Polarization, And Disinflation A critical question for investors is the relationship between US political polarization, the tech sector, and the disinflationary macroeconomic context that has proven so beneficial for Big Tech’s stock market performance. If polarization leads to gridlock, austerity, and disinflation, then tech can continue to enjoy the policy environment. But if polarization subsides, or if it coexists with a reflationary backdrop – as is the case today – then tech faces a new risk. It is fair to hypothesize that the rise of Silicon Valley and especially of social media has something to do with the explosion in US polarization over the past three decades. A simple chart of the S&P 500 alongside our polarization proxy – which measures the difference in presidential approval based on party – suggests that polarization could have some connection with tech sector outperformance (Chart 11). This is not a coincidence but the causality may work differently than some assume. The first period of tech sector outperformance, which rested on the “peace dividend” period of hyper-globalization, strong growth, strong dollar, low inflation, and technical innovation, occurred during the explosion of US polarization in the wake of the Cold War, when the US’s common enemy fell and the country’s political parties turned to do battle with each other for global supremacy. The structural changes of Reaganomics and NAFTA coincided with the political battles of the Republican revolution of 1994 and Bill Clinton’s sex scandal and impeachment. This heady period came to a peak in 2000 when the dotcom bubble burst and the US suffered its first contested election since 1876. Essentially globalization led to a deflationary backdrop that favored tech but also triggered the political struggle within the US for the spoils of victory in the Cold War. Chart 11Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock The second period of tech sector outperformance emerged from the Great Recession, still higher wealth inequality, and the slow-burn economic recovery of the 2010s. The disinflationary environment and dollar bull market proved beneficial to the tech companies. In this case globalization’s deflationary effects continued but were compounded with US household deleveraging, which was far more malicious for the American middle class. Crucially, polarization created gridlock in Congress from 2010, preventing the US from pursuing a robust fiscal policy in the wake of the crisis that might have led to a more rapid recovery. Instead an extended disinflationary environment fed into social unrest and populism. While public animus naturally turned against Wall Street and the Big Banks in the wake of the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank financial reform helped to pacify the public’s anger (though not entirely – and financial regulation is gradually reemerging as a relevant political risk). As the financial crisis faded from memory, but the low-growth, disinflationary environment continued to take a toll on households, an angry electorate began to freely express itself in the digital realm. Tech companies were happy to ride this wave and outperformed other sectors. As the backlash continued mounting, tech companies failed to rein in the angry userbase they had cultivated, and now they are staring at massive regulatory and legal risks from policymakers. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump used Twitter and social media as a tool to establish direct engagement with their political base, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had used the radio and the fireside chat. This rising political heft ultimately made the companies conspicuous as conservatives blamed them for supporting the Obama administration (and Clinton campaign) while liberals especially blamed them for getting Trump elected. The Trump saga in particular gave rise to the so-called “tech-lash,” or backlash, as the companies’ core base of young, urbanized, cosmopolitan, and international users called on the tech companies to stop the spread of Russian propaganda, or other propaganda they disagreed with, and undertake socially progressive causes. Meanwhile the older, conservative, and rural population doubted that Russian interference caused the 2016 election result and sensed that the tech companies’ content moderators might not be all that scrupulous regarding the difference between conservative views and Russian information warfare (Chart 12, top panel). In combination with the heated election year campaigning, the pandemic and the backlash against lockdown, tension in the virtual world came to a peak last year and spilled out into the real world. This all came to a head with Twitter and Facebook first censoring and then banning President Trump from their platforms amid his claims of voter fraud and the riot on Capitol Hill. Chart 12Big Tech Not The Chief Driver Of Polarization Two major policy changes have occurred that threaten to reverse this macro backdrop. First, as a result of the 2020 crisis the Democrats won control of the White House and Congress and can now pass their mammoth spending agenda, which goes beyond pandemic relief to expanding the role of government in American economy and society – including by reflating the economy and imposing higher taxes on corporations, both of which threaten to undermine the tech sector’s outperformance. Second, China’s secular slowdown, reduction of trade dependency, and divorce from the US economy have undermined hyper-globalization. The Biden administration is pursuing on-shoring and China restrictions albeit to a lesser extent than its predecessor. If technological advance and social media cause political polarization, then these policy shifts may not last long or have a durable macro effect. But technology and communication tools have advanced throughout history regardless of whether polarization in any given country was rising or falling. Older people are the most partisan in the US yet they are the least enthusiastic users of social media (Chart 12, bottom panel). Tech and social media have proliferated across the world and yet polarization has fallen in Germany, Australia, Sweden, and other economies even as it has risen in the United States and arguably the United Kingdom (Chart 13). If social media enabled populist outcomes like Trump and Brexit, then why did populism fall short in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany? Social media participation thrived on the rise of polarization through the 2000s and 2010s but it exacerbated the problem – and once polarization erupted in the form of an anti-establishment presidency, Russian interference, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and real world riots and social unrest, the tech platforms found themselves in the crosshairs of both of the political factions and the various politicians trying to appease their anger. Silicon Valley and the FAANGs operate in a power struggle – not merely a politicized environment – that is here to stay and will direct their attention away from their primary business and toward paying for lobbyists in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere. This in itself is a danger to their business models even if it were not the case that the macro and policy backdrop is less supportive. Bottom Line: The reflationary fiscal and policy backdrop will continue in the coming years, a macro headwind for tech outperformance, while political risks to the tech sector have grown substantially. Chart 13Polarization Falls In Many Countries Despite Social Media Congress In Check But Regulatory Risk Persists Democrats and Republicans have a different and opposed set of grievances against Big Tech, which is likely to prevent comprehensive legislation from developing anytime soon. But legislation is still possible, and in the meantime risks will come from emboldened regulators. Based on the House judiciary hearing in July 2020, Democrats are concerned with content moderation and market concentration. They want to fortify their recent gains in preventing social media companies from aiding what they regard as the spread of seditious and libelous material or propaganda that favors the anti-establishment Trumpist right wing. Judging by the Senate Republicans’ hearings in October and November 2020, Republicans are primarily concerned with content moderation– i.e. preventing conservatives from being de-platformed, and conservative views from being censored. Republicans are less concerned about market concentration, i.e. accusations of monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.3 Now that the social media companies have more or less thrown in with the Democrats on content moderation, Democratic priorities are likely to shift to antitrust and anti-competitive behavior. But serious changes would require either abolishing the filibuster in the Senate (which is not happening for the time being due to last month’s bipartisan power-sharing arrangement) or winning over 10 Republicans. This will be difficult, especially when it comes to the Democratic belief that a generational shift in antitrust doctrine and practice is necessary. A frontal assault on the sector would require passing a law that resolves a number of jurisprudential issues so that the courts could be instructed to interpret antitrust issues with a greater focus on rooting out anti-competitive or collusive behavior (as opposed to lowering prices and preventing consumer harm). This is possible but Republican agreement would require major compromises that the Democrats are not inclined to make. A bipartisan bill is still possible because last year’s hearings revealed that there is common ground between the two parties. Both have agreed that anti-trust agencies should be strengthened and empowered to examine Big Tech; that data should be portable and platforms should be interoperable (rather than favoring their own services or imposing penalties for users who would switch services); that mergers and acquisitions should be examined with the presumption that consumers will be harmed, so that the merging parties must show that they cannot otherwise achieve the desired consumer benefits and that their actions will serve some public good; and that regulators need not trouble themselves excessively about the problem of accurately defining the market, which is always a sticking point for such fast evolving services.4 Moreover there is overlap between the populist sides of both parties, comparable to the bipartisan populist demands to give larger household rebates amid the COVID crisis. For example, Democrats want to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the tech companies from being held liable for the actions and comments of third parties on their platforms. The Democratic proposal is to break down the distinction between neutral tools and content creation, arguing that tech platforms can be “negligent” and that in order to benefit from the liability protections they should have to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent unlawful misuse of their platforms that cause harm to others. This idea of “reasonable moderation” would leave a very vague standard for judges that would lead to a complex operating environment across different jurisdictions, but it is attractive to Trumpists and right-wing populists who support greater ability to sue the platforms for alleged bias.5 Thus revising Section 230 could create a bridge between the two parties, albeit isolating the free-market contingent in either party. It would foist huge new liabilities not only on the tech giants but also on startups and market entrants with far fewer lawyers. The mechanism will be a decisive feature of any future legislative proposal, however. Republicans are staunchly opposed to creating an Internet oversight committee, similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or anything that smacks of Big Brother and would risk too cozy of a relationship between the regulatory state and the immense capabilities of the tech companies. But they could be amenable to law that strengthens the antitrust agencies and alters the parameters of judicial scrutiny if they believed it would make consumer choice and innovation more likely. If popular opinion suggested great urgency on this issue then perhaps the parties’ differences could be resolved more quickly in the form of a major bill. But polls suggest the populace is also divided on tech regulation – in part because the pandemic left consumers largely thankful for the Internet services that they relied on so heavily while under lockdown. A bare majority of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats now favor tech regulation, the average voter is lukewarm, and moderates of both parties show little enthusiasm (Chart 14). By contrast, at the height of Democratic anxiety over Trump’s election and Russian interference, a clear majority of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents favored tougher regulation. Chart 14Public Split On Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies In short, the public is split, the parties are split, and the various 2020 crises have temporarily subsided, so tech regulatory risk will emanate from regulatory authorities but not from major new legislation anytime soon. Regulatory agencies thus threaten to give tech stocks negative surprises – even if the process takes time. Biden will replace one commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) immediately but may only be able to replace two Republican commissioners toward the end of his term, in September 2023 and 2024, meaning that the commission will be divided (Table 2). Any major crackdown on market concentration will have to proceed upon bipartisan grounds unless Democrats gain control of this commission sooner. Meanwhile Biden will be able to replace outgoing Republican Ajit Pai on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) right away, giving a Democratic tilt to this body, which is capable of pursuing the administration’s goals on content regulation (Table 3). Here the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in to defend free speech and press rights, which Section 230 ultimately reinforces, but the tech companies will be in the firing line until then. Table 2Federal Trade Commission Balance Of Power Table 3Federal Communications Commission Balance Of Power Finally, Biden’s nominee for the US Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division will be a critical post to watch for the Department of Justice’s involvement in tech regulation and antitrust, though this position requires Senate confirmation, which will rule out any populist candidate. If Biden picks a former Facebook lawyer as rumored then he clearly will not be prioritizing a tough antitrust stance.6 Bottom Line: With the Senate filibuster intact for the time being, Democrats need 10 Republican senators to join them to pass any significant legislation that would amount to a frontal assault on the tech sector. This is possible but not probable in the short run, as Congress prioritizes the fight against the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain divided and the public is lukewarm about regulation. Much more likely is a regulatory slow boil at the hands of the DOJ, FCC, FTC, and the states. Biden Maintains Obama Alliance With Silicon Valley Public opinion is wishy washy about Big Tech, as mentioned above. Compare attitudes toward Wall Street and the major pharmaceutical corporations. Opinion shifted against the banks drastically during the financial crisis and has since recovered to about 24% net approval, although there are also polls showing that consumers of all stripes believe the banking sector got off easy and could use more regulation (Chart 15). The health care industry also took a hit during the Great Recession, when laid off workers also lost their health insurance, and has also largely recovered due to its conduct during the pandemic. The exception is Big Pharma, which is widely blamed for excessive drug prices, got bashed under President Trump, and is about to get bashed by President Biden in the form of price caps and Medicare negotiations. By contrast with these sectors, the computer and Internet industry has seen a hit to its popular support since Trump’s election but never dipped into net negative territory and may be recovering due to its helpful role during the COVID lockdowns. When net popular approval turns negative then it will be a flashing red light for the tech sector that sweeping regulation is imminent. While some of the opinion polling is lagging, the crisis over the election is unlikely to produce this effect because the public views break down along partisan lines. Chart 15Big Tech More Popular Than Big Banks, Big Pharma Thus unlike the Trumpists, or the populists in the Democratic Party, the Biden administration is only inclined gradually to dial up the pressure on Big Tech. Biden would bite off more than any president could chew if he tackled tech aggressively along with other big corporations. His campaign platform and early executive orders show that he is already tackling Big Health Insurance and Big Oil, sectors that make up 7.5% and 1.4% of GDP respectively. There is at least some focus on re-regulating the financial industry as well (7.7% of value add), albeit with lower priority. To attempt a major overhaul of Big Tech (at least 5.3% of GDP) on top of all this would be impracticable even if Biden were inclined to listen to the anti-monopoly crusaders in his party. Information services are obviously important to the economies of solid blue states like California, New York, and Washington but they are increasingly important to critical swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania – places where voters will be skeptical of Biden’s policies on energy and immigration. The information sector is growing fastest in blue states and in battlegrounds like Arizona. It employs more people in blue states and in battlegrounds like Georgia. And it is rapidly employing more people in the grand prize of Democratic designs, Texas, where an exodus of Californians fleeing poor governance and high costs holds out the possibility of creating a decisive Democratic ascendancy in the Electoral College. Silicon Valley and other tech clusters will maintain their unique strengths and network effects for a long time but the dispersion of the tech sector to cheaper heartland regions has electoral consequences that mainline Democrats will not want to suppress. Not only did the tech firms help Biden get elected through votes and media controls but also through campaign contributions. The financial and health care industries punished the Democrats for passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank reforms in 2009-12 (Chart 16). By contrast the tech heavily favors Democrats over Republicans (with donations at $170 million versus $20 million in the 2020 election). Biden’s priorities are two budget reconciliation bills that will partially reverse the Trump tax cuts in order to pay for the entrenchment and expansion of Obamacare and other aspects of his health care and child care agenda. He is also focused on infrastructure, particularly green infrastructure and renewables, to create jobs and galvanize the climate change coalition. Broad re-regulation is coming down the pike, but health, immigration, energy, and labor are higher priorities than tech. The tech sector faces greater scrutiny than before, first from the FCC and later from the DOJ and FTC, but the administration will have more room for maneuver later in its term. Bottom Line: The Obama administration forged an alliance with Silicon Valley that Biden will largely maintain. The purpose of regulatory pressure is to build leverage over the tech giants. Chart 16Big Tech A Big Donor To Democratic Party Investment Takeaways Not all of the dominoes are lined up to topple Big Tech in a massive display of federal monopoly busting. The public is lukewarm and the political elite are divided. Nevertheless the long-term trajectory points to greater government scrutiny – and the tech sector has no margin of safety for political risk as the macro backdrop has started to shift in a more inflationary direction. Our colleague Juan Correa Ossa has shown that antitrust action to curb corporate power has tended to occur at times in US history where stock market earnings are elevated or rising rapidly relative to average wages, when inflation is running hot, and yet the economy has entered a bust phase where politicians are looking for a scapegoat to deflect public anger (Table 4). Table 4Stock Performance In Selected Judicial Events While inflation is not an immediate problem (at least not yet), it was not a problem when the FTC and DOJ went after Microsoft starting in 1998. The distressed economy and tech bubble are good enough reason for investors to expect the government to increase antitrust pressure (Chart 17). If inflation recovers in the coming years around the time the Biden administration gains room to maneuver on this issue then it is doubly bad for the tech sector. Chart 17Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust In Microsoft’s case, the stock fell when the government first brought charges but rallied throughout the twists and turns of the courtroom – especially after 2002 when the case was settled, and ever since (Chart 18). Fortunately for the company the DOJ backed away from breakup and instead ordered it to open up its application programming to others. But even firms that are broken up usually create buying opportunities. Note that Microsoft cleared its image and has not become the subject of government or popular scrutiny again today. Today’s regulators are likely to place a greater burden of proof on tech companies attempting mergers and acquisitions. The alternative for startups is to hold an initial public offering – and IPOs have exploded amid the current context of low rates, easy money, investor exuberance, a chilling effect on M&A, and a lingering pandemic. The markets are frothy, buyer beware (Chart 19). Chart 18Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Chart 19Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Strategically we remain favorable toward value stocks over growth stocks given the changing macro and policy backdrop outlined above (Chart 20). However, in the very near term we would not encourage investors to take on any additional risk. The latest bout of volatility is not necessarily over, political and geopolitical risks are now underrated after a period in which they subsided from peak levels, and exuberant markets are subject to very sharp corrections.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Congressional Budget Office, “Overview of the Economic Outlook: 2021-2031,” February 2021, cbo.gov. 2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The Cost of the Trump and Biden Campaign Plans” October 7, 2020, and “The Cost of the Trump and Biden COVID Response Plans,” October 29, 2020, October 7, 2020, crfb.org. 3    The huge gap between the two parties can be illustrated by the recent case of Parler, the microblog that sought to rival Twitter by maintaining laissez faire content moderation standards. When Parler came under fire for attracting conservatives in the wake of the Twitter ban against Trump, Apple and Amazon teamed up to block it from their app purchasing and cloud services, thus effectively banning the app for 99% of users. There is no doubt that any private platform can regulate content according to its own standards on its own sites. In the words of Section 230, this extends not only to “obscene” or “excessively violent” material but to anything “otherwise objectionable.” But once tech companies prevent the emergence of competitors and alternatives, and cooperate in doing so, they enter much more dangerous legal territory. And yet the response from the House Democrats on the oversight committee was to ask the FBI to investigate Parler for hosting far-right extremists. Conservatives are therefore up in arms. The courts have not yet weighed in but the case represents a larger risk to the tech firms than the usual challenges under Section 230. 4    Representative Ken Buck, “The Third Way,” House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law 5    See Will Duffield, “Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet Speech,” Cato Institute, January 26, 2021, cato.org. 6    See Ryan Grim and David Dayen, “Merrick Garland Wants Former Facebook Lawyer To Top Antitrust Division,” The Intercept, January 28, 2021, theintercept.com.