Inflation

Special Report

Highlights Strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. We illustrate why and how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Detecting productivity for macro strategists is akin to doctors diagnosing a patient – it entails more art than science. Inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. Feature By far, the most critical variable determining long-term economic growth is a country’s productivity. This report presents why productivity matters for investors and examines how to gauge productivity growth given it is practically impossible to measure accurately. We use the framework presented in this report to analyze long-term trends in individual EM economies. In a follow-up piece, we will present a practical application of this framework by ranking developing economies according to their productivity and long-term growth potential. This report does not discuss what is needed to boost productivity because the policy prescriptions are well known and are widely available in economic literature. That said, we have outlined some of these in Box 1. BOX 1 The Basic Formula For Long-Term Growth For any economy, the potential growth rate is what can be achieved and sustained in the very long run. It can be expressed as follows: Potential (real) growth rate = productivity growth + labor force growth Given that we can use demographic data to approximate the number of people entering and exiting the labor force for each year over the next 18 years, the labor force growth variable can be easily estimated. Hence, the key unknown in the above formula is productivity growth. In a developing economy, it is difficult to measure productivity accurately (Chart 1). That is why when analyzing the long-term outlook, we first assess whether the country has effectively implemented the structural reforms needed to achieve faster productivity growth – some of which are listed below. We combine these observations with symptoms associated with either strong or weak productivity growth in order to assess an economy’s potential growth trajectory. Chart 1Productivity Growth Estimates For EM/China Recommended policies to raise productivity growth typically include: building hard and soft infrastructure, improving education and training, investing in new technologies and equipment, promoting entrepreneurship and formation of new businesses, promoting competition, augmenting R&D spending, importing foreign “know how,” and fostering industry clusters that specialize in certain products or processes. Why Does Productivity Matter For Investors? Following are the investment implications of productivity growth: 1. Productivity is the sole driver of growing prosperity, which is reflected in rising per capita real incomes (Chart 2). Productivity = output per employee per hour  = (real GDP or output) / (number of employees x number of hours worked) Rising productivity creates more income that is shared between employees and shareholders. If productivity rises by 5% and hourly wages increase by 2.5% in a year, unit labor costs will drop by 2.5%. In such a case, the 5% increase in productivity is shared equally between shareholders and employees. A lack of productivity gains and resulting stagnant income for both employees and business owners might lead to rising socio-political tensions and ultimately to political instability. 2. Strong productivity gains allow an economy to grow faster without experiencing high inflation (Chart 3). The upshot is reduced cyclicality in economic activity, i.e., business cycles are characterized by longer expansions and shallow and less frequent downturns. Equity investors will thus likely pay higher equity multiples due to the reduced cyclicality of corporate profits. Chart 2Productivity Is Ultimately Reflected In Rising Real Income Per Capita Chart 3China: Strong Productivity Growth Has Kept A Lid On Inflation   The rationale is that robust productivity advances allow the economy to expand with low inflation with no need for monetary tightening. The relationship between productivity and inflation is discussed in detail below. A structurally low inflation environment allows policymakers to promptly deploy large monetary and fiscal stimulus when faced with economic downturns. In addition, low interest rates are also associated with higher equity valuations. On the contrary, a lack of productivity growth makes business cycles short-lived. Inflation will rise faster during a business cycle expansion in an economy with low productivity growth. In turn, interest rates will rise more rapidly in those economies, short-circuiting the expansion. Equity investors will be reluctant to pay high multiples for companies operating in such environments. 3. On a microeconomic level, high productivity gains are typically associated with higher profit margins and vice versa (Chart 4). Shareholders assign higher equity multiples to enterprises with higher profit margins and return on capital. Chart 4Faster Productivity Growth = Wider Corporate Profit Margins Besides, wider profit margins allow companies to tolerate higher real interest rates. High real interest rates attract foreign fixed-income capital supporting the nation’s exchange rate. Given that labor costs make up a large share of costs in many companies, unit labor costs are a critical determinant of corporate profitability. Meanwhile, selling prices, sales as well as input prices are often beyond management control. Therefore, raising productivity (output per hour of an employee) is one of the few ways to lift corporate profitability and, by extension, return on capital. Unit labor costs = (wage per person per hour) / productivity 4. Rapid productivity advances allow companies to become more competitive without currency depreciation (Chart 5and Chart 6). Exchange rates of countries that achieve faster productivity growth typically appreciate in the long run. Chart 5Switzerland: High Productivity Has Sustained Competitiveness/Export Volumes Despite Currency Appreciation Chart 6China and Vietnam: Rising Export Market Share Reflects Productivity Gains   Enterprises with higher productivity can drop their selling prices with limited impact on their profitability. By doing so, they can undercut their competitors and gain market share. Hence, solid productivity gains also entail a competitive currency, eliminating the need for central banks to hike interest rates in order to defend the exchange rate. 5. High indebtedness – in both public and private sectors – is easier to manage amid brisk productivity gains because the latter generate strong economic growth and relatively low nominal interest rates. Robust income gains among businesses and households, as well as for the government via taxation, enable indebted agents to service higher debt loads. Besides, nominal GDP growth above nominal interest rates arithmetically implies a drop in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. In brief, the economy could “grow into its debt” with robust productivity gains. In sum, strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. Rapid Productivity Gains Lead To A Virtuous Circle The following illustrates how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Fast productivity gains allow for either fast wage or rapid corporate profit growth or a combination of the two. As income per capita rises, consumer spending grows and capital owners are willing to invest. New investments create new jobs and income and could also boost future productivity if substantial capital misallocation is dodged. The economy expands at a rapid rate, but inflation and, thereby, interest rates remain capped because the economy’s productive capacity grows in line with demand. Strong income and profit growth as well as stable borrowing costs lead to more credit demand from both households and businesses. Bank and non-bank credit expand but rapid household income gains and healthy enterprise profitability as well as growing government tax revenues support the private or public sectors’ debt servicing capacity. Robust economic growth, elevated real interest rates and high profitability attract foreign capital and foreign inflows lead to currency appreciation. Yet, such currency appreciation should not undermine the competitiveness of local producers – both exporters and those competing with imported goods. As discussed above, sizable productivity gains could reduce unit labor costs and allow domestic companies to drop their prices, sustaining their market shares in both export markets and domestically. Consequently, the trade balance does not deteriorate structurally despite a rapid expansion in domestic demand. Healthy balance of payments support the currency, i.e., the central bank does not need to hike interest rates or draw down reserves to defend the exchange rate. Finally, rapid corporate profit and household income growth as well as reasonably low nominal interest rates sustain high asset (equity and property) valuations for longer. Such a virtuous circle can persist until something breaks or major excesses – for example, capital misallocation, credit or property bubbles – emerge and then unravel. Meager Productivity Gains Lead To A Vicious Circle The following demonstrates how stagnant productivity can set in motion a vicious self-reinforcing circle. With no productivity gains, a business cycle recovery will likely lead to higher inflation sooner than later. The latter will short circuit the economic expansion as the central bank is forced to hike interest rates. If the central bank does not hike interest rates despite rising inflation, real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates will fall and could become negative. Low real rates are bearish for the currency. Either the central bank will be forced eventually to hike interest rates substantially or the exchange rate will continue depreciating. There are two reasons why low real interest rates are negative for the exchange rate: (1) low real borrowing costs will encourage more borrowing, spending, and investment. Such very strong domestic demand in the context of limited domestic productive capacity will lead to a ballooning trade deficit; and/or (2) low real interest rates will discourage foreign fixed-income capital inflows and weigh on the currency. With no productivity gains, any increase in wages will lead to rising unit labor costs and shrinking profit margins; corporate profitability and return on capital will plunge. The sole way to protect profitability amid rising unit labor costs is to raise selling prices. The latter could spur a wage-inflation spiral. Rising unit labor costs and resulting shrinking corporate profit margins leave domestic producers no room to reduce their selling prices to compete in export markets and with imports. The result is less exports, less import substitution and a deteriorating trade balance. In such a case, the only way to restore the competitiveness of domestic producers is to devalue the exchange rate. Declining or low returns on capital will discourage business investment, in general, and foreign direct investment (FDI) in particular with negative ramifications for future productivity. A worsening trade balance as well as diminishing foreign equity and FDI inflows also entail currency depreciation. This feeds into inflation and leads inevitably to monetary policy tightening. Such tightening prompts weaker growth, lower profitability and more foreign capital outflows. This vicious circle can persist until a major regime shift occurs: a dramatically devalued currency that stays very cheap or corporate restructuring and structural reforms that lead to higher productivity. Commodity Prices And Productivity A critical question to address regarding productivity in commodity producing countries is the issue of rising and falling commodity prices. Higher commodity prices lead to improved prosperity and vice versa. Does this mean that high commodity prices should be treated as productivity improvements? There is some ambiguity in regard to this but our preference is not to treat fluctuations in commodity prices as changes in the nation’s structural productivity. Let us consider the examples of Nigeria, which produces and exports oil, and Vietnam, which manufactures and ships smartphones in large quantities. Let us assume that smartphone exports are as important to Vietnam in generating income per capita as oil exports are to Nigeria. A doubling in oil prices amid flat oil export volumes would generate windfall oil revenues which would lift Nigeria’s income per capita. If smartphone prices remain constant but smartphone production and shipments (volumes) double, income per capita in Vietnam would rise as much as in Nigeria.1   The difference between these two scenarios in Nigeria and Vietnam is as follows: Nigeria would be made richer due to the price increases: it would be producing and exporting the same number of barrels of oil but a doubling in crude prices would augment income per capita in Nigeria. The problem is that Nigeria does not control oil prices. If oil prices decline, the nation’s income per capita would also drop substantially. Hence, there would have been no genuine (structural) productivity gains and Nigeria’s prosperity would be at the mercy of the global oil market. In the case of Vietnam, its productivity will have risen as it has succeeded in producing twice as many smartphones as it did last year. The country has built capacity, acquired technology and developed human skills to double smartphone production. This increased capacity, technology acquisition and skills cannot be taken away from Vietnam. This is a case of genuine productivity advancement. In fact, Vietnam could build on these skills and start producing other, more value-added goods. What if Nigeria doubled its oil output and export volume due to more investment and new technologies (as the US succeeded in doing with shale oil)? This scenario would qualify as genuine productivity gains. At any oil price scenario, Nigeria’s oil export revenues would double. The sole caveat is that the new oil production should have reasonably low breakevens, i.e., oil production should be viable even if oil prices decline. The same caveat is applicable to Vietnam. The difference between Nigeria (oil) and Vietnam (smartphones) is that commodities prices are much more volatile than manufactured goods prices. Bottom Line: In commodity producing countries, rising commodities prices have the same effect on income per capita as productivity gains. However, per capita income gains originating from higher commodities prices are reversable, i.e., not sustainable in the very long run. Consequently, higher commodity prices should not be treated as structural productivity gains. By contrast, productivity advancements – like Vietnam doubling its capacity to produce smartphones or Nigeria doubling its oil production volume – are non-reversable, i.e., they cannot be taken away. Hence, these constitute genuine productivity gains. Detecting Productivity Is Akin To Doctors Diagnosing A Patient Even in advanced countries, productivity is hard to measure accurately. Hence, any measure of productivity in developing economies should be used with a grain of salt.  How do we carry out long-term analysis of developing economies when the key variable – productivity growth – is hard to measure? How do we make projections about productivity growth going forward? We see structural macro analysis as analogous to the work of doctors. When diagnosing a patient, doctors cannot necessarily observe what is happening in the patient’s body. Doctors conduct various tests and then analyze those results in the context of the symptoms. Putting it all together, they make a diagnosis and prescribe the necessary treatment. Similar to the manner in which doctors rely on symptoms and medical tests to determine where there is sufficient evidence of a disease, macro strategists do not see what is really occurring in their “patient’s” body, i.e., economies. Data for macro strategists is akin to medical tests for doctors. In developing countries, the quantity of economic data available to macro strategists is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, observing symptoms of economies under consideration and interpreting them correctly is crucial to the job of macro strategists for emerging economies. As they can count less on hard data and instead rely more on symptoms, their analysis is more of an art than a science. Symptoms Associated With Productivity: How To Detect Productivity At a country level, robust productivity gains are ceteris paribus typically associated with: A structurally improving real trade balance (exports minus import volumes), which is not due to a cheapened currency or a relapse in domestic demand but is due to domestic producers achieving the following: Becoming more competitive and gaining market share in global trade Succeeding in import substitution (imported products are crowded out by locally produced ones) Low inflation during an extended period of business cycle expansion Corporate profit margins expanding simultaneously with higher wages amid low inflation. A lack of productivity gains are ceteris paribus normally attendant with: A structurally deteriorating real trade balance as: Domestic producers lose market share in global exports Domestic producers lose market share to importers in local markets Rising inflation amid a moderate recovery in domestic demand Lingering downward pressure on corporate profit margins i.e., a modest rise in wage growth leads to a drop in corporate profit margins. On the whole, inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. A widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflationary pressure and a sign of lackluster productivity growth. The rationale is as follows: In a closed economy, when expanding demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, i.e., productivity gains do not keep up with thriving domestic demand, inflation will rise considerably. In short, rising inflation will be a symptom of paltry productivity gains. In an open economy, when domestic demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, inflation might not rise as demand could be satisfied by imports of foreign goods and services. In such a scenario, even though the trade balance will deteriorate, the currency might stay firm for a while because of foreign capital inflows or rising export (commodities) prices. As a result, inflation will stay low for some time. Eventually, when tailwinds from foreign capital inflows or high export prices cease, the currency will nosedive. Importers will have to raise prices in local currency causing a spike in inflation. Why would foreign capital inflows halt? Lackluster productivity gains amidst solid wage increases would cause a corporate profit margin squeeze and profitability will plummet. As a result, both FDI and equity inflows will dry up and the currency will depreciate. The latter will push up inflation considerably. In a nutshell, in an open economy poor productivity growth might not necessarily lead to high inflation where domestic demand can be satisfied by imports. In these cases, we can say that a widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflation. The only exception is when the real trade balance deteriorates due to imports of capital goods and/or new technologies that will be used to build new productive capacity. In such a case, a ballooning trade deficit should not be viewed as a form of hidden inflation and poor productivity growth. If consumer goods dominate imports, this would signify low chances of sizable productivity gains in a given country. If capital goods dominate imports, there are higher odds of future productivity gains. If these imported equipment and technologies are properly utilized, they will make the nation productive and competitive in the coming years. Higher productivity stemming from imports of these capital goods/new technologies, i.e., enlarged capacity to produce goods and services at lower costs, will cap inflation as well as expand exports and result in significant import substitution. A Checklist For Detecting Productivity Diagram 1 presents macro signposts that can be used to diagnose whether an economy is experiencing strong or weak productivity growth (these do not include traditional metrices such as education, R&D spending, strong governance, soft- and hard-infrastructure, etc.): Diagram 1A Checklist For Detecting Productivity Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  We assume here that all inputs for smartphones are produced domestically, in Vietnam. This is not a realistic assumption, but we use it only to illustrate a macro point about productivity.

Highlights An uninterrupted advance in reflation trades will be possible if the FOMO (fear of missing out) evolves into a full-blown mania. This scenario cannot be ruled out especially with retail investors around the world continuing to flock into equity markets. EM equity valuations are neither cheap in absolute terms nor relative to Europe and Japan. EM is cheap only versus the S&P 500. US relative equity outperformance in common currency terms is breaking down. Go long EM stocks / short the S&P 500. The Blue Wave in the US is very bearish for the greenback and has reduced our expectations of the magnitude and duration of any near-term US dollar rebound. It has in fact reinforced our medium- to long-term negative US dollar view. Feature Financial markets are at a crossroad. On the one hand, the reflation trades have already rallied a great deal and might be at a point of exhaustion. On the other hand, gigantic monetary and fiscal support from authorities worldwide, and the US in particular, could push global share prices into a no gravity zone where major overshoots and manias are possible. The bullish view is well-known: DM central banks’ easy monetary and fiscal policies will endure. Moreover, the global economy will continue its recovery as vaccines are made accessible by mid-year to a large share of the population in advanced economies. Markets will ignore any growth disappointment stemming from the expansion and/or extension of lockdowns as they are forward-looking and expect widespread vaccine deployment to eventually allow for a reopening of the economies. We agree with these points. The negative view is also well-recognized: investor sentiment on global equities in general and EM in particular is very elevated and reflation trades have become overbought. These are valid and correct points as well. Chart I-1 illustrates that the Sentix investor sentiment1 on EM equities is at an all-time high. In the past, when sentiment reached these levels EM share prices experienced either a correction or a bear market. Chart I-1Investor Sentiment On EM Equities Is At A Record High Further, the December issue of the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey noted that investor overweights in EM stocks and commodities are the highest since November 2010 and February 2011, respectively. These proved to be the major (structural) tops in EM equities and commodities. Certainly, positioning in EM is even more crowded now than it was four weeks ago. Are EM equities at a point of exhaustion – where the rally runs out – or at a point of no gravity – where nothing will stop them from marching higher? In the near term, either is possible. It truly depends on investor behavior which is impossible to forecast with any high degree of certainty. Chart I-2Korean Stocks Have Benefited From Local Retail Mania For instance, retail mania has been happening not only in the US but also in many developing countries. In particular, the astonishing rally in Korean stocks has been propelled not by foreign investors but by local retail investors (Chart I-2). That is why traditional yardsticks of investment analysis have not been useful. In the medium and long term, the trend in global share prices, and thereby EM, will likely be shaped by issues where there is no consensus among investors. In our opinion, there are two subjects upon which investors disagree: (1) whether global and EM equity valuations are too expensive, and (2) whether US inflation will rise sufficiently so that the Federal Reserve abandons its super-easy monetary policy stance, and when markets will begin to price this in. EM equity valuations are not at all cheap. An uninterrupted advance will be possible if the FOMO (fear of missing out) evolves into a full-blown mania. This scenario cannot be ruled out especially with retail investors around the world continuing to flock into equity markets. Concerning US inflation, the odds are that it will rise sooner and faster than is expected by the market and the Fed. Although the Fed is unlikely to singlehandedly spoil the party, fixed-income markets could start pricing in rate hikes sooner rather than later with ramifications for share prices. We will discuss equity valuations in this report and devote a separate report in the coming weeks to the inflation outlook in the US and China. Market Implications Of The Blue Wave Chart I-3US Consumption Of Industrial Metals Is Too Small We expected US Republicans to maintain their majority in the Senate after Georgia’s Senate elections, thus dimming the likelihood of more large-scale fiscal stimulus. If realized, that would have triggered a rebound in the US dollar from very oversold levels. US Democrats effectively gaining control of the Senate has major implications for financial markets: America’s fiscal policy will be looser than otherwise. Swelling government spending will boost domestic demand and will produce a wider trade deficit and higher inflation. Yet, the Fed is unlikely to tighten policy anytime soon and real interest rates will remain negative. This is very bearish for the US dollar. Any rebound in the greenback, which is possible given its oversold conditions, should be faded. According to our Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken, odds are that Democrats will partially repeal the corporate tax cuts enacted during Trump’s administration. This is negative for both the US dollar and for Wall Street. One of the main campaign promises of Democrats has been to address income inequality. Actions on this front are good for Main Street but these policies will weigh on corporate profitability. Big Tech faces a greater threat of taxes from a united Congress as opposed to a divided Congress, but Biden’s executive decrees will not be too harsh given that these companies are a major source of support for Democrats. US nominal interest rates will rise but so will nominal GDP growth. The negative impact of higher US bond yields on EM will be more than offset by two forces: a weaker US dollar and stronger exports to the US. Finally, the shift in US fiscal policy is clearly inflationary. However, the impact on commodities prices will be modest. The US accounts for only 8% of global industrial metals consumption compared to China’s 57% share (Chart I-3). So, a slowdown in China commencing in H2 2021 will more than offset the rise in US metals consumption. Concerning oil, the US is the world’s largest crude consumer. Hence, higher household income and spending are positive for oil prices. However, a forceful Democrat push toward green energy is structurally negative for US oil consumption. These two forces might offset each other leaving oil prices to be determined by other factors. Bottom Line: Democrat control of both houses of Congress is positive for US nominal GDP and, hence, for corporate revenues but is bearish for the US dollar and corporate profit margins. Net-net, this reinforces our view that US relative equity outperformance in common currency terms has already passed its secular top and is breaking down (Chart I-4, top panel). By contrast, this US policy shift is positive for EM financial markets (Chart I-4, bottom panel). We recommend a new trade/strategy: go long EM stocks / short the S&P 500. EM Equity Valuations In our opinion, global stocks, especially US ones, are expensive and EM equities are far from being cheap. Let’s begin with EM equity valuations: Chart I-5 shows our Composite Valuation Indicator (CVI) for the MSCI EM equity benchmark. It is an average of four individual valuation indicators: market cap-weighted, equal-weighted, trimmed mean, and median. Chart I-4US Equity Outperformance Is Over Chart I-5EM Equities: Good News Are Fully Priced In   In turn, each of these four indicators incorporates five multiples: forward P/E, trailing P/E, price-to-cash EPS, price-to-book value and price-to-dividend ratios. According to Chart I-5, EM equities are expensive. Not only are trailing P/E and price-to-cash EPS ratios extremely elevated but also the forward P/E ratio is the highest and the dividend yield is the lowest it has been in 18 years (Chart I-6). Even though EM stocks do not appear to be expensive based on a price-to-book value (PBV) ratio, a structural decline in EM return on equity (RoE) entails that the fair value range for the PBV ratio has downshifted over the past decade and the current reading should be taken with a grain of salt. Chart I-7 demonstrates that the RoEs for the entire MSCI EM universe, equal-weighted MSCI EM equity index and MSCI non-financial EM companies have deteriorated structurally. Hence, a decline in return on equity is widespread among EM-listed companies, i.e. it is not a feature unique to only large caps. Chart I-6EM Equity Multiples Chart I-7A Structural Drop In EM RoE Heralds Lower Multiples   In brief, the structural decline in EM RoE justifies a lower PBV ratio for EM equities (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Relative to DM, EM equities are not cheap. They are cheap versus their US peers but expensive versus European and Japanese stocks. Chart I-8 exhibits the relative Composite Valuation Indicator for EM relative to DM. For EM, it is the same as in Chart I-5 and for DM we use an identical measure. When discussing equity valuations, one should now distinguish between growth and value stocks. EM growth stocks are grossly overvalued as shown in the top panel of Chart I-9. EM value stocks are close to their fair value, i.e., they are not cheap (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-8EM Versus DM: Relative Equity Multiples Chart I-9Multiples For EM Growth And Value Stocks   A caveat is in order: all of these CVIs do not incorporate interest rates into valuation models. We look at equity multiples in the context of low interest rates in the sections that follow. Incorporating Interest Rates Into Equity Valuations Chart I-10EM Earnings Yields Adjusted For Local Bond Yields There are various ways to incorporate interest rates/the discount factor into equity valuations. One way is to calculate the difference between forward earnings yield (EY) and long-term bond yields. We use forward EY because trailing EPS is still depressed by the pandemic-induced economic crash, i.e., trailing P/Es do not provide a true valuation picture. Chart I-10 demonstrates the gap between EM forward EY and 10-year US bond yields (on the top panel) and the same forward EY and EM local bond yields (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Both measures are not far from their historical means. Hence, adjusted for bond yields, EM stocks are fairly valued. That said, there are two pertinent questions that follow from this: (1) how do EM equities compare to their DM peers; and (2) how well have these interest rate-adjusted valuation measures worked in markets where interest rates had dropped to zero. In other words, do near-zero interest rates warrant a secular bull market? We address this last topic in the section below. As to the first question, Chart I-11 presents the forward EY-local interest rate differential for major equity markets. A higher differential presage cheaper equity valuation relative to lower numbers. Chart I-11US And EM Equities Have Been Chronically Expensive Versus European And Japanese Ones According to this measure, Japanese and Euro Area equities have been and remain cheaper than US and EM equities. Chart I-12 ranks all individual EM equity benchmarks as well as major DM bourses based on the differential between forward EY and local nominal bond yields. Stocks in India, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico and Colombia are expensive, adjusted for local bond yields. Chart I-12Cross Country Valuation Ranking: Forward Earnings Yield Minus Local Bond Yields By contrast, equity markets in Central Europe, core Europe and Russia offer better value, relative to domestic bonds. The EM aggregate index, the Chinese investable benchmark and the S&P 500 fall in the middle of this valuation ranking. Bottom Line: Based on equity multiples, EM equities are expensive. However, when adjusted for interest rates, absolute valuation of EM equities is neutral. Relative to DM, the EM equity benchmark is not cheap. In fact, they are more expensive compared to European and Japanese stocks. Equity Valuation When Rates Are At Zero No doubt, equity prices should be re-rated as interest rates drop. However, what should the equilibrium P/E multiple be when interest rates are close to zero? Japan, the euro area and Switzerland offer a roadmap. Chart I-13Japanese And European Stocks Have Not Entered Structural Bull Markets Despite Negative Rates For some time now, these markets have had to process many of the same features that US and global markets are currently facing. Specifically: They have had negative policy rates and 10-year government bond yields for many years. Their central banks have been conducting some sort of QE programs. The Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank have been purchasing equities and the ECB has been buying corporate bonds. Finally, onward from 2012 until the eruption of the pandemic, economic growth in Japan, the euro area and Switzerland was decent. Despite negative interest rates, their broad equity markets have failed to break out into a structural bull market. Their stocks have re-rated, but the upside was capped (Chart I-13). Critically, the forward EY differential with their local government bond yields have stayed wide (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Japanese, Euro Area And Swiss Equities Have Not Re-Rated Despite Negative Bond Yields In sum, the experiences of Japanese, Swiss and other European markets show that zero or negative interest rates alone did not compel a secular bull market in share prices. Rather, equity re-rating in these bourses has been relatively moderate. Investment Considerations The Blue Wave is very bearish for the greenback as we argued above. This development has reduced our conviction regarding the magnitude and duration of any near-term US dollar rebound. It has in fact reinforced our medium- to long-term negative US dollar view. Potential EM currencies that investors should consider buying on a dip versus the US dollar are MXN, SGD, KRW, TWD, CNY, INR and CZK. For now, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to EM equities and credit within global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. However, we note that odds of EM outperformance have risen with the Blue Wave in the US and ensuing US dollar depreciation. Yet, Europe and Japan presently offer a better risk/reward profile than EM. However, to reflect our strong conviction of a breakdown in US relative performance and a more upbeat view on EM versus US stocks, we recommend the following trade/strategy: long EM stocks / short the S&P 500, currency unhedged. Concerning the absolute performance of EM and DM stocks, they are very overbought, reasonably expensive and sentiment is very bullish. In normal times, this would argue for a pullback. For example, Chart I-15 shows that a rollover in the inverted US equity put-call ratio typically heralds a setback in the S&P500. Chart I-15A Red Flag? Do Indicators No Longer Work? However, if global stocks are moving from a FOMO stage to a mania phase, many traditional relationships and indicators might not work. This and the fact the EM equity index is at a critical juncture entails its outlook is currently highly uncertain – odds of a breakout (FOMO evolving into a mania) and a potential setback are equal. Finally, some housekeeping, we are closing the long Chinese Investable stocks / short Korean stocks recommendation. This trade has generated a massive loss of 33.5% as the KOSPI has taken off in recent weeks. We continue to overweight both Chinese and Korean equities within an EM equity portfolio. We will likely make changes to our recommended country allocations within equity and fixed-income portfolios in the coming weeks. Stay tuned. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The Sentix Asset Classes Sentiment Emerging Markets Equities Index is polled among 5,000 European individual and institutional investors. In the survey, investors are asked about their medium-term price expectations for the asset class. Source: SENTIX.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Feature Feature ChartEconomies Have Already Snapped Back In this final report of a tumultuous 2020, we present our key views for 2021 in the form of ten questions and answers during a recent conversation with a client. 1.  Let’s begin with a blunt question. How can your views ever anticipate a shock such as this year’s once-in-a-century pandemic? Nobody can predict when, where, or how a shock will come. But what we can, and should, always do is gauge the fragility of the market to an incoming shock, whatever that unknown shock might be. Before the pandemic struck, both our 2020 key views and our first report of this year, Markets Are Fractally Fragile, pointed out that a fragile market was vulnerable to “the tiniest of straws that could break its back.” Right now, markets are close to a similar point of fragility. 2.   What is the specific source of market fragility right now? The fragility is that tech stock valuations have become hyper-dependent on low bond yields in a so-called ‘rational bubble’. Specifically, the (earnings) yield premium on tech stocks versus the 10-year bond yield is at its 2.5 percent lower threshold that has signalled four previous fragilities in February 2018, October 2018, April 2019, and January 2020 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Fragile These previous fragilities resulted in an exhaustion, or worse, a correction, in tech stocks, and by extension in the overall market. The upshot is that a meaningful rise in bond yields could once again undermine the stock market. 3.   But I thought that higher bond yields were good for stocks, if the higher bond yields imply that growth is accelerating? Not necessarily. Yes, a stock price is proportional to growth, but it is also inversely proportional to the discount rate, which is the required return that investors demand to hold it. If the discount rate increases by more than growth, then the stock price will fall, not rise. The discount rate equals the bond yield plus the equity risk premium. At ultra-low yields, the two components move together. This is because when the bond yield declines towards its lower bound, the bond price carries less upside versus downside and thereby more risk. Meaning that in relative terms, equities require a smaller risk premium. When bond yields increase, the opposite is true – both the bond yield and the equity risk premium rise together (Chart I-3). Chart I-3AUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Chart I-3BUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time     The result is that growth would have to increase very sharply to counter the large rise in the bond yield plus equity risk premium. 4.   But 2021-22 are likely to be years of very strong growth just like the post-recession years 2009-10, right? Wrong. You see, after a slump the strongest growth occurs in the sharp snapback of lost output, and most of this sharp snapback has already happened. In 2008-09, the US and German economies shrank for four quarters. It then took five quarters of strong growth to recover two-thirds of this lost output. But in 2020, everything has happened at quintuple-speed. It has taken just one quarter to recover two-thirds of the lost output, and by the end of this year US GDP will be almost back to its pre-pandemic level (Feature Chart and Chart I-4). Chart I-4Economies Have Already Snapped Back This is because we quickly realised that even in a full-scale pandemic, 90 percent of economic activity can continue with face masks and social distancing. The activities that are most disrupted – retail, hospitality, and transport – account for just 10 percent of output. Meanwhile, China, which on some measures is the world’s largest economy, is already ‘back to normal’ because its effective track-and-trace system has circumvented the need for face masks and social distancing. The upshot is that, as far as global economic output is concerned, most of the powerful snapback has already happened. 5.   But if economic output has largely recovered, why does it not feel like it has? For three reasons. First, the most disrupted activities comprise so-called ‘social consumption’ such as going to bars and restaurants, having friends round for dinner, and going on holiday. In other words, all the fun things in life. Although these activities account for just 10 percent of economic output, they likely account for a much bigger proportion of our happiness. Second, we are producing and consuming the 90 percent of undisrupted output differently. For example, working from home, doing business meetings virtually, and doing our shopping on-line. Crucially, much of this ‘new-normal’ is here to stay even when the pandemic ends. Third, although the disrupted activities account for just 10 percent of output, they account for a very significant 25 percent of all jobs. Meaning that the jobs market has not snapped back to the same extent as output. Indeed, permanent unemployment continues to rise (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Permanent Unemployment Continues To Rise Alas, the jobs market will take a long time to fully recover even when the pandemic ends. This is because the new-normal way of producing and consuming will permanently scar traditionally high-employment sectors such as retail and hospitality. Constituting a major economic fragility in the new-normal (Table I-1). Table I-1Retail And Hospitality Employ 25 Percent Of All Workers 6.   All of which means inflation stays below the 2 percent target, right? Right. But your question should be framed differently. You see, inflation is a non-linear system with two states: price stability and price instability. You can shift an economy between these two states, but you cannot hit an arbitrary target like 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. So, your question should be, will developed economies stay in the state of price stability? And the answer is yes, because it is the much better state to be in, and it took decades of blood, sweat and tears to achieve. Nevertheless, any government can flip its economy into the state of price instability if it so desires. Just look at Turkey. A warning sign is that the central bank loses its independence, enabling it to monetise government debt. That’s the warning sign to look out for. 7.   Talking of fragility in a new-normal, hasn’t the double whammy of Brexit and the pandemic weakened the EU? No, quite the contrary. As Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, said: “Europe will be forged in crises.” And he was right. Each of the last three crises has strengthened the EU’s architecture. The euro debt crisis added the missing ‘lender of last resort to sovereigns’ weapon into the ECB armoury – a weapon whose mere presence means it has never had to be used. Brexit removed the most troublesome member from the EU fold, as well as demonstrating how costly it is to exit. And the pandemic has allowed the EU to smash two major taboos: explicit fiscal transfers across countries, and the large-scale issuance of common EU bonds. All of which means that the yield spreads on euro area ‘periphery’ bonds over Germany and France will continue to tighten, and ultimately disappear altogether (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Yield Spread On Euro Periphery Bonds Will Vanish 8.   What about the prospects for the UK outside the EU? Like all divorces, Brexit is a gain of self-determination for a loss of wealth. Hence, since the Brexit vote in 2016, the UK economy has flipped from outperformer to underperformer (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The UK Economy Has Flipped From Outperformer To Underperformer The UK economy will continue to underperform until it forges a fresh purpose and role as a newfound singleton on the world stage. 9.   Turning to investments, will the 2020 losers become the 2021 winners, and vice-versa? No, that’s an over-simplification. For example, for bonds to lose their 2020 winnings, yields would have to back up a lot. But as we’ve already discussed, that would burst the ‘rational bubble’ in tech stocks, undermine the stock market, and put renewed downward pressure on bond yields. In which case, banks will struggle to sustain any outperformance (Chart I-8). Meaning that ‘value’ will struggle to sustain any outperformance. Hence, a much smarter strategy is to switch between winners and losers within ‘growth’ and within ‘value’. Specifically, overweight healthcare versus tech, and overweight utilities versus banks. Chart I-8Bank Relative Performance Tracks The Bond Yield Of course, sector allocations always carry implications for regional and country equity allocation. The main implications are to overweight Europe versus Emerging Markets (Chart I-9), and to overweight Developed Markets versus Emerging Markets. Chart I-9Europe Vs. EM = Healthcare Vs. Tech 10. Finally, what about your long-term recommendations? This brings us full circle to the first question. While we could not predict the pandemic, all our four mega-themes for the 2020s proved to be successful, and in some cases very successful. A hypersensitivity to higher interest rates. Overweight equities versus bonds. Europe conquers its disintegration forces. Overweight European currencies. Non-China exposed investments outperform. Underweight materials and resources. The rise of blockchain and alternative energy. Overweight alternative energy, underweight oil and gas, and underweight financials. Given their long-term nature, these structural recommendations are as appropriate today as they were a year ago. And with that, it is time to sign off on a tumultuous 2020 and usher in 2021, a year which we define as Fragility In A New-Normal. We wish you and your families a safe and healthy holiday season, and a less tumultuous 2021. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long US utilities (XLU) versus US materials (XLB). Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5.7 percent. In other trades, short European retail (EXH8) versus the market (STOXX) achieved its 4.2 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-10 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  

Special Report

This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitors Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions. The Chartbook has previously been published by BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy but, starting today, will be jointly published with BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy twice per year.  Given how expectations of monetary policy changes influence both bond yields and currencies, we see the Chartbook as a useful forum for cross-market analysis of fixed income and foreign exchange. We have Monitors for ten major developed market economies and, currently, all are below the zero line, indicating the need for continued easy global monetary policy (Charts 1A & 1B). The Monitors are all trending higher, however, as global growth and financial markets have steadily recovered from the brutal collapse spurred by the first wave of COVID-19 earlier this year. The recovery in the Monitors is consistent with two of BCA’s highest conviction views for 2021 – rising global bond yields, led by the US, but with additional weakness in the counter-cyclical US dollar. The compression in the US interest rate advantage this year is sufficient to allow for some upside, without derailing the dollar bear market. Chart 1ALess Easy Money Required... Chart 1B...Given The Rebound From Depressed Levels   An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data that have historically been correlated to changes in interest rates.  The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors.  Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). Chart 2AA Rebound In Our CB Monitors... Chart 2B...Suggesting Bond Yields Should Creep Higher The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar.  We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Previously, the country coverage for the Monitors has included the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden. In this report, we introduce new Monitors for Norway and Switzerland – countries with relatively small government bond markets but with actively traded currencies.  We have also revamped the individual component lists of the existing Monitors to include a broader range of economic and inflation data, as well as adding more measures of financial conditions like equity prices or corporate credit spreads. The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates.  Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). None of the Monitors is indicating a need for policymakers to turn more hawkish. At the moment, the common signal from the Monitors is that there is diminished pressure to ease global monetary policies compared to mid-2020. At the same time, none of the Monitors is indicating a need for policymakers to turn more hawkish. There are growing divergences between the individual Monitors, though, which are creating more interesting opportunities for relative bond and currency trades and portfolio allocations – as we discuss throughout the pages of this Chartbook. Fed Monitor: Less Pressure For More Easing Our Fed Monitor has rebounded sharply during the latter half of 2020 on the back of improving US economic growth momentum and booming financial markets. However, it is not yet signaling a need for the Fed to begin moving to a less accommodative policy stance (Chart 3A).    The US economy has recovered impressively from the COVID-19 recession, with real GDP expanding at an annualized 33% pace in Q3 and the ISM Manufacturing index reaching a two-year high in October. Rapid growth also fueled a recovery in the labor market, with the US unemployment rate falling from a peak of 14.7% in April to 6.7% in November. It will take a few years for the US economy to return to full employment, given the severity of this year’s recession. The IMF estimates that the US output gap will not be effectively closed until 2023, thus a sustained return of US inflation to the Fed’s 2% target will take time to develop (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor Chart 3BAn Improving US Economic Backdrop Chart 3CThe US Dollar Is Countercyclical The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the financial and growth components (Chart 3C). The inflation components will be more relevant to time the start of the Fed’s next rate hiking cycle. The Fed’s recent shift to an Average Inflation Targeting framework means that US monetary policy will not be tightened based on a forecast of higher inflation, as the Fed has done in past cycles. This means that both US growth and inflation will be allowed to accelerate in 2021 without a pre-emptive hawkish response from the Fed. The result: additional downward pressure on the counter-cyclical US dollar, which tends to weaken when the Fed Monitor is rising (bottom panel). The current surge in US COVID-19 cases represents a near-term downside risk to US growth momentum, as evidenced by a string of softer data prints in November.  Another round of fiscal stimulus and, more importantly, the start of the vaccine distribution process will give a bigger lift to economic confidence and growth – and US bond yields - in the first half of 2021.  We recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios (Chart 3D). Chart 3DUpside For Treasury Yields BoE Monitor:  Subdued Inflation Requires A Dovish Stance Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has rebounded sharply from the Q2 collapse, but remains well below zero indicating the ongoing need for easy UK monetary policy (Chart 4A). To that end, the BoE increased the size of its Gilt quantitative easing (QE) program by £150bn last month. However, the central bank chose to not cut the Bank Rate from 0.1% into negative territory, despite many public flirtations with such a move by BoE officials in recent months. Both the output gap and unemployment gap show high levels of excess capacity in the UK economy that are projected to take years to unwind according to the IMF and OECD (Chart 4B). UK real GDP grew by 15.5% on a quarter-on-quarter basis in Q3, a big reversal from the -19.8% plunge in Q2, but more recent domestic data has softened with the UK under national lockdowns to fight a surge in COVID-19 cases. UK headline CPI inflation is threatening to dip into deflation, even with a soft pound. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUK Excess Capacity Will Take Years To Unwind Chart 4CLingering Weakness In UK Inflation Components Looking at the details of our BoE Monitor, all three main sub-components remain below the zero line, but with some diverging trends (Chart 4C). The inflation components remain very weak, but the growth components have almost rebounded back to the pre-pandemic level. The financial components have also recovered sharply thanks in no small part to the BoE’s highly accommodative monetary policy. The BoE Monitor has historically been positively correlated to the momentum of the UK currency, and the trade-weighted pound appears to have outperformed the weakness in the Monitor (bottom panel). The near term direction of the pound, however, is completely linked to the final stage of the UK-EU Brexit negotiations. A no-deal Brexit would likely see the gap between the momentum of the pound and our BoE Monitor close via a sharp fall in the currency.  If a trade agreement is reached, however, we would expect the convergence to happen via a rising Monitor catching up to a firming currency, driven by a likely improvement in portfolio inflows. With COVID-19 vaccines already starting to be administered in the UK, a “peaceful” resolution to the Brexit saga could give the UK economy a solid lift in 2021 – especially with the UK government preparing a big fiscal impulse.  Our BoE Monitor currently indicates little upward pressure on 10-year Gilt yields. Our BoE Monitor currently indicates little upward pressure on 10-year Gilt yields (Chart 4D). Given the lack of UK inflation, and with the BoE taking down a large share of new Gilt issuance via QE, UK bond yields will lag the rise in global bond yields that we expect in the first half of 2021, even if there is good news on Brexit. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on UK Gilts. Chart 4DExpect UK Gilts To Lag Behind As Global Bond Yields Rise ECB Monitor: Price Deflation Leads To Asset Reflation Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is in “easy money required” territory, but has rebounded significantly from the lows seen earlier in 2020 (Chart 5A). The ECB delivered on that easing message at the December policy meeting, increasing the size of its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program by €500bn to €1.85tn and extending the end-date of the program from June 2021 to March 2022.  The central bank also extended the maturity date for its offer of heavily discounted funding (at rates as low as -1%) for bank lending to June 2022. The ECB needed to deliver another round of easing because the euro area has fallen back into deflation. Year-over-year headline CPI inflation reached -0.3% in November, while core inflation was not much further behind at +0.2% (Chart 5B). With much of Europe now under increased economic restrictions due to the latest surge in COVID-19 cases, the near-term downside risks to euro area growth could push inflation even deeper into negative territory in the coming months. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BLots Of Slack In The Eurozone Chart 5CThe Euro Is Too Strong For The Economy Looking at the breakdown of our ECB Monitor, there is a very large divergence between the components. The inflation components are at the most depressed levels since the turn of the century, while the growth components have rebounded sharply (Chart 5C). The financial conditions components have now surged above the zero line, suggesting pressure on the ECB to tighten policy from robust European financial markets. Of course, booming markets are a direct result of the ECB’s dovish monetary stance, which includes the rapid expansion of its balance sheet and significant purchases of riskier sovereign bonds in Italy, Spain and even Greece.  The ECB realizes that it cannot cut policy interest rates any further into negative territory without harming the ability of the fragile European banking system to earn profits.  This effective floor on nominal policy rates, combined with deepening price deflation, has boosted real European interest rates.  The result is a steadily climbing euro, even as the ECB has continued to signal a continued dovish policy bias and an aggressive expansion of its balance sheet.  The weakening trend for the US dollar that we expect in 2021 will leave the ECB little choice but to continue doing what it has been doing – more asset purchases, more cheap funding for bank lending and extending the time duration of all its easing programs in an effort to keep European financial markets aloft while also limiting the damage from an appreciating euro.  The introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine should provide a lift to growth, but inflation is likely to remain very subdued without a weaker euro. Inflation is likely to remain very subdued without a weaker euro. The depressed level of the ECB Monitor suggests that there is additional scope for lower euro area bond yields (Chart 5D), although the impact will not be the same for all countries in the region.  Deeply negative German and French bond yields will likely not decline much in 2021, although they will not rise much either even as US Treasury yields move higher, making them good defensive overweights in a global bond portfolio. At the same time, Italian and Spanish bond yields will continue to grind lower as ECB buying and more European fiscal co-operation help further reduce the risk premium on Peripheral Europeans - stay overweight. Chart 5DEuropean Yields Should Lag The US BoJ Monitor:  Fighting Deflation, Once Again Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has rebounded from the recent low but is still well below zero, indicating that easier monetary policy is required (Chart 6A). That will be hard for the BoJ to deliver, however - policy rates are already negative, the BoJ’s balance sheet has blown up to 128% of GDP, and a more dovish forward guidance is impossible as most market participants already believe the BoJ will keep rates untouched for years. Japan’s economic recovery is currently at near-term risk from a particularly sharp increase in COVID-19 cases, although Japan’s labor market did not suffer much from the pandemic-induced plunge in growth earlier this year (Chart 6B). Nonetheless, while the unemployment rate remains below the OECD’s estimate of full employment (4.1%), there remains significant excess capacity in Japan according the IMF output gap estimates, with headline CPI inflation now in mild deflation. Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BSignificant Excess Capacity In Japan Chart 6CJapanese Equities Have Bolstered Financial Conditions The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor show a large divergence between the growth and inflation components, which are very depressed, and the more stable financial component (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the outstanding performance of Japanese equities in recent months, with some benchmark indices reaching levels last seen in the mid-1990s. The continued steady expansion of the BoJ’s balance sheet is clearly helping to underwrite easy financial conditions in Japan. While the BoJ is reaching some operational constraints with its asset purchases, owning nearly one-half of all JGBs and three-quarters of all Japanese equity ETF’s, the central bank has no choice but to continue buying assets to support financial conditions. Cutting policy interest rates deeper into negative territory is a non-starter given the negative impact sub-0% rates have had on the profitability of Japanese banks. The inability of the BoJ to further ease Japanese monetary policy is boosting real rates and supporting the yen. The historical correlation between the BoJ Monitor and the yen has not been as consistent as that seen in other countries, but since the 2008 financial crisis a deteriorating BoJ Monitor has tended to coincide with a rising yen – given the lower bound of policy rates.  The inability of the BoJ to further ease Japa-nese monetary policy is boosting real rates and supporting the yen.  The weakness of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should fall significantly (Chart 6D). However, the BoJ’s Yield Curve Control policy, with the central bank buying enough bonds to keep the 10yr JGB yield around 0%, is preventing JGB yields from plunging to the deeply negative yield levels seen in core Europe. This policy-induced stability of Japanese yields actually makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising. Thus, we recommend an overweight stance on JGBs given our view that US bond yields have more upside. Chart 6DPolicy Will Keep JGB Yields Stable BoC Monitor:  No Choice But To Stay Ultra-Dovish Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has seen a much weaker rebound off the lows than some of our other Central Bank Monitors, indicating that the BoC cannot lay off the monetary gas pedal (Chart 7A). The BoC has already been aggressive in easing policy earlier this year, cutting the Bank Rate to 0.25%, initiating several liquidity facilities and quickly ramping up bond purchases. The central banks now owns around 40% of all Government of Canada bonds outstanding, from a starting point of essentially 0% before the pandemic, and has started to shift its purchases to longer maturity bonds in order to suppress risk-free yields and lower borrowing costs for households and business. While Canada did see a sharp recovery in GDP growth in Q3 – rising 8.9% on a non-annualized, quarter-on-quarter basis following the -11.3% drop in Q2 – the level of real GDP is still -5.2% lower than Q3 2019 levels.  The BoC has already significantly revised down its estimates of potential growth for 2020-22 by nearly one full percentage point due to the various negative shocks including COVID-19. Inflation remains weak because of significant economic slack – the BoC forecasts that CPI inflation will remain below its target until 2022 (Chart 7B).  Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7CWeaker Growth Is Holding Down Our BoC Monitor Within the details of our BoC Monitor, the weakness in the overall indicator is clearly driven by the depressed level of the growth components (Chart 7C). Heavy containment measures to fight the spread of COVID-19, combined with uneven recoveries in different sectors, have weighed on the Canadian economy. At the same time, the financial conditions components have been relatively stable, even with the rapid expansion of the BoC’s balance sheet. The Canadian dollar has clearly outperformed its typical positive correlation to the BoC Monitor (bottom panel), as the “loonie” has benefitted from rising global commodity prices and the overall depreciation of the US dollar. Both of those trends are likely to remain in place in 2021 as global growth gains upward momentum, which should keep the Canadian dollar well supported – and also force the BoC to stay dovish to prevent an even greater rise in the currency. We currently recommend a neutral stance on Canadian government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. In more normal times, a backdrop of accelerating economic growth and rising commodity prices would typically push Canadian yields higher and justify an underweight stance – particular given the relatively high historical “yield beta” of Canada to changes in US bond yields  (Chart 7D). However, with the BoC forced to stay aggressive with its QE program to dampen Canadian yields and suppress the rising Canadian dollar, Canadian government bonds are likely to outperform their normal high-beta status as US Treasury yields continue to drift higher in 2021. Chart 7DAn Aggressive BoC Will Hold Down Canadian Yields RBA Monitor: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) monitor remains in “easier policy required” territory despite a strong rebound after bottoming in April (Chart 8A).  Since our last update, the RBA has slashed the official cash rate once more to 0.1%, largely in an effort to contain the surging Australian dollar. The unemployment gap in Australia has staged a tentative recovery but is set to remain elevated and recover only gradually going forward, according to the IMF’s forecast (Chart 8B). The RBA actually sees unemployment ticking up slightly in the near term as the eligibility conditions for the JobSeeker program tighten. Inflation, meanwhile, will have a tough time reaching the target 2-3% band in the absence of wage price pressures. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BA Lot Of Slack In The Australian Economy Chart 8CFinancial Conditions In Australia Call For Tightening Breaking down our RBA monitor into its constituent growth, inflation, and financial conditions components, we see a sharp rebound led by financial conditions which, taken in isolation, are calling for tighter monetary policy (Chart 8C). This comes as no surprise with the RBA growing its balance sheet at an unprecedented rate. The growth component, meanwhile, has been driven by rebounding consumer and business sentiment data with Australia benefitting from Chinese reflation. We are also beginning to see a divergence in the historically tight correlation between the RBA monitor and the trade-weighted Australian dollar, as investors pile into the growth-sensitive currency with the Fed reflating the global economy. For its part, the RBA has tried to combat this by reiterating its support for its QE program and leaving the door open to further bond-buying. We can see the RBA’s core problem summarized in Chart 8D. The rise in Australian bond yields has cornered the RBA towards a more dovish tilt. Although RBA Governor Lowe has ruled out negative rates, the RBA has some bullets remaining, including shifting its purchases to the long-end of the curve. With that in mind, we feel confident reiterating our neutral stance on Australian sovereign debt. Chart 8DAustralian Yields Have Outpaced Our RBA Monitor RBNZ Monitor: Between A Rock And A Hard Place Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) monitor has rebounded slightly but is still calling for easing (Chart 9A). While the RBNZ has held its official cash rate steady at 0.25% since our last update, it has expanded its large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) program to a whopping NZD 100bn. Unemployment and output gaps indicate a good deal of slack in the New Zealand economy, with the output gap set to recover slightly faster than the unemployment gap, according to IMF forecasts (Chart 9B). Although inflation momentarily breached the 2% mark, it is expected to remain subdued as spare capacity and low tradables inflation weigh on the overall measure. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNZ Inflation Is Set To Subside Chart 9CThe Appreciating NZD Is A Problem As with neighboring Australia, financial conditions have led the rebound in the RBNZ monitor while the growth component has ticked up slightly and the inflation component remains subdued (Chart 9C). However, one of the variables in our model, house prices, has recently leapt to the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, with the government asking the RBNZ to cool the rapidly heating market. The RBNZ has responded by reinstating loan-to-value ratio restrictions but we cannot expect the bank to turn hawkish anytime soon, given recent appreciation in the New Zealand dollar, which not only hurts export competitiveness but also threatens import price inflation. Going forward, political pressure on the RBNZ will prevent it from taking an overly accommodative stance and has made it unlikely that the bank will go into negative rate territory next year. The momentum in NZ yields has largely kept pace with our RBNZ monitor despite the dramatic spike last month (Chart 9D). The RBNZ will increasingly have to find ways to suppress both bond yields and the New Zealand dollar without stimulating the housing market. Given these opposing forces, yields will likely move sideways, supporting our neutral stance on NZ sovereign debt. Chart 9DYields Have Kept Pace With Our RBNZ Monitor Riksbank Monitor: Sluggish Recovery Ahead Our Riksbank monitor has rebounded but is still calling for easier policy (Chart 10A). Given the bank’s fraught relationship with negative rates and the associated financial stability concerns, it will likely deliver further stimulus in the form of asset purchases, which it has recently ramped up to SEK 700bn while also promising to step up the pace of purchases in the next quarter. Both output and unemployment gaps indicate slack in the Swedish economy, with OECD and IMF estimates pointing towards a gradual recovery (Chart 10B). While GDP in the third quarter did come out stronger than expected, it was likely just a temporary development. After failing to contain surging infections, the Swedish government has finally decided to impose restrictions, which will limit the recovery until we start to see mass immunization. The Riksbank does not expect inflation to be sustainably close to 2% until 2023. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BSweden Is Set For A Slow Recovery Chart 10CThe Rallying Swedish Krona Is A Concern For The Riksbank Looking at the components of the Riksbank monitor, all of them are currently below zero, implying a need for easier policy (Chart 10C). The growth component rebounded strongly on the back of improving exports and sentiment data. On the currency side, we have seen strong appreciation in the trade-weighted Krona this year, far exceeding the levels implied by our Riksbank monitor. This could dampen export growth in the small, open economy, making it a prime concern for policymakers. While the Riksbank monitor fell drastically, Swedish government bond yields remained largely rangebound this year, with the 10-year yield hovering around zero (Chart 10D). The bottom line is that yields for the most part are reflecting expectations of a policy rate stuck at 0%, that the Riksbank is unwilling to cut and cannot afford to hike. Chart 10DSwedish Yields Have Remained Rangebound Norges Bank Monitor: On A Recovery Path Our Norges Bank Monitor is improving from very depressed levels, but still remains well below the zero line. This is signaling that continued monetary accommodation is still needed, but emergency settings are no longer appropriate (Chart 11A). Consistent with the message from the Monitor, Norges Bank governor Øystein Olsen has pledged to keep interest rates at zero for the next couple of years, before a gradual rise begins. The central bank also continues to extend emergency F-loans to commercial banks at 0%, to encourage much needed lending to Norwegian firms. The rebound in Q3 mainland GDP (which excludes oil & gas production) was the strongest on record. The unemployment rate has also declined from a high of 10.4% to 3.9% for the month of November. That said, there was a small tick up in November, a sign that the second wave of COVID-19 engulfing the euro area is beginning to bite into Norwegian growth. Underlying inflation remains above well above target, while headline inflation is slowly rebounding. But given that the output gap is expected to remain wide into 2021, these trends should flatten, rather than accelerate (Chart 11B). Chart 11ANorway: Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BNorwegian Inflation Is At Target Chart 11CThe Norwegian Krone Tracks The Monitor The key improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor has come from the growth component, which is very close to the zero line (Chart 11C). Not surprisingly, the Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the latter is an important valve in adjusting monetary conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the krone cushioned the crash in oil prices. A recovery will benefit the krone.  The correlation between the Monitor and Norwegian bond yields has become more robust (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should participate as global yields modestly grind higher. Within a global bond portfolio, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DNorwegian Yields Should Modestly Track Higher SNB Monitor: More Currency Weakness Needed Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has shown very tepid improvement, as the SNB has maxed out its policy options (Chart 12A). Interest rates have been at -0.75% since 2015, making the currency channel the only valve to ease monetary conditions. To achieve this, the central has been heavily expanding its balance sheet via the accumulation of foreign assets and reserves. Switzerland has seen a less powerful rebound in Q3 GDP at 7.2%, compared to the euro zone where growth stood at 12.5%. Meanwhile, Q4 data is likely to disappoint as Switzerland was hit harder by the second COVID-19 wave. Labor market tightness has eased, with the unemployment rate at a 2020 high of 3.4%. This will continue to suppress inflationary pressures, which are now the weakest since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (Chart 12B). Chart 12ASwitzerland: SNB Monitor Chart 12BThe Swiss Economy Is Deflating Chart 12CThe Swiss Franc Is Too Strong Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, both growth and inflation are anchoring down the indicator. The message is that Switzerland needs a weaker currency, especially relative to its trading partners (Chart 12C). This concern is repeatedly echoed by SNB governor Thomas Jordan. As such, the Swiss franc should lag other European currencies, including the euro and Swedish krona.  The SNB Monitor does a good job at capturing shifts in Swiss bond yields. Constrained by the lower bound, they were not really able to fall when the pandemic was raging in March. By the same token, they should lag any modest increase in global bond yields, as suggested by the Monitor (Chart 12D). Like Norway, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low market liquidity. Chart 12DSwiss Yields Should Lag The Global Upswing   Robert Robis, CFA  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktiS@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights U.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade. How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge. We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best. When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS. When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio. However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further. Feature Some 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today. But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following: 1. A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart II-1.1A, top panel). Chart II-1.1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Chart II-1.1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)   2. Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart II-1.1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity. 3. Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart II-1.1A, bottom panel). 4. Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart II-1.1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available. 5. Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart II-1.1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart II-1.1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money? We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment. In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4  BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade. In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only. We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments. Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart II-1.2 and Table II-1.1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them. Summary Of Results Table II-1.2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below. Which assets perform best when inflation is rising? Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is. Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation. Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high. U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge. Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising? Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high. Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses. Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising? With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles. Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high. Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility. What is the cost of inflation hedging? To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging: 1. Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities/40% bonds. 2. Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities/40% bonds/5% TIPS/5% commodities 3. Medium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities/30% bonds/15% TIPS/15 % commodities 4. Pure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS/50% commodities. While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart II-1.3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart II-1.3, panel 3). What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart II-1.3, panel 4). Investment Implications High inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following: 1. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. 2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now. 3.   Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate. 4.   When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio. 5.   When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Asset Classes Global Equities The relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-2.1, top panel). This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations: Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-2.1, bottom panel). When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation. When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations. With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-2.1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile. U.S. Treasuries U.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2.2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices. The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2.2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs. U.S. REITs While REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-2.3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6 The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-2.3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles. Commodity Futures Commodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-2.4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return: Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-2.4, bottom panel). When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return. Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-2.4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive. U.S. Inflation-Protected Bonds While inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-2.5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7 The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-2.5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation. Sub-Asset Classes Global Equity Sectors For the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data. Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results: When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart II-3.1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart II-3.1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods. When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart II-3.1, panel 3). When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart II-3.1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. Equities How do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities? The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart II-3.2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar. When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart II-3.2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environment. U.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart II-3.2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period. U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart II-3.2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual Commodities Our analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8 Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart II-3.3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart II-3.3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period. When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart II-3.3, panel 3). We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart II-3.3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns 64% of the time compared to 52% for silver. Other Assets U.S. Direct Real Estate Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform? We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues: Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies. The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate. Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation. Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart II-4.1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart II-4.1, bottom panel).   Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample (Chart II-4.2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart II-4.2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation Footnotes 1       Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004). 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3       We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 4       Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill. 5       Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018.  6       Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 7       It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations. 8       We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.

Highlights The view that the world will sink into a deflationary “ice age” hinges on the assumption that policymakers will make a colossal mistake by failing to do what is in their own best interest. Contrary to popular belief, governments always have a tool to increase inflation, even when an economy has fallen into a liquidity trap: It’s called sustained fiscal stimulus. Japan could have avoided its deflationary epoch if the authorities had eased fiscal policy more aggressively. Ironically, bigger budget deficits probably would have caused the government debt-to-GDP ratio to rise less than it did. The U.S. and China are unlikely to repeat Japan’s mistake. Actually, looking ahead, Japan may not repeat Japan’s mistake. The euro area is a tougher call given the region’s political and institutional constraints; but even there, a reflationary outcome is more likely than not. An intensification of the trade war will cause government bond yields to fall a bit further in the near term. However, yields are likely to be higher one year from now. Global equities will follow the same path as bond yields: Down in the near term, but up over a 12-month horizon. Feature I feel more confident than ever that the next phase of the Ice Age will soon be upon us. Much of the thesis has come from learning the hard deflationary lessons from Japan. Most commenters now accept the Japanification of mainland Europe has occurred, but they just cannot conceive that the same thing might happen with the US. My biggest conviction call is that US 10y bond yields will converge with Japanese and German yields in the next recession at around minus 1% (and US 30y yields will fall to zero or below) and that markets will panic as outright deflation takes an icy grip. -  Albert Edwards, Société Générale (May 2019) Fire Or Ice? If you were to ask most central bankers today whether it is better to err on the side of too much or too little inflation, chances are they would say the former. Their rationale would surely be as follows: If inflation rises to uncomfortably high levels, they can simply raise interest rates in order to cool the economy. In contrast, if inflation gets too low, and interest rates are already close to zero, monetary policy loses potency. It is better to have more control over the economy than less. This reasoning is correct on its own terms, but if one stands back and thinks about it, it is rather perverse to argue that deflation, which generally stems from a lack of aggregate demand, should be more difficult to overcome than inflation, which is usually the result of too much demand. After all, people like to spend money. Getting someone to work and produce should, in principle, be more difficult than getting them to consume. Inflation should be a bigger problem than deflation. So why do so many economists think otherwise? The Paradox Of Thrift There actually is a very good reason for this bias, one which John Maynard Keynes articulated more than 80 years ago. Keynes observed that when unemployment is rising, people are likely to try to save more due to fear of losing their jobs. Since one person’s spending is another’s income, this could create a vicious cycle where falling spending leads to lower aggregate income, and so on. Unfortunately, it is hard to save if you do not have a job. Thus, the decision by all individuals to save more could result, ironically, in a decline in aggregate savings.1 Keynes called this the paradox of thrift. At the heart of the paradox of thrift lies a deep-seated coordination problem. During an economic downturn, everyone would be better off if everyone else spent more money. However, since the spending of any one person only has a negligible effect on aggregate demand, no one has an incentive to spend more than is absolutely necessary. Keynes’ seminal insight was that a government could overcome this coordination problem by acting as a spender of last resort. Keynes argued that if the private sector decides to save more, the public sector should save less by running a bigger budget deficit. The result would be the preservation of full employment. Debt And Deliverance A common objection to the idea that governments should run bigger budget deficits to compensate for inadequate private-sector demand is that this will cause public-sector debt levels to swell to the point that a fiscal crisis becomes inevitable. The solution to Japan’s problem is obvious: The government should just keep easing fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach the BoJ’s target. For countries such as Italy, this is a legitimate concern. If a country does not have a central bank that can serve as a buyer of last resort of government debt, it can end up facing a pernicious feedback loop where rising bond yields increase the likelihood of default, leading to even higher bond yields. These countries can, and often do, face speculative attacks on their bond markets (Chart 1). For countries that issue debt in their own currencies, this concern does not exist. This is because their governments can print money to pay for goods and services. Since the cost to the government of printing a $100 bill is negligible, the government can always conjure up demand out of thin air. Of course, there is a risk that the government will manufacture too much demand and inflation will rise. But if the goal is to prevent deflation, this is a feature not a bug. Once demand increases enough, the government can just pull the plug on further fiscal stimulus, and everyone can live happily ever after. Japan’s Experience Chart 2The 1990s Japanese Example Didn’t Japan try this approach and fail? No. Japan suffered the mother of all financial shocks in the early 1990s when the real estate and stock market bubbles simultaneously burst. This happened just as the working-age population was peaking, which made businesses even less eager to expand domestic capacity. The result of all this was a massive increase in excess private-sector savings. The government did loosen fiscal policy, but not by enough. Consequently, deflation eventually set in. As inflation expectations fell, real rates rose (Chart 2). Rising real rates put upward pressure on the yen and increased the government’s real debt financing costs. To make matters worse, falling prices made it more difficult for private-sector borrowers to pay back their loans. This further depressed spending. Ironically, had the Japanese government eased fiscal policy more aggressively to begin with, it probably would have been able to trim deficits later on. Nominal GDP would have also increased more briskly. As a consequence, the government debt-to-GDP ratio would have ended up rising less than it did. Today, Japan remains mired in a deflationary mindset. Twenty-year CPI swaps, a proxy for long-term inflation expectations, are trading at 0.3%, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan’s 2% target. Interest rates are stuck near zero, reflecting the fact that the economy continues to suffer from excess savings. Japan Needs Fiscal Stimulus, Not Austerity The solution to Japan’s problem is obvious: The government should just keep easing fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach the BoJ’s target. Given Japan’s pathetically low fertility rate, a sensible strategy would be to offer subsidized housing and baby bonuses to any couple that has three or more children. It is impossible to know how big a budget deficit will be required to reset inflation expectations to a higher level. If people believe that the government is serious about easing fiscal policy by enough to get inflation up to target, real rates will collapse, the yen will fall, and private demand will rise. In the end, the government may not need to raise the budget deficit that much. Even if the Japanese government did have to increase the budget deficit substantially, this would not endanger the economy. As long as the interest rate at which the government borrows is below the growth rate of the economy, any budget deficit, no matter how large, will produce a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the long run (Chart 3).2 Since there would be no need to ease fiscal policy by so much that the Bank of Japan is forced to lift interest rates above the economy’s growth rate, there is little risk that the debt-to-GDP ratio will end up on an unsustainable trajectory. Chart 4Japanese Excess Savings Are Starting To Recede Will the Japanese government heed this advice? While Q1 GDP growth surprised on the upside, this was mainly because of a strong contribution from net exports and inventories. Final domestic demand remains underwhelming. Stronger global growth will help Japan later this year, but we think there is still a 50/50 chance the planned VAT hike will be postponed. Looking ahead, the exodus of Japanese workers from the labor market into retirement will reduce private-sector savings. The household savings rate has already fallen from nearly 20% in the early 1980s to around 4% in recent years. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to a 45-year high (Chart 4). Falling private-sector savings will raise the neutral rate of interest, thus giving the BoJ more traction over monetary policy. Japan’s deflationary ice age may be coming to an end. Stimulus With Chinese Characteristics Like Japan, China has struggled to consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export that excess savings abroad. It cannot do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur fixed-investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment is financed through credit, debt levels have risen (Chart 5). Much of China’s debt-financed investment spending has been undertaken by local governments and state-owned enterprises. This has made credit and fiscal policy virtually indistinguishable. While the general government fiscal deficit stands at a moderate 4.1% of GDP, the augmented deficit, which includes a variety of off-balance sheet expenditures, has swollen to 10.7% of GDP, up more than six percentage points since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 5China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt As we discussed a few weeks ago in a report entitled “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View”, there is little preventing the Chinese government from further ramping up credit/fiscal stimulus.3 The fact that the trade negotiations are on the ropes only strengthens the case for additional easing. The government knows full well that it will gain negotiating leverage over the U.S. if the Chinese economy is humming along despite higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Regardless of whether it is right-wing populism or left-wing populism that triumphs in the end, the outcome is likely to be the same: higher inflation. Europe: Turning Japanese? Judging from the fact that German bund yields have fallen to Japanese levels, one might conclude that the Japanification of Europe is complete. There is, however, at least one key macro difference between the two regions: While long-term inflation expectations in the euro area have declined, they are still well above Japanese levels (Chart 7). As a result, real yields are quite a bit lower in core Europe, which gives countries such as Germany and France some cushion of support. Chart 7Despite Similar Nominal Bond Yields, Real Rates Are Still Much Lower In Germany Than Japan Chart 8Italian Bond Yields Are Still Worryingly High Bond yields remain elevated in Italy, though still below the levels seen last October, and far below their peak during the euro crisis in 2011 (Chart 8). Short of the creation of a pan-euro area fiscal union, Italy’s best hope is that Germany takes steps to reflate its own economy. The conventional wisdom is that the German psyche, ever focused on fiscal discipline, would never permit that to happen. This view, however, forgets that Germany had no trouble violating the Maastricht Treaty’s deficit cap of 3% of GDP in the early 2000s. Germany today sees little need to significantly loosen fiscal policy because years of wage repression, and more recently, a weak euro, have caused its current account surplus to swell to 9% of GDP. However, the country’s ability to push out its excess production to the rest of the world may become more limited in the future. The gap in unit labor costs between Germany and other euro area members has narrowed steadily in recent years. This development has coincided with a decline in Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area (Chart 9). If the common currency starts to appreciate and wage growth in Germany continues to outpace the rest of the region, the German government may have no choice but to loosen the fiscal screws. Chart 9Germany's Competitive Advantage Against The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Declining Chart 10U.S.: Federal Discretionary Spending Has Been Gaining Steam   U.S.: Ice Age Vs. Green New Deal While Trump’s tax cuts have gotten a lot of attention, an equally important development in recent years has been the rapid acceleration in federal government spending. From a contraction of 7% in 2013, real discretionary outlays are set to grow by 3% in 2019 (Chart 10). There is little reason to think that the U.S. budget deficit will shrink anytime soon. Taxes may go back up if the Democrats take control of the White House and sweep Congress next year. However, even in that scenario, any increase in tax rates is likely to be neutralized by higher social welfare spending – yes, including partial implementation of the green new deal. Meanwhile, government outlays on Social Security and health care programs such as Medicaid are on track to rise by 5.4% of GDP over the next thirty years (Chart 11). So far, an overstimulated U.S. economy has not produced much in the way of inflation. But with the unemployment rate down to a 49-year low, that could change over the next few years. Recent communications from FOMC members suggest a growing tolerance for a modest inflation overshoot of the 2% target. An outright increase in the Fed’s inflation target is unlikely in the near term, but could become a viable option if realized inflation moves above the Fed’s current comfort zone of 2%-to-2.5% for long enough. If that were to happen, raising the inflation target could turn out to be politically more expedient than engineering a deep recession in an effort to bring inflation back down. It will also help alleviate the rising real debt burden that will ensue from high deficits. We expect global bond yields to reach a series of “higher highs and higher lows” over the coming years. The Fed is already facing political pressure from the Trump administration to keep rates low. Politics in the U.S. and in many other countries is moving in a more populist direction. Regardless of whether it is right-wing populism or left-wing populism that triumphs in the end, the outcome is likely to be the same: higher inflation. Historically, there is a clear inverse correlation between central bank independence and inflation (Chart 12). Investment Conclusions On the question of whether we are heading for a deflationary ice age or a period of inflationary global warming, we would put higher odds on the latter. Many of the structural factors that have produced lower inflation over the last few decades are in retreat. Globalization has stalled, and may even reverse course if the trade war intensifies (Chart 13). The ratio of workers-to-consumers globally is starting to shrink as the post-war generation leaves the labor force (Chart 14). Central bank autonomy is under attack, while fiscal policy is turning more expansionary. Chart 13The Age Of Globalization Is Over Chart 14The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally To believe that politicians will not dial up fiscal stimulus in the face of a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand is to believe that they will act incompetently. Not incompetent in the low-IQ sort of way. Incompetent in the sense that they will act against their own self-interest. Voters want more employment. In the age of populism, it seems unlikely that politicians with ready access to the printing press will fail to deliver what the people want. We declared “The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market” on July 5, 2016. As luck would have it, this was the very same day that the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit an all-time low of 1.37%. We expect global bond yields to reach a series of “higher highs and higher lows” over the coming years. Right now, we are witnessing a countertrend rally in bond prices. Yields could fall a bit further in the coming weeks if the trade war heats up. However, yields will be higher in 12 months’ time, provided that China and the U.S. begrudgingly reach a trade truce and global growth reaccelerates, as we expect. Global equities are likely to follow the same pattern as bond yields. Trade tensions could push stocks down about 5% from current levels (we are presently positioned for this by being tactically short the S&P 500 against an underlying structural overweight position). However, equities will move to fresh highs over a 12-month horizon as global growth picks up. The recent stock market correction caused our long European bank trade to be stopped out for a loss of 7%. We will re-enter the trade once we conclude that global equities have found a bottom. The dollar will probably strengthen a bit more in the near term, but as a countercyclical currency, the greenback will weaken in the second half of this year. This will provide a good opportunity to go overweight EM and European stocks in common-currency terms.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Another way to see this point is to recall that business spending normally declines when the economy weakens. Investment spending tends to move in lockstep with national savings (indeed, at the global level, the two must be exactly equal to each other). Thus, if consumer spending falls in response to the decision by households to try to save more, and this leads to lower investment, it will also lead to lower aggregate savings. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

We are strongly committed to our 2 percent inflation objective and to achieving it on a sustained and symmetric basis. – Jerome Powell, May 1, 2019 St Louis Fed President James Bullard, a voting member of the central bank’s policy committee, said he “certainly would be open to a cut” should inflation continue to fall short of expectations after the summer. – Financial Times, May 3, 2019 The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of prices (the core personal consumption deflator) rose by 1.6% in the year to March, a shortfall from the 2% inflation target. Moreover, the 10-year-moving average of core inflation has remained persistently below the 2% level over the past 17 years (Chart 1). Recent comments from some policymakers and market analysts highlight growing concerns about this shortfall. Personally, I see little to worry about. Chart 1Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% For investors, high and rising inflation is a terrible thing, as is its even more evil twin, a high and accelerating pace of deflation. The Holy Grail for investors and policymakers alike is for actual inflation and inflation expectations to remain both low and stable. It seems to me that this has been achieved, with resulting huge benefits to the economy and financial markets. It matters little that inflation has fallen slightly short of the arbitrary 2% target. If inflation was problematically low, what might we expect to see? Importantly, companies would be complaining about a tough pricing environment and pressure on profits. Yet, S&P 500 profit margins are close to an all-time high (Chart 2). And that is providing powerful support to the stock market, with the S&P 500 also close to its highs. If there were building deflationary pressures in the economy, then it also would be reasonable to expect spreading signs of economic distress. While not every indicator is flashing green, the overall economy is doing just fine. Healthy employment growth, rising real wages and strong profits are more consistent with a nascent inflation problem than with deflation. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, small companies’ main problem is the quality of labor, not concerns about demand. Excessively low inflation is a problem for debtors, but loan delinquency rates – albeit a lagging indicator – are well contained. The Fed makes a big deal about the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored – i.e. stable at a low level. There does not appear to be any major problem on this front. For example, the New York Fed’s survey of consumers shows median expected inflation of 2.9% in three years’ time (Chart 3). The University of Michigan Survey of Consumers shows expected inflation of 2.3% over the next 5-10 years. The gap between nominal and real 10-year Treasury yields – a proxy for financial market inflation expectations – is lower (currently 1.88%), but that measure moves around a lot and is highly correlated with oil prices. No measures of expected inflation are in free-fall or dangerously low. Chart 2No Signs Of Pricing Distress Chart 3Inflation Expectations Are Contained   What If? Suppose that the Fed had been prescient enough to realize 10 years ago that, despite its best efforts, core inflation would average only 1.6% rather than the desired 2% over the coming decade. Presumably, the Fed would have taken even more extreme actions than actually occurred, implying a bigger expansion of its balance sheet. It is unclear whether it would have been any more successful in pushing up actual inflation. But we can be sure that it would have further inflated asset prices and encouraged even more leverage in the corporate sector. Increased financial imbalances in the economy – asset price overshoots and greater leverage – would not have been an attractive trade-off to pushing up inflation by an average 40 basis points. The core problem is that monetary policy is ill-equipped to deal with the forces that have held back economic growth. A combination of demographics, high debt and slower productivity growth have limited the U.S. economy’s potential. Thus, I have a lot of sympathy for Larry Summer’s secular stagnation thesis. Yes, that implies that the real equilibrium interest rate is very low and, therefore, that monetary policy needs to be accommodative. But it also implies that force-feeding the system with easy money is more likely to lead to asset bubbles and financial distortions than to increased consumer price inflation. What About Policy Ammo For The Next Downturn? One of the main arguments for getting inflation up is to give the Fed more scope to ease policy in the next recession. In the past, the Fed has cut the funds rate by an average of around 500 basis points during recessions. Going into the next downturn with inflation and thus interest rates close to current levels means it would not take long for the funds rate reach the constraints of the zero bound. However, this also would be the case if core inflation was at or modestly above the 2% target. That is why some commentators (e.g. Olivier Blanchard and Larry Summers) have argued for an inflation target of 4% during good times in order to allow for a large fall in interest rates when times turn bad. As long as inflation is in moderate single digits, its stability probably is more important than its level. In other words, if inflation was at 4% and was expected by all economic and financial agents to remain at that level for the foreseeable future, then the economy should not perform any worse than if inflation had stabilized at 2% - and it might even perform better. However, central banks have long had the view that the higher the inflation rate, the less stable it would be. And the same logic would apply to the downside if there was deflation. For example, once inflation rises from 2% to 4%, then it could easily move from 4% to 6% etc. Given the challenges of fine-tuning monetary policy, that view has merit. Raising the inflation target is all very well, but if central banks are having trouble getting the rate to 2%, how on earth would they get it to 4%. And the same point applies if the Fed were to shift from targeting the inflation rate to targeting the level of prices or of nominal GDP. If boosting the Fed’s balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion did not get inflation to 2%, what would it take to get inflation to 4%? It is always possible to increase inflation. For example, the government could give all households a check for $10,000 that had to be spent on domestically-produced goods and services. Furthermore, assume the checks were valid only for one year and the fiscal costs were directly financed by the Fed. This would undoubtedly unleash a powerful consumer boom and a spike in inflation. And the government could keep repeating the exercise until a sustained inflation upturn took hold. But that is an unrealistic scenario except in the event of an Armageddon economic situation. And it hardly would fit in with keeping inflation stable at a modestly higher pace. A recession is very likely within the next couple of years and monetary policy will indeed face major constraints on its actions. We undoubtedly would see renewed quantitative easing on a heroic scale with an expanded range of assets purchased by the central bank. And advocates of Modern Monetary Theory may well have their wishes granted with direct monetary financing of fiscal deficits. But, as already noted, policymakers would face these policy challenges regardless of whether inflation was modestly below or above the 2% target. Be Careful What You Wish For The Fed spent three decades squeezing inflation out of the system. In the 1970s and 1980s, high inflation expectations were deeply embedded in the behavior of consumers, companies and investors. It was a long and at times painful process to change that psychology. With inflation expectations now in the range of 2% to 3%, the Fed can claim success. Why would they want to risk undoing that achievement? Letting the economy run hot to try and offset sub-2% inflation with a period of above-2% inflation would be a dangerous strategy. History shows us that central banks have both limited understanding of the inflation process and limited control over the economy. If policymakers were successful in raising inflation, they run the risk that expectations would no longer be anchored. Moreover, the Fed would have a massive problem in communicating the logic of a pro-inflation strategy. Having spent so long in selling the message that low and stable inflation is the best way to maximize long-run economic growth, it likely would create considerable confusion to then say that a period of higher inflation was acceptable. Investors and businesses would face huge uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of an inflation overshoot and about whether the Fed could even control the process. The Fed’s credibility undoubtedly would suffer. It is true that policymakers know how to bring inflation back under control – they simply have to tighten policy. But that introduces increased instability into the economy and financial markets. Rather than be obsessed about hitting the 2% target, policymakers should be happy that they have met the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The Policy Outlook And Market Implications The Fed was right to stop raising interest rates. The economy does not appear to be on the verge of overheating and there are enough risks to the outlook to warrant a cautious wait-and-see approach to policy. Yet, I am somewhat troubled by the dovish tone of some Fed officials. Thank goodness President Trump’s recent choices for Fed Board positions are now out of the picture. If I am worried now, I can only imagine how much worse I would have felt with Stephen Moore and Herman Cain on the Board. With no recession on the horizon and the labor markets extremely tight, I fully expect to see inflation gather steam later this year. But I suspect that the Fed will be slow to react. And then the timing of the 2020 elections will become a factor. The FOMC is not particularly sensitive to political considerations, but this is no ordinary President. The Fed would have to be very sure of itself before it started raising rates again in the midst of the election cycle. The bottom line is that we are setting up for a monetary policy error with the Fed falling behind the inflation curve later this year or in early 2020. This will be positive for risk assets in the short run, but poses a big threat down the road. Notwithstanding our concerns about the near-term market impact of current U.S.-China trade tensions, our strategy is thus to remain overweight equities and corporate credit until we see signs that financial conditions are about to significantly tighten.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights Globalization, technological progress, weak trade unions, high debt levels, and population aging are often cited as reasons for why inflation will remain dormant. None of these reasons are inherently deflationary, and in some contexts, they may actually turn out to be quite inflationary. The combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months. Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against rising inflation. That said, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Historically, stocks have not performed well in inflationary environments. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Feature Will Structural Forces Limit Inflation? In Part 1 of this report, we argued that inflation could surprise materially on the upside over the coming years due to the growing conviction among policymakers that: The neutral real rate of interest is extremely low; The natural rate of unemployment has fallen significantly over time; There is an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment; The presence of the zero lower-bound on nominal short-term interest rates implies that it is better to be too late than too early in tightening monetary policy. A common refrain in response to these arguments is that the structural features of today's economy are so deflationary that policymakers simply would be not able to lift inflation even if they wanted to. Four features are often cited: 1) globalization; 2) modern technologies such as automation and e-commerce; 3) the declining influence of trade unions; and 4) population aging, high debt levels, and other contributors to "secular stagnation." In this week's report, we discuss all four features in turn. In every case, we conclude that the purported deflationary forces are not nearly as strong as most observers believe. Inflation And Globalization Imagine two closed economies, identical in every way other than the fact the one economy is larger than the other. Would one expect inflation to be structurally higher in the smaller economy? Most people would probably say no. After all, if one economy has more workers and capital than another economy, it will be able to generate more output. But all those additional workers will also want to spend more, so it is not immediately obvious why inflation should differ in the two regions. Now let us change the terminology a bit. Suppose the larger economy refers to the world as a whole. What would happen to the balance between aggregate demand and supply if we were to shift from a setting where countries do not trade with one another to a globalized world where they do? As the initial example suggests, to a first approximation, the answer is nothing. Since one country's exports are another's imports, globally, net exports will always be zero. Thus, it stands to reason that simply moving from autarky to free trade will not, in itself, boost global aggregate demand. Could a move towards free trade increase aggregate supply? Yes. Global production will rise if countries can specialize in the production of goods in which they have a comparative advantage. Productivity will also benefit from the fact that a large global market will allow companies to better exploit economies of scale by spreading their fixed costs over a greater quantity of output. But here's the catch: More production also means more income, and more income means more spending. Thus, if globalization increases aggregate supply, it will also increase aggregate demand. And if both aggregate demand and aggregate supply increase by the same amount, there is no reason to think that inflation will change. Granted, it is possible that desired demand will rise more slowly than supply in response to increasing globalization, putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates in the process. This could be the case, for example, if globalization increases the share of income going towards rich people. As Chart 1 shows, rich people tend to save more than poor people. Chart 1Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners If globalization has increased income inequality, it is possible that this has had a deflationary effect. However, for this effect to persist, the world has to become even more globalized. This does not seem to be happening. Global trade has been flat as a share of GDP for over a decade (Chart 2). The share of U.S. national income flowing to workers has also been rising in recent years as the labor market has tightened (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Trade Has Peaked Chart 3Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring ##br##Alongside Labor Market Tightening Globalization As An Inflationary Safety Valve The discussion above suggests that the often-heard argument that globalization is deflationary because it leads to an overabundance of production is not as straightforward as it seems. What about the argument that globalization is deflationary because it limits the ability of companies to raise prices? While this is a seemingly compelling argument, it runs square into the problem that profit margins are near record-high levels in many economies. Far from making companies more price-conscious, globalization has often created oligopolistic market structures. Granted, free trade can still provide a safety valve for countries suffering from excess demand. To see this, return to our earlier example of the large country versus the small country. Suppose that because of its well-diversified economy, the large country often encounters situations where one region is booming, while another is down in the dumps. When this happens, workers and capital will tend to flow to the thriving region, alleviating any capacity pressures there. The same adjustments often occur among countries. If desired spending exceeds a country's productive capacity, it can run a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Rather than the prices of goods and services needing to rise, excess demand can be satiated with more imports. However, for that realignment in demand to occur, exchange rates must adjust. In today's context, this means that the dollar may need to strengthen further. Notice that this dynamic only works if there is slack abroad. This is presently the case, but there is no assurance that this will always be so. The implication is that inflation could rise meaningfully as global spare capacity is absorbed. Technology And Inflation If the price of electronic goods is any guide, it would seem undeniable that technological innovation is a deflationary force. However, this belief involves a fallacy of composition. Above-average productivity gains in one sector of the economy will cause prices in that sector to decline relative to other prices. But falling prices will also boost real incomes, leading to more spending. It is possible that prices elsewhere in the economy will rise by enough to offset the decline in prices in the sector experiencing above-average productivity gains, so that the overall price level remains unchanged. Ultimately, whether inflation rises or falls in response to faster productivity growth depends on what policymakers do. Over the long haul, productivity growth will lead to higher real wages. However, real wages can go up either because the price level declines or because nominal wages rise. The extent to which one or the other happens depends on the stance of monetary policy. In any case, just as in our discussion of globalization, the whole narrative about how faster productivity growth is deflationary seems rather antiquated considering that productivity growth has been quite weak in most of the world for over a decade (Chart 4). Consistent with this, the price deflator for electronic goods has been falling a lot less rapidly in recent years than it has in the past (Chart 5). Chart 4Globally, Productivity Growth Has Been ##br##Falling For Over A Decade Chart 5Steadier Prices For Computer Hardware ##br##And Software In Recent Years Admittedly, it is possible to imagine a scenario where the pace of productivity growth slows but the nature of that growth changes in a more deflationary direction. However, evidence that this has happened is fairly thin. Take the so-called Amazon effect, which purports to show sizable deflationary consequences from the spread of e-commerce. As my colleague Mark McClellan has shown, outside of department stores, profit margins in the retail sector are well above their historic average (Chart 6).1 This calls into doubt claims that online shopping has undermined corporate pricing power. Recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade which produced large productivity gains stemming from the displacement of "mom and pop" stores with "big box" retailers such as Walmart and Costco. The Waning Power Of Unions The declining influence of trade unions is also often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of empirical and conceptual problems with this argument. Empirically, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. While the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 7). The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 8). Chart 6Retail Sector Profit Margins Are Strong Chart 7Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A ##br##High Unionization Rate Chart 8Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed ##br##Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Conceptually, the argument that strong unions tend to instigate price-wage spirals is highly suspect. Yes, firms may be forced to raise wages in response to union pressures, which could prompt them to increase prices, leading to demands for even higher wages, etc. However, the price level cannot increase on a sustained basis independent of other things such as the level of the money supply. Central banks must still play a decisive role. One can imagine a scenario where the presence of powerful trade unions creates a dual labor market, one with well-paid unionized workers and another with poorly-paid non-unionized workers. Governments may be tempted to run the economy hot to prop up the wages of non-unionized workers. On the flipside, one could also imagine a scenario where the absence of strong unions exacerbates income inequality, causing governments to pursue more demand-boosting macroeconomic policies. In either case, however, the ultimate cause of rising inflation would still be macroeconomic policy. Inflation And The Neutral Rate As the discussion so far illustrates, inflation is unlikely to rise unless policymakers let it happen. But what if the neutral rate of interest is so low that policymakers lose traction over monetary policy? In that case, central banks may not be able to bring inflation up even if they wanted to. This is not just an academic question. Japan has had near-zero interest rates for over two decades and this has not been enough to spur inflation. Chart 9Long-Term Inflation Expectations In The Euro Area ##br##Are Still Much Higher Than In Japan We do not disagree with the notion that the neutral rate of interest is lower today than it was in the past. However, magnitudes are important here. In thinking about the secular stagnation thesis, which underpins the rationale for why the neutral rate has fallen, one should distinguish between the "weak" form and the "strong" form versions of the thesis. The weak form says that the neutral nominal rate of interest is low but positive, whereas the strong form says that the neutral nominal rate is negative.2 While this may seem like a minor distinction, it has important policy and market implications. Under the strong form version of the thesis, central banks really do lose control of their most effective policy tool: the ability to change interest rates to keep the economy on an even keel. By definition, if the neutral nominal rate is deeply negative, then even a policy rate of zero would mean that monetary policy is too tight. Under such circumstances, an economy could easily succumb to a vicious circle where insufficient demand causes inflation to fall, leading to higher real rates and even less spending. Such a vicious circle is less probable when the weak form version of the secular stagnation thesis dominates. As long as the neutral nominal rate is positive, central banks can always choose a policy rate that is low enough to allow the economy to grow at an above-trend pace. If they keep the policy rate below neutral for an extended period of time, the economy will eventually overheat, generating higher inflation. The fact that the U.S. unemployment rate has managed to fall during the past few years, even as the Fed has been raising rates, strongly suggests that the weak form of the secular stagnation thesis is applicable to the United States. The euro area is a much tougher call, given the region's poor demographics and high debt levels. Nevertheless, at least so far, the euro area has one thing on its side: Long-term inflation expectations are still much higher than they are in Japan (Chart 9). Whereas a neutral real rate of zero implies a nominal rate of 1.8% in the euro area, it implies a much lower nominal rate of 0.5% in Japan. The Neutral Rate Will Likely Move Higher As we argued a few weeks ago, cyclically, the neutral real rate of interest has risen in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.3 This has happened because deleveraging headwinds have abated, fiscal policy has turned more stimulative, asset values have risen, and faster wage growth has put more money into workers' pockets. Structurally, the neutral rate may also begin to creep higher as some of the very same long-term forces that have depressed the neutral rate in the past begin to push it up in the future. Demographics is a good example. For several decades, slower population growth has reduced the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Diminished investment spending has suppressed aggregate demand, leading to lower inflation. Population aging also pushed more people into their prime saving years - ages 30 to 50. By definition, more savings mean less spending. However, now that baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, they are moving from being savers to dissavers. Chart 10 shows that the "world support ratio" - effectively, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - has begun to fall for the first time in 40 years. As more people stop working, aggregate global savings will decline. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. Japan has been on the leading edge of this demographic transformation. The unemployment rate has fallen to a mere 2.4%, while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 45-year high (Chart 11). The shackles that have kept Japan immersed in deflation for over two decades may be starting to break. Chart 10The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 11Japan: Labor Market Tightening May Spur Inflation Debt Deflation Or Debt Inflation? The distinction between the weak form of secular stagnation and the strong form is critical for thinking about debt issues. Rising debt tends to boost spending, but when debt reaches very high levels, spending normally suffers as borrowers concentrate on paying back loans. As such, high indebtedness generally implies a lower neutral real rate of interest. There is an important caveat, however. The presence of a lot of debt in the financial system also creates an incentive for policymakers to boost inflation in order to erode the real value of that debt. This is particularly the case when governments are the main borrowers. When the strong form version of secular stagnation prevails, generating inflation is difficult, if not impossible. In such a setting, debt deflation becomes the main concern. In contrast, when the weak form version of secular stagnation prevails, higher inflation is achievable. Debt inflation becomes an increasingly likely outcome. If we are in a period where countries such as Japan are transitioning from a strong form of secular stagnation to a weak form, inflation could begin to move rapidly higher. We are positioned for this by being short 20-year versus 5-years JGBs. Inflation As A Political Choice There is a school of thought that argues that high inflation in the 1970s and early 80s was an aberration; that the natural state of capitalism is deflation rather than inflation. We reject this view. The natural state of capitalism is ever-increasing output. Whether prices happen to rise or fall along the way depends on the choice of monetary regime. This is a political decision, not an economic one. Regimes based on the gold standard tend to have a deflationary bias, whereas regimes based on fiat money tend to have an inflationary one. The introduction of universal suffrage in the first few decades of the twentieth century made inflation politically more palatable than deflation (Chart 12). There is little mystery as to why that was the case. In every society, wealth is unevenly distributed. Creditors tend to be rich while debtors tend to be poor. Unexpected inflation hurts the former, but benefits the latter. Chart 12Universal Suffrage Made Inflation Politically ##br##More Palatable Than Deflation Once universal suffrage was introduced, a poor farmer did not need to worry quite as much about losing his land to the bank, since he could now vote for someone who would ensure that crop prices increased rather than decreased. In William Jennings Bryan's colorful words, the rich and powerful "shall no longer crucify mankind on a cross of gold." Today, populism is on the rise. Trumpist Republicans have clobbered mainstream Republicans in one primary election after another. The democrats are also shifting to the left, as the ousting of ten-term incumbent Joe Crowley by the firebrand socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June illustrates. And the U.S. is not alone. Italy now has an avowedly populist government. Other European nations may not be far behind. Meanwhile, a growing chorus of prominent economists have argued in favor of raising inflation targets on the grounds that a higher level of inflation would allow central banks to push real interest rates deeper into negative territory in the event of a severe economic downturn. We doubt that any central bank would proactively raise its inflation target in the current environment. However, one could imagine a situation where inflation begins to gallop higher because central banks find themselves behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Confronted with the choice between engineering a painful recession and letting inflation stay elevated, it would not be too surprising in the current political context if some central banks chose the latter option. Investment Conclusions As we discussed last week, the combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months.4 Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk. However, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal (Chart 13). Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Chart 13Gold Is Not Cheap Historically, equities have not performed well in inflationary environments. U.S. stocks are quite expensive these days (Chart 14). Analyst expectations are also far too rosy (Chart 15). Non-U.S. stocks are more attractively priced, but face a slew of near-term headwinds. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Chart 14U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Chart 15Analysts Are Far Too Optimistic Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017. 2 To keep things simple, we are assuming that nominal interest rates cannot be negative. In practice, as we have seen over the past few years, the zero lower-bound constraint is rather fuzzy. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that interest rates can fall too far into negative territory before people begin to shift negative-yielding bank deposits into physical currency. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hot Dollar, Cold Turkey," dated August 17, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Dear Client, This is the first of a two-part Special Report dealing with the question of whether a significant pickup in global inflation may be lurking around the corner. In this week's report, we look back at the causes of the Great Inflation of the 1970s to see if they are still relevant today. While there are plenty of differences, there are also a number of important similarities. In a forthcoming report, we will challenge the often-heard arguments that globalization, automation, e-commerce, aging populations, excessive indebtedness, and the declining role of trade unions all limit the ability of inflation to rise. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The likelihood of a significant increase in inflation over the coming years is greater than the market believes. Just as in the 1960s, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. Despite abundant evidence that inflation is a highly lagging indicator, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of inflation's eyes" are visible will remain strong. Political influence over the conduct of monetary policy is likely to increase, as already evidenced by Trump's tweets lambasting Jay Powell, suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing need for the ECB to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy. Feature Chart 1Back To Full Employment In The USA... The U.S. Labor Market Keeps Tightening The U.S. labor market continues to tighten. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 157,000 in July. While this was below consensus expectations of a 193,000 rise, much of the shortfall appears to have been due to a sharp drop in employment among sporting goods and hobby retailers, a category that includes the now-defunct Toys 'R' Us. Revisions to past months pushed up the three-month average payroll gain to 224,000, more than double the additional 100,000 jobs that are needed every month to keep up with population growth. The U-6 unemployment rate - a broad measure of joblessness that includes marginally-attached workers and part-time workers who desire full-time employment - fell by 0.3 percentage points to a fresh cycle low of 7.5%. There are currently more job openings than unemployed workers. A record 75% of labor market entrants have been able to find a job within one month. Business surveys show that companies are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 1). Inflation: Dead Or Dormant? Despite the increasingly tight labor market, wage growth has been slow to accelerate (Chart 2). Wages of production and non-supervisory employees barely rose in July. The year-over-year change in the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers edged up to 2.9% in the second quarter, but remains well below its pre-recession peak. The Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker has actually been trending lower since mid-2016. The core PCE deflator rose by 1.9% year-over-year in June, shy of expectations of a 2.0% increase. Most other measures of core inflation remain reasonably well contained (Chart 3). The failure of wage and price inflation to take off in the face of diminished spare capacity has led many observers to conclude that inflation is unlikely to move materially higher. Both market expectations and household surveys reflect this sentiment. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below their pre-Great Recession average (Chart 4). Long-term inflation expectations in the University of Michigan survey are near record lows. Breaking down the University of Michigan survey, one can see that most of the decline in inflation expectations in recent years has stemmed from a smaller share of respondents expecting very high inflation. Chart 2...But Wage Growth Has Been Slow To Accelerate Chart 3Core Inflation Measures Remain Contained Chart 4Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Subdued Fears of a 1970-style inflation episode continue to recede. But could most observers turn out to be wrong? Could a major bout of inflation be lurking around the corner? No one knows for sure, but we would attach a much larger probability to such an outcome than the market is currently assigning. On a risk-adjusted basis, this justifies a cautious view towards long-term bonds. Causes Of The Great Inflation To understand why we think a repeat of the 1970s is a greater risk than is generally accepted, it is useful to ask what caused inflation to spiral out of control during that decade. Much of the academic debate has focused on two competing explanations: call it the "bad luck" view versus the "bad ideas" view. We side with the latter. The "bad luck" view blames rising inflation on a series of unforeseen and unforeseeable shocks. These include the OPEC oil embargoes, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, and the deceleration in productivity growth that occurred during the 1970s. One major problem with the "bad luck" view is timing. As Chart 5 shows, inflation in the U.S. began to spiral out of control starting in 1966, five years before Bretton Woods collapsed and seven years before the first oil shock. Inflation also initially accelerated during a period when productivity growth was still strong. Chart 5AInflation Started To Pick Up Before##br## 'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Chart 5BInflation Started To Pick Up Before ##br##'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Reverse Causality Chart 6Oil Lagged Other Commodities ##br##Between 1971 And 1973 Rather than causing inflation to rise, it is quite possible that all three of the shocks listed above were, to some extent, the result of higher inflation. This certainly seems the case for the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, whose existence helped provide a critical nominal anchor for the money supply and, by extension, the price level. At its core, the system functioned like a quasi-gold standard, with the price of U.S. dollars set at $35 per ounce and all other currencies being pegged to the dollar. Inflationary policies in the U.S. and many other countries in the late 1960s made gold cheap relative to regular goods and services, leading to a shortage of bullion. As the largest holder of gold, the U.S. found itself in a position where other countries were swapping their currencies into dollars and then redeeming those dollars for gold. In a desperate bid to stem gold outflows, the U.S. devalued the dollar, which forced foreigners to sacrifice more local currency to get the same amount of gold. When that was not enough, President Nixon ordered the closure of the gold window in August 1971 and imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on imports. The delinking of the price of gold from the dollar ignited a bull market in bullion that ultimately saw the price of the yellow metal reach $850 per ounce in January 1980. The prices of other metals jumped, as did food prices. Farmland entered a speculative bubble. OPEC was initially slow to react to the seismic changes sweeping the globe (Chart 6). The price of oil barely rose between 1971 and 1973, even as other commodity prices soared. The Yom Kippur war shook the cartel out of its slumber. Within the span of four months, the price of oil more than doubled, marking the first of a series of oil shocks. It is hard to know if OPEC would have reacted differently in an environment where the Bretton Woods system did not collapse and the value of the dollar did not tumble. However, it is certainly plausible that excessively easy monetary conditions in the years leading up to the 1973 oil shock created an environment in which the price of crude ended up rising more than it would have otherwise. The dislocations caused by runaway inflation in the 1970s probably had some role in the productivity slowdown during that decade. In general, the economic literature has found that high and volatile inflation has an adverse effect on productivity.1 The fact that policymakers reacted to rising inflation in the 1970s with price controls and trade restrictions only exacerbated the problem. Bad Ideas The temporary imposition of price and wage controls in 1971 was just one of a series of policy blunders that occurred during that era, starting with the failure to quell inflationary pressures in the late 1960s. Three bad ideas enabled inflation to get out of hand: First, policymakers mistakenly believed that high unemployment reflected inadequate demand rather than festering labor market rigidities. Second, they incorrectly assumed that there was a permanent trade-off between lower unemployment and higher inflation. Finally, and perhaps most damaging, they increasingly came to see monetary tightening as an ineffective tool in the fight against inflation. Let's examine each bad idea in turn. How Much Slack? Athanasios Orphanides and others have shown that policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere systemically overestimated the magnitude of slack in their economies (Chart 7). This occurred mainly because they failed to recognize the upward shift in the natural rate of unemployment that took place during this period. Economists continue to debate the reasons why the natural rate of unemployment rose in the second half of the 1960s. Demographics probably played a role. Young people tend to switch jobs more often, and so the mass entry of baby boomers into the labor market probably pushed up frictional unemployment. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program also led to a massive increase in government entitlement spending (Chart 8). Not only did this supercharge demand, but it also arguably reduced the incentive to work by creating an increasingly elaborate welfare state. Chart 7The Tendency To Overestimate The Level Of Slack Chart 8Entitlement Spending Rose Rapidly In The 1960s Whatever the reasons, policymakers were slow to recognize that structural unemployment had risen. This led them to press down on the economic accelerator when they should have been stepping on the brake. Illusory Trade-Offs Once it became clear that rising demand was pushing up prices by more than it was boosting production, the Federal Reserve should have moved quickly to tighten monetary policy. While the Fed did begrudgingly hike rates in 1968-69, it backed off as the economy began to slow. By February 1970, inflation had reached 6.4%. One key reason why the Fed adopted such a lackadaisical attitude towards inflation is that it saw higher inflation as a small price to pay for keeping unemployment low. This conviction stemmed from the false belief that there was a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Not everyone shared this view. Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. However, once people caught on to what was happening, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: lenders would increase nominal borrowing rates and workers would demand higher wages. Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. History ultimately proved Friedman and Phelps correct, but by then the damage had been done. A Dereliction Of Duty Of all the mistakes that central banks made during that period, perhaps the most egregious was their contention that rising inflation had little to do with the way they conducted monetary policy. The June 8th 1971 FOMC minutes noted that Fed Chairman Arthur Burns believed that "monetary policy could do very little to arrest an inflation that rested so heavily on wage-cost pressures. In his judgment a much higher rate of unemployment produced by monetary policy would not moderate such pressures appreciably." 2 This sentiment was echoed by the Council of Economic Advisors, which argued in 1978 that "Recent experience has demonstrated that the inflation we have inherited from the past cannot be cured by policies that slow growth and keep unemployment high." 3 If central banks could not do much to reduce inflation, it stood to reason that the onus had to fall on politicians and their underlings. By shunning their obligation to maintain price stability, central banks opened the door to all sorts of political meddling. And meddle they did. In his exhaustive study of the Nixon tapes, Burton Abrams documented how Richard Nixon sought, and Burns obligingly delivered, an expansionary monetary policy and faster growth in the lead-up to the 1972 election.4 Relevance For The Present Day President Trump's complaints over Twitter about Chair Powell's inclination to keep raising rates is hardly on par with the politicization of monetary policy that occurred during Nixon's presidency. Nevertheless, we may be slowly moving down that slippery slope. And it's not just the Fed. Suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing pressure that the ECB will face to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy all foreshadow growing political influence over the conduct of monetary policy. History clearly shows that inflation tends to be higher in countries which lack independent central banks (Chart 9). What about the broader question of whether the sort of mistakes that many central banks made in the 1960s and 70s could resurface, perhaps in a different guise? Here is where things get tricky. Today, few economists would question the notion that central banks can reduce inflation if they raise rates by enough to slow growth meaningfully. The Volcker disinflation, as well as the more vigilant approach that the Bundesbank and the Swiss National Bank took towards tackling inflation in the 1970s, are testaments to that (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation Is Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Chart 10The Great Inflation Around The World The problem is that most economists also recognize that central banks lack effective tools in bringing up inflation when confronted with the zero lower-bound on short-term interest rates. This has prompted many prominent economists to argue that central banks should raise their inflation targets above the current standard of two percent. The evidence is mixed about whether a higher inflation target of, say, three or four percent would unmoor inflation expectations by enough to generate an inflationary spiral. Our suspicion is probably not, but we would not dismiss the possibility altogether. Return Of The Paleo-Phillips Curve? Perhaps more relevant at the current juncture is that many influential economists once again see evidence for an exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment. One prominent advocate for this view is Paul Krugman. It is well worth quoting Krugman at length: "From the mid-1970s until just the other day, the overwhelming view in macroeconomics was that there is no long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation, that any attempt to hold unemployment below some level determined by structural factors would lead to ever-accelerating inflation. But the data haven't supported that view for a while... Looking forward, the risks of being too loose versus too tight are hugely asymmetric: letting the economy slump again will impose big costs that are never made up, while running it hot won't store up any meaningful trouble for the future." 5 We have some sympathy for Krugman's position, as well as Larry Summers' view that policymakers should not raise rates until they see "the whites of inflation's eyes." Still, one cannot help but notice that these arguments bear some resemblance to the views that pervaded economic circles in the 1960s. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 11). The Federal Reserve has cut its estimate of the natural rate of unemployment from 5.6% in 2012 to 4.45% at present. It has also reduced its estimate of the appropriate long-term level of the nominal federal funds rate from 4.25% to 2.875% over this period (Chart 12). Perhaps these new NAIRU estimates will turn out to be correct; perhaps they won't. The IMF reckons that the U.S. economy is currently operating at 1.2% of GDP above potential. Chart 13 shows that the IMF has consistently overestimated slack in the U.S. and other G7 economies during the past twenty years. It is entirely possible that the U.S. economy is already operating well beyond its full potential, but we will not know this until the lagged effects of diminished slack appear in the inflation data. Chart 11Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 12Estimates Of NAIRU And R* Have Fallen Chart 13The IMF Has Tended To Overestimate Slack In The G7 As we discussed several weeks ago, fiscal stimulus, faster credit growth, higher asset prices, and a rising labor share of total income have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 This lifts the odds that the Fed will find itself behind the curve, causing inflation to rise more than the market is anticipating. Many commentators have argued that excess capacity in the rest of the world will not permit inflation to rise much from current levels, even if the Fed is slow to raise rates. In addition, they contend that automation, e-commerce, and other deflationary technologies, as well as population aging, high debt levels, and the declining influence of trade unions will keep inflation at bay. We will examine these arguments in a forthcoming report. To preview our conclusions, we think they are much weaker than they first appear. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Stanley Fischer, "The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth," NBER Working Paper (December 1993); and Robert J. Barro, "Inflation and Economic Growth," NBER Working Paper (October 1995). 2 Please see "Federal Open Market Committee, Memorandum Of Discussion," Federal Reserve (June 8, 1971). 3 Please see "Economic Report Of The President (Transmitted To The Congress January 1978)," Frasier, Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis (January 1978). 4 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (4): 177-188. 5 Paul Krugman, "Unnatural Economics (Wonkish)," The New York Times, May 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27.