Market Returns

This week’s report takes a look at risk-adjusted return opportunities in US spread product.

The Fed’s tone has taken a decidedly dovish turn during the past week and, despite September’s hot CPI print, there is mounting evidence that a period of disinflation is coming. This makes the case for a pause in the Fed’s tightening cycle in Q1 or Q2 of next year.

Our preferred tactical global fixed income trades for the rest of 2022 into early 2023 are all expressions of our views on relative monetary policy shifts within the main developed market economies. These involve bets on a relatively more hawkish Fed and Bank of England versus a relatively more dovish ECB and Bank of Canada, while also betting on additional selling pressure on Italian government bonds.

Long-after-the-fact revisions to reported income, spending and savings data do not alter our assessment that a flush consumer will continue to support the US economy and allow S&P 500 earnings to surprise the bearish investor consensus.

Investors should go long US treasuries and stay overweight defensive versus cyclical sectors, large caps versus small caps, and aerospace/defense stocks. Regionally we favor the US, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, while disfavoring China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Special Report

Executive Summary Turkey is staring into an abyss: economic crisis that will morph into political crisis in the June 2023 election cycle. President Erdoğan will pursue populist economic policies and foreign policy adventurism to try to stay in power, leading to negative surprises and “black swan” risks over the coming 9-12 months. While Erdoğan and the ruling party are likely to be defeated in elections, which is good news, investors should not try to front-run the election given high uncertainty. Neither Turkey’s economy and domestic politics nor the global economy and geopolitics warrant a bullish view on Turkish assets. GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY  Recommendation (TACTICAL) Initiation Date Return LONG JPY/TRY 2022-09-23     Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval Bottom Line: The Lira will depreciate further versus the dollar. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Feature Turkey – now technically Türkiye – is teetering on the verge of a national meltdown. The inflation rate is the fastest in G20 countries, both because of a domestic wage-price spiral and soaring global food and fuel prices. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been in power since 2002, making them highly vulnerable to demands for change in the general election slated for June 18, 2023. Yet Erdoğan is a strongman who won a popular vote to revise the constitution in 2017 and increase his personal power over institutions. His populist Islamist movement is starkly at odds with the country’s traditional elite, including the secular military establishment. Given the poor state of the economy, Erdoğan will likely lose the 2023 election but he could refuse to leave office … or he could win the election and be ousted in a coup d'état, as happened in Turkey in 1960, 1971, and 1980.1 Meanwhile Turkey is beset by foreign dangers – including war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East. Erdoğan will try to use foreign policy to bolster his popular standing. Turkey has inserted itself in various regional conflicts and could instigate conflicts of its own. While global investors are eager to buy steeply discounted Turkish financial assets ahead of what could be a monumental change in national policy in 2023, the country is extremely unstable. It is a source of “black swan” risks. The best bet is to remain underweight Turkish assets unless and until a pro-market election outcome shakes off the two-decade trend toward economic ruin. Turkish Grand Strategy Turkey is permanently at a crossroads. The land-bridge between Europe and Asia, it is secular and cosmopolitan but also Islamist and traditional. Its past consists of the greatness of empires – Byzantine, Ottoman – while its present consists of a frustrating search for new opportunities in a chaotic regional context. The core of the country consists of the disjointed coastal plains around the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and the Sea of Marmara, where Istanbul is located. The Byzantine and Ottoman empires were seated on this strategic location at the juncture of the world’s east-west trade. To secure this area, the Turks needed to control the larger Anatolian peninsula – Asia Minor – to prevent roving Eurasian powers from invading, just as they themselves had originally invaded from Central Asia. During times of greatness the Turks could also expand their empire to control the Balkan peninsula and Danube river valley up to Vienna, Crimea and the Black Sea coasts, and the eastern Mediterranean island approaches. During the Ottoman empire’s golden days Turkish power extended all the way into North Africa, Mesopotamia, the Nile river valley, and Mecca and Medina. The empire – and the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate – collapsed in 1924 after centuries of erosion and the catastrophes of World War I. Subsequently Turkey emerged as a secular republic. It adapted to the post-WWII world order by allying with the United States and NATO, in conflict with the Soviet Union which encircled the Turks on all sides. The Russians are longstanding rivals of Turkey, notably in the Black Sea and Crimea, and Stalin wanted to get his hands on the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits. Hence alliance with the US and NATO fulfilled one of the primary demands of Turkish grand strategy: a navy that could defend the straits and Turkish interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to usher in an era of opportunity for Turkey. Turkey benefited from democratization, globalization, and foreign capital inflows. But then America’s wars and crises, Russia’s resurgence, and Middle Eastern instability created a shatter-belt surrounding Turkey, impinging on its national security. In this context of limited foreign policy options, Turkey’s domestic politics coalesced around Erdoğan, the AKP, political Islam, and investment-driven economic growth. Erdoğan and the AKP represent the Anatolian, religious, and Middle Eastern interests in Turkey, as opposed to the maritime, secular, and Euro-centric interests rooted in Istanbul. This point can be illustrated by observing that the poorer interior regions have grown faster than the national average over the period of AKP rule, whereas the more developed coastal regions have tended to lag (Map 1). Voting patterns from the 2018 general election overlap with these economic outcomes. The AKP has steered investment capital into the interior to fund infrastructure and property construction while currency depreciation, rather than productivity enhancement, has merely maintained the status quo with the manufacturing export sector in the coastal regions (Chart 1). Map 1Turkey’s Anatolian Model And The Struggle With The Coasts Chart 1Turkey's Export Competitiveness Today Turkey faces three distinct obstacles to its geopolitical expansion: Russian aggression: Russia’s resurgence, especially with the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and broader invasion of Ukraine in 2022, threatens Turkey’s interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. Turkey must always deal with Russia carefully but over the past 14 years Russia has become belligerent, forcing Turkey to come to terms with Putin while maintaining the NATO alliance. Today Erdoğan tries to mediate the conflict as it does not want to encourage Russian aggression but also does not want NATO to provoke Russia. For instance, Turkey is willing to condone Finland and Sweden joining NATO but only if the West grants substantial benefits to Turkey itself. Ultimately Turkish ties with Russia are overrated. For both economic reasons and grand strategic reasons outlined above, Turkey will cleave to the West (Chart 2). Chart 2Turkey Still Linked To The West​​​​​ Chart 3Turkish Energy Ties With Russia Western liberal hegemony: The EU and NATO foreclosed any Turkish ambitions in Europe. The EU has consolidated with each new crisis while rejecting Turkish membership. This puts limits on Turkish access to European markets and influence in the Balkans. Turkey has guarded its independence jealously against the West. After the Cold War the US expected Turkey to serve American interests in the Middle East and Eurasia. The EU expected it to serve European interests as an energy transit state and a blockade against Middle Eastern refugees. But Turkish interests were often sidelined while its domestic politics did not allow blind loyalty to the West. This led Turkey to push back against the West and cultivate other options, such as deeper economic ties with Russia and China. Turkish dependency on Russian energy is substantial and Turkey has tried to play a mediating role in Russia’s conflict with NATO (Chart 3). Recently Turkey offered to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a military alliance of Asian powers. However, as with trade, Turkish defense and security ties with the Russo-Chinese bloc are ultimately overrated (Chart 4).  There is room for some cooperation but Turkey is not eager to abandon American military backing in a period in which Russia is threatening to control the Black Sea rim, cut off grain exports arbitrarily, and use tactical nuclear weapons. Chart 4Turkey’s Defense Alliance With The West Middle Eastern instability: The Middle East is a potential area for Turkey to increase influence, especially given the AKP’s embrace of political Islam. Turkey benefits from regional economic development and maintains relations with all players. But the region’s development is halting and Turkey is blocked by competitors. The US toppled Iraq in 2003, which strengthened Iran’s regional clout over the subsequent decades. But Iran is not stable and the US has not prevented Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capacity. Turkey cannot abide a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, the US continues to support Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies, which oppose Turkey’s combination of Islam and democratic populism. Russia propped up Syria’s regime in league with Iran, which threatens Turkey’s border integrity. Developments in Syria, Iraq, and Iran have all complicated Turkey’s management of Kurdish militancy and separatism. Kurds make up nearly 20% of Turkey’s population and play a central role in the country’s political divisions. Erdoğan’s Anatolian power base is antagonistic toward the Kurds and regional Kurdish aspirations. China’s strategic rise brings both risks and rewards for Turkey but China is too distant to become the focus of Turkish strategy: China’s dream of reviving the Silk Road across Eurasia harkens back to the glory days of Ottoman power. The Belt and Road Initiative and other investments help to develop Central Asia and the Middle East, enabling Turkey to benefit once again as the middleman in east-west trade (Chart 5). Chart 5Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade But insofar as China’s Eurasian strategy is successful, it could someday impinge on Turkish ambitions, particularly by buttressing Russian and Iranian power. In recent years Erdoğan has experimented with projecting Turkish power in the Middle East (Syria), North Africa (Libya), the Caucasus (Armenia), and the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus). He cannot project power effectively because of the obstacles outlined above. But he can manipulate domestic and foreign security issues to try to prolong his hold on power. Bottom Line: Boxed in by Russian aggression, western liberal hegemony, and Middle Eastern instability, Turkey cannot achieve its geopolitical ambitions and has concentrated on internal development over the past two decades. However, the country retains some imperial ambitions and these periodically flare up in unpredictable ways as the modern Turkish state attempts to fend off the chaotic forces that loom in the Black Sea, Middle East, North Africa, and Caucasus. The Erdoğan regime is focused on consolidating Anatolian control of Turkey and projecting military power abroad so that the military does not become a political problem for his faction at home. Erdoğan’s Domestic Predicament President Erdoğan has stayed in power for 20 years under the conditions outlined above but he faces a critical election by June 18, 2023 that could see him thrown from power. The result will be extreme political turbulence over the coming nine months until the leadership of the country is settled by hook or by crook. Erdoğan has pursued a strongman or authoritarian leadership style, especially since domestic opposition emerged in the wake of the Great Recession. By firing three central bankers, he has pressured the central bank into running an ultra-dovish monetary policy, producing a 12% inflation rate prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and an 80% inflation rate today. He has also embraced populist fiscal handouts and foreign policy adventurism. Taken together his policies have eroded the country’s political as well as economic stability. From the last general election in 2018 to the latest data in 2022: Real household disposable income  growth has fallen from -7.4% to -18.7% (Chart 6). Chart 6Real Incomes Falling​​​​​​ Chart 7Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election​​​​​ The manufacturing PMI has fallen from 49.0 to 47.4 (Chart 7). Consumer confidence has fallen from 92.1 to 72.2 (Chart 8). Chart 8Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election​​​​​​ Chart 9Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval​​​​​​ Bad economic news is finally altering public opinion, with polls now shifting against the president and incumbent party: Since the pandemic erupted, Erdoğan’s approval rating has fallen from a peak of 57% to 40% today. Disapproval has Erdoğan’s risen to 54%, leaving him a net negative job approval (Chart 9). Bear in mind that Erdoğan won the election with 52.6% of the vote in 2018, only slightly better than the 51.8% he received in 2014 and well below the 80% that his AKP predecessor received in 2007. Meanwhile the AKP, which never performs as well as Erdoğan himself, has fallen from a 45% support rate to 30% today in parliamentary polls, dead even with the main opposition Republican People’s Party (Chart 10). The AKP won 42.6% of the vote in 2018, down from 49.5% in the second election of 2015, 49.8% in 2011, and 46.6% in 2007. Chart 10Justice And Development Party Neck And Neck With Republican Opposition The gap between Erdoğan and his Republican rivals has narrowed sharply since the global food and fuel price spike began to bite in late 2021 (Chart 11). Chart 11Erdoğan Faces Tough Re-Election Race However, the 2023 election is not straightforward. There are several caveats to the clear anti-incumbent tendency of economic and political data: Soft Economic Landing? The election takes place in nine months, enough time for surprises to salvage Erdoğan’s presidential campaign, given his and his party’s heavily entrenched rule. For example, it is possible – not probable – that Russia will resume energy exports, enabling Europe to recover, and that central banks will achieve a “soft landing” for the global economy. Turkey’s economy would bounce just in time to help the incumbent party. This is not what we expect (see below) but it could happen. Foreign Policy Victories? Erdoğan could achieve some foreign policy victories. He has negotiated a tenuous deal with Russia and Ukraine, along with the UN, to enable grain exports out of Odessa. He could build on this process to negotiate a broader ceasefire in Ukraine. He could also win major concessions from the US and NATO to secure Finnish and Swedish membership in that bloc. If he did he would come off looking like a grand statesman and might just buy another term in office. Unfortunately what is more likely is that Erdoğan will pursue an aggressive foreign policy in an attempt to distract voters from their bread-and-butter woes, only to destabilize Turkey and the region further. Stolen Election? Erdoğan revised the constitution in 2017 – winning 51.4% of the votes in a popular referendum – to give the presidency substantial new powers across the political system. Using these powers he could manipulate the election to produce a favorable outcome or even cling to power despite unfavorable election results. He does not face nearly as powerful and motivated of a liberal establishment as President Trump faced in 2020 or as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces in 2022. As noted Erdoğan has a contentious relationship with the Turkish military, so while investors cannot rule out a stolen election, they also cannot rule out a military coup in reaction to an attempted stolen election. Thus the election could produce roughly four outcomes, which we rank below from best to worst in terms of their favorability for global investors: 1.  Best Case: Decisive Opposition Victory – 25% Odds – A resounding electoral defeat for the AKP would reverse its unorthodox economic policies in the short term and serve as a lasting warning to future politicians that populism and economic mismanagement lead to political ruin. This outcome would also provide the political capital and parliamentary strength necessary to impose tough reforms and restore a semblance of macroeconomic stability. 2.  Good Case: Narrow AKP Defeat – 50% Odds – A narrow or contested election would produce a weak new government that would at least put a stop to the most inflationary AKP policies. It would improve global investor sentiment around Turkey’s eventual ability to stabilize its economy. The new government would lack the ability to push through structural reforms but it could at least straighten out the affairs of the central bank so as to ensure a cycle of monetary policy tightening, which would stabilize the currency. 3.  Bad Case: Narrow AKP Victory – 15% Odds – A narrow victory would force the AKP to compromise with opposition parties in parliament and pacify social unrest. Foreign adventurism would continue but harmful domestic policies would face obstructionism. 4.  Worst Case: Decisive AKP Victory – 10% Odds – A resounding victory for the ruling party would vindicate Erdoğan and his policies despite their negative economic results, driving Turkey further down the path of authoritarianism, populism, money printing, currency depreciation, and hyper-inflation. He could also be emboldened in his foreign adventurism. Bottom Line: We expect Erdoğan and the AKP to be defeated and replaced. However, Turkey is in the midst of an economic and political crisis and the next 12 months will bring extreme uncertainty. The election could be indecisive, contested, stolen, or overthrown. The aftermath could be chaotic as well as the lead-up. If the AKP stays in power then investors will abandon Turkey and its economy will suffer a historic shock. Therefore investors should underweight Turkey – at least until the next phase in the economic downturn confirms our forecast that the AKP will fall from power. Macro Outlook: Fade The Equity Rally Chart 12Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM The Turkish economy is beset by hyper-inflation. Headline consumer prices are rising at upwards of 80% and core inflation is 65%. Yet Turkish government 10-year bond yields are low and falling: they are down to 11% currently, from a high of 24% at the beginning of the year. Turkish stocks have also outperformed their Emerging Markets counterparts this year in common currency terms even though the lira has been the worst performing EM currency (Chart 12). So, what’s going on in this market? The answer is hidden in the slew of unorthodox policies adopted by the authorities. These measures caused massive distortions in both the economy and the markets. Specifically, late last year, despite very high inflation, the central bank began to cut policy rates encouraging massive loan expansion. As a result, both local currency loans and money supply surged. Which, in turn, completely unhinged inflation (Chart 13). As inflation rose, so did government bond yields. In a bid to keep government borrowing costs low, policymakers changed several bank regulations to force commercial banks to buy government bonds.2  The upshot was that the bond yields stopped tracking inflation and instead began to fall even as inflation skyrocketed. The rampant inflation meant Turkish non-financial firms’ nominal sales skyrocketed. Indeed, sales of all MSCI Turkey non-financials companies have risen by 40% in US dollar terms and 200% in local currency (Chart 14). Chart 13Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation This was at a time when policy rates were being cut. The policy rate has fallen to 12% today from 19% a year earlier. Firms’ local currency real borrowing costs have fallen deeply into negative territory (Chart 15). It helped reduce firms’ costs significantly. Chart 14Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits​​​​​ Chart 15Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc​​​​​ Chart 16Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation​​​​​ Meanwhile, even though wage growth accelerated, it still fell short of inflation, and therefore of nominal sales of the firms (Chart 16). Firms’ wage costs did not rise as much as their prices. All this boosted non-financial firms’ margins. Total profits have risen by 35% in US dollar terms from a year earlier (200% in lira terms). ​​​​​​​ Chart 17The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket ​​​​​​​ On their part, listed financials’ profits have surged by 50% in USD terms and 220% in local currency terms. They benefited both from surging interest income due to rapid loan growth and from massive capital gains on their holding of government securities (see Chart 14 above). All this is reflected in Turkish companies’ earnings per share as well. The spike in EPS has propped up Turkish stocks for past few months. Over the past year, not only have corporate profits and share prices surged, but also house prices have skyrocketed by 170% in local currency terms and 30% in USD terms (Chart 17). In sum, the abnormally low nominal and deeply negative real borrowing costs have produced a money/credit deluge, which has generated a massive inflationary outbreak and has inflated revenues/profits as well as various asset prices. The Lira To Depreciate Further This macro setting is a recipe for a major currency sell-off.  First, Europe – the destination of 90% of Turkish exports – will likely slide into recession over the coming year (Chart 18).  Chart 18A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A fall in exports will widen Turkey’s current account deficit. Notably, imports will not fall much since the authorities are pursuing easy money policy. Second, the lack of credible macro policies as well as political crisis will assure that foreign capital escapes Turkey. Turkey will find the current account deficit nearly impossible to finance. Third, the country’s net foreign reserves, after adjusting for the central bank’s foreign currency borrowings and commercial banks’ deposits with the central bank, stand at minus 30 billion dollars. In other words, the central bank now has large net US dollar liabilities. As such, it has little wherewithal to defend the currency. There are very high odds that the lira depreciation will accelerate in the months ahead. Fourth, the slew of unorthodox measures taken by the Turkish authorities will encourage banks to buy more government local currency bonds to suppress the government’s borrowing costs. When commercial banks buy government securities from non-banks, they create money “out of thin air.” Hence, the ongoing money supply deluge will continue. This is bearish for the currency. Notably, the economy will likely enter into recession next year – and yet core inflation will stay very high (30% and above). Recent unorthodox bank regulations are meant to encourage a certain kind of lending – loans to farmers, exporters, and small and medium-sized businesses – while discouraging other kinds. Consequently, the overall loan growth will likely slow in nominal terms. There are already signs that credit is decelerating on the margin (Chart 19). Given the very high inflation, slower credit growth will likely lead to a liquidity crunch for many businesses – forcing them to curtail their activity.  Chart 19Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations​​​​​​ Chart 20Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP​​​​​​ Indeed, in real terms (deflated by core CPI), local currency loan growth has already slipped into negative territory. This is a bad omen for the overall economy: contracting real loan growth is a harbinger of recession (Chart 20). In short, Turkey is looking into an abyss: a recession amid high inflation (i.e., stagflation) as well as a brewing political crisis (with Erdoğan likely doubling down on unorthodox and populist policies). All this point to another period of a large currency depreciation. While the country will likely change direction to avoid the abyss, investors should wait to allocate capital until after the change in direction is confirmed.    Investment Takeaways The Turkish lira will fall much more vis-à-vis the US dollar in the year ahead. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Turkey is involved in an economic crisis that will devolve into a political crisis over the election cycle. While Erdoğan and the AKP are likely to fall from power as things stand today, they are heavily entrenched and will be difficult to remove, creating large risks of an indecisive or contested election in 2023 that will increase rather than decrease policy uncertainty and the political risk premium in Turkish assets. As a strongman leader Erdoğan has consolidated political power in his own hands, so there is no one to take the blame for the country’s economic mismanagement – other than foreigners. Hence there is a distinct risk that his foreign policy adventurism will escalate between now and next year, resulting in significant military conflicts or saber-rattling. These will shake out western investors who try to speculate on the likelihood that the election or the military will oust Erdoğan and produce sounder national and economic policies. That outcome is indeed likely but Erdoğan is not going without a fight. Our Geopolitical Strategy also recommends tactically shorting the lira versus the Japanese yen in light of global slowdown, extreme geopolitical risk, and the Bank of Japan’s desire to prevent the yen from falling too far.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Consulting Editor Footnotes 1      Sinan Ekim and Kemal Kirişci, “The Turkish constitutional referendum, explained,” Brookings Institution, April 13, 2017, brookings.edu. 2     The central bank replaced an existing 20% reserve requirement ratios for credits with a higher 30% treasury bond collateral requirement. Lenders will have to cut interest rates on commercial loans (except for loans to farmers, exporters, and SMEs). Otherwise, banks will have to maintain additional securities. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary This report looks back at seven recent Fed tightening cycles and summarizes evidence concerning how the US Treasury curve behaves relative to the length and magnitude of the tightening cycle. We document a few consistent relationships. For example, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the tightening cycle. We also notice that the Treasury slope is usually inverted by the time it troughs and that the 5-year/30-year slope tends to trough before the 2-year/5-year slope. Given our view that the peak fed funds rate may not occur until the second half of 2023, we expect another leg higher in bond yields before we reach the cyclical peak. We also anticipate further flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury curve.   Timing Fed Tightening Cycles Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being and should position in 5-year/30-year curve flatteners by selling the 10-year bullet versus a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. While we maintain neutral portfolio duration for now, our bias is to be short duration on a medium-to-long run horizon and we may re-evaluate our recommended duration positioning after this month’s important CPI release and September FOMC meeting. Feature BCA’s Annual Investment Conference was held last week, and we heard a wide variety of views about the outlook for US bonds. Unsurprisingly, the main difference between those with bond-bullish and bond-bearish views was that the bullish panelists anticipated a much quicker end to the Fed’s tightening cycle prompted by a US recession starting late this year or early next year. This week’s report takes a more formal look at the historical linkages between Fed tightening cycles and trends in US Treasury yields. Our goal is to provide some firm evidence that investors can use to translate their views about the length and magnitude of the Fed tightening cycle into concrete positions across the US Treasury curve. Specifically, we look at seven Fed tightening cycles – the five most recent cycles and the two periods of tightening that occurred during the inflationary surge of the early-1980s. The 1977-80 Cycle Chart 1The 1977-80 Cycle The Fed raised the funds rate by 11.75% between August 1977 and March 1980 in response to sky-high inflation. Then, despite core CPI inflation still running at 12%, it cut rates by 5.5% in 1980 in response to an unemployment rate that had climbed above 6%. This proved to be only a brief reprieve from monetary tightening. With inflation still a problem, the Fed pivoted back to rate hikes later in 1980 even as the unemployment rate continued its ascent. Turning to markets, we see that the Treasury index lost 22% versus a position in cash during the 1977-80 tightening cycle and that index returns troughed in March 1980, around the same time as the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked one month before the last rate hike at 12.72%, 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate that would be attained one month later (Chart 1). As for the shape of the yield curve, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope troughed at -201 bps one month before the last rate hike of the cycle (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year Treasury slope troughed at -132 bps in the same month as the peak in the funds rate and the 5-year/30-year slope troughed at -123 bps, one month before the last hike (bottom panel). The 1980-81 Cycle After a brief period of cuts in mid-1980, having still not conquered inflation the Fed changed course and lifted the funds rate to a new high in 1981. It did this even with the unemployment rate above 7%. One interesting aspect of this tightening cycle is that the bond market continued to sell off even after the Fed delivered its last rate increase. While the period of Fed tightening spanned from October 1980 until May 1981, excess Treasury index returns versus cash continued to fall until September 1981, losing 20% in the process (Chart 2). The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months after the last rate hike at 15.84%, 316 bps below the peak funds rate that was attained four months earlier. Chart 2The 1980-81 Cycle Looking at the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed at -132 bps three months after the last rate hike (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed three months after the last rate hike, at -62 bps and -133 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1988-89 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 6.5% in March 1988 to 9.8% in May 1989. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 7.7% versus cash during this period but returns did trough two months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 9.32%, 48 bps below the peak fed funds rate (Chart 3). Chart 3The 1988-89 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -43 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at -20 bps and -42 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1994-95 Cycle The Fed doubled the funds rate from 3% in February 1994 to 6% in February 1995. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 9.4% versus cash during this period but returns did trough three months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 7.91%, 191 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 4). Chart 4The 1994-95 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at +15 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at +14 bps and +6 bps, respectively (bottom panel). In contrast to earlier cycles, it’s notable that the yield curve never inverted during the 1994-95 tightening cycle and that the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at a level significantly above the fed funds rate. The most likely reason for this is that the Fed’s pivot from rate hikes to cuts in early 1995 occurred abruptly and came as a surprise to market participants. A quick look at the economic data makes it easy to see why. The core PCE and core CPI inflation rates were elevated at the time, at 2.3% and 3.0% respectively, and the unemployment rate was significantly down from a year earlier. The 1999-2000 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 4.75% in June 1999 to 6.5% in May 2000. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 8.2% versus cash during this period but returns did trough four months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months before the last rate hike at 6.68%, 18 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 5). Chart 5The 1999-2000 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -47 bps (panel 4). The 5-year/30-year slope troughed one month before the last rate hike at -59 bps but the 2-year/5-year slope didn’t trough until three months after the last rate hike at -15 bps (bottom panel). The 2004-06 Cycle The Fed lifted rates in steady increments of 25 bps per meeting from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 5.3% versus cash during this period and returns troughed around the same time as the funds rate reached its peak. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred at the same time as the peak in the funds rate, though the peak 10-year was 10 bps below the peak funds rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The 2004-06 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed five months after the last rate hike of the cycle at -16 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed five months after the last rate hike at -20 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, four months before the last rate hike at -10 bps (bottom panel). The 2015-18 Cycle Finally, in the most recent tightening cycle before the current one, the Fed lifted rates off the zero-lower-bound in December 2015, went on hold for 12 months and then delivered a string of rate hikes bringing the funds rate up to 2.5% by December 2018. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 6.7% versus cash during this period and returns troughed two months before the peak in the fed funds rate. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred two months before the last rate hike at 3.15%, 65 bps above the peak funds rate (Chart 7). Chart 7The 2015-18 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed eight months after the last rate hike of the cycle at 0 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed eight months after the last rate hike at -17 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, five months before the last rate hike at +23 bps (bottom panel). Summarizing The Evidence Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data from the seven tightening cycles that we examined. Four main points jump out. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles Table 2Fed Tightening Cycles: Peak And Trough Levels First, both the level of the 10-year Treasury yield and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Excess Return Index tend to hit inflection points around the time of the last rate hike of the cycle. On average, the 10-year Treasury yield peaks 1.3 months before the last rate hike of the cycle, and it has always hit its peak within a window spanning four months before the last hike and four months after. The timing of the trough in index excess returns versus cash looks similar. Second, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope also tends to trough near the end of the Fed tightening cycle, but the timing of this inflection point varies a lot more than the timing of the peak in yields. In fact, during the last two cycles the 2-year/10-year slope didn’t trough until well after the last rate hike. Third, the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope always troughs at the same time or earlier than the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope. This is consistent with our intuition that the long end of the yield curve will respond more quickly to changes in the economic outlook than the front end of the curve, which remains more tied to the current policy rate. Fourth, there isn’t much consistency in where the 10-year Treasury yield peaks relative to the peak fed funds rate. On average, the 10-year yield tops out 120 bps below the peak fed funds rate, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 10-year yield peaked 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate in the 1977-80 tightening cycle and it peaked 65 bps above the peak fed funds rate in the 2015-18 cycle. The same holds true for the slope of the Treasury curve. The trough in the slope exhibits a wide range of outcomes, though it is fair to say that we typically expect the slope to be negative when it bottoms. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope only failed to invert in two tightening cycles (1994-95 and 2015-18) and in both of those cases the Fed was not expected to deliver a large number of rate cuts. In fact, it could have easily been argued that rate cuts were unnecessary based on the inflation and employment data at the time. Investment Implications In applying the lessons from this analysis to the current environment, the first conclusion we reach is that we should only look to extend portfolio duration to above-benchmark when we think that the last rate hike of the cycle will occur in 1-2 months. Currently, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to peak in June 2023 and we expect that peak could occur even later (Chart 8). For this reason, we anticipate another significant leg higher in Treasury yields before the cyclical peak is reached. Chart 8Rate Expectations Our historical analysis of past tightening cycles also supports our recommended short 10-year bullet, long 5-year/30-year barbell positioning along the Treasury curve.1 Given that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope has always troughed within a window spanning five months before the last rate hike and three months after, it makes sense to position for another leg down. This is a particularly attractive trade on the 5-year/30-year portion of the curve because that slope remains in positive territory.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Special Report

Please note that there will no US Bond Strategy publication next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 6th with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for September. Executive Summary This report describes a framework for implementing long/short positions in the TIPS market relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. The framework is modeled after the Golden Rule of Bond Investing that we use to implement portfolio duration trades. The TIPS Golden Rule states that investors should buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries when their 12-month headline inflation expectations are above those priced into the market, and vice-versa. We demonstrate a method for forecasting headline CPI inflation and conclude that it will fall into a range of 2.4% to 4.8% during the next 12 months, with risks to the upside. This suggests a high likelihood that headline inflation will exceed current market expectations. The TIPS Golden Rule’s Track Record Bottom Line: We see value in TIPS on a 12-month investment horizon but anticipate that an even better entry point to get long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries will emerge during the next couple of months as headline CPI weakens. We recommend a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, though we are looking for a good opportunity to increase exposure. Feature Regular readers will no doubt be familiar with our Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, the framework we use to think about our portfolio duration recommendations. In brief, the Golden Rule states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. Our research shows that this investment strategy has a strong historical track record.1 The thing we like most about the Golden Rule framework is that it provides us with a good method for filtering incoming information. Does this new piece of news or economic data change our 12-month rate expectations? If not, then we probably don’t want to assign much weight to it when setting our portfolio duration. In this Special Report we demonstrate that the same Golden Rule logic that we apply to duration trading can also be applied to the TIPS market. Specifically, it can be applied to long/short positions in TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Developing The TIPS Golden Rule Before diving into the TIPS Golden Rule, it’s worth running through the logic that underpins this investment strategy. The logic starts with the Fisher Equation – the well-known formula that relates nominal bond yields to real bond yields. Simply, the Fisher Equation can be stated as follows:     Nominal Yield = Real Yield + The Cost Of Inflation Protection In financial market terms, we can re-write the equation as:     Nominal Treasury Yield = TIPS Yield + TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate Two of the three variables in this equation have what we call valuation anchors. The nominal Treasury yield’s valuation is anchored by expectations about the future path for the federal funds rate. Put differently, if you buy a 5-year Treasury note and hold it until maturity, your excess returns versus a position in cash are purely determined by the path of the federal funds rate over that 5-year investment horizon. Similarly, the TIPS breakeven inflation rate’s valuation is anchored by expectations about CPI inflation. If held to maturity, the profits from an inflation protection position (long TIPS/short nominals or short TIPS/long nominals) are purely determined by the path of CPI inflation during the investment horizon. It’s worth noting that, unlike the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate, the TIPS yield has no independent valuation anchor. Within our framework, the best way to forecast the TIPS yield is to follow a 3-step process: Forecast the nominal yield based on a view about the fed funds rate. Forecast the TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on a view about inflation. Use the Fisher Equation to combine the results from steps 1 and 2 into a forecast for the TIPS yield. As an aside, while our framework relies on viewing the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate as reflective of expectations for the fed funds rate and CPI inflation respectively, we do not argue that those bond yields can be used to accurately forecast the fed funds rate or CPI inflation. In fact, history tells us that bond markets are usually poor predictors of future outcomes for the fed funds rate and for CPI inflation. Chart 1 shows that there is only a loose correlation (R2 = 22%) between 12-month bond-market implied expectations for the change in the fed funds rate and the actual change in the fed funds rate. Similarly, Chart 2 shows that there is hardly any correlation (R2 = 3%) between market-implied inflation expectations and the 12-month rate of change in headline CPI. Chart 1Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of The Fed Funds Rate Chart 2Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of Inflation In other words, it’s more advisable to view the expectations priced into bond markets as a breakeven threshold for trading, not as a tool for forecasting. Stating The TIPS Golden Rule To apply the TIPS Golden Rule, investors should follow these three steps: Calculate market-implied expectations for what headline CPI inflation will be over the next 12 months. This can be done by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate or the 1-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate.2 Develop an independent forecast for 12-month headline CPI inflation. We demonstrate one method for doing this later in the report.3 Compare your own headline CPI forecast with the forecast that is priced in the market. If your own forecast is higher, then you should go long TIPS/short nominal Treasuries. If your own forecast is lower, then you should go short TIPS/long nominal Treasuries. Testing The TIPS Golden Rule Chart 3 shows the historical track record of the TIPS Golden Rule going back to 2005.4 The top panel shows 12-month excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays TIPS index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. The bottom panel shows whether inflation surprised market expectations to the upside or to the downside during the investment horizon. We can see that, visually, it looks as though TIPS tend to outperform nominal Treasuries when there is an inflationary surprise and underperform when there is a deflationary surprise. Chart 3The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record Chart 4 shows the same relationship in a little more detail. The 12-month inflation surprise is placed on the x-axis and 12-month TIPS excess returns are on the y-axis. For the TIPS Golden Rule to be useful, we would need to see most of the datapoints in the top-right and bottom-left quadrants of the chart, and indeed this is the case. Chart 412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises Finally, Table 1 shows the relationship in even more detail. It shows that inflationary surprises coincide with positive TIPS excess returns 73% of the time for an average excess return of 2.6%. It also shows that deflationary surprises coincide with negative TIPS excess returns 80% of the time, for an average excess return of -3.2%. Table 112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (2005 – Present) Please note that all the above return calculations are performed on the overall Bloomberg Barclays TIPS Index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. However, the TIPS Golden Rule also performs well when applied to TIPS of any maturity. The Appendix of this report replicates the above analysis for every point along the TIPS curve and shows that the results are consistently excellent. Applying The TIPS Golden Rule Now that we have stated the TIPS Golden Rule and demonstrated its effectiveness as an investment strategy, it is time to apply it to the current market. To do that, we first determine 1-year market-implied inflation expectations by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate. As of last Friday’s close, the 1-year CPI swap rate is 3.16%. This means that if we think headline CPI inflation will be above 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. If we think headline CPI inflation will come in below 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go short TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Next, we must build up our own forecast of headline CPI inflation for the next 12 months. To do this, we follow a bottom-up approach where we split the CPI basket into five components (energy, food, shelter, core goods, and core services ex. shelter) and model each one individually. Energy Inflation (9% Of Headline CPI) Chart 5Modeling Energy Inflation Energy accounts for roughly 9% of headline CPI, though its often violent price swings mean that this component usually accounts for a much larger percentage of the volatility in headline CPI. In practice, we can accurately model Energy CPI using the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil (Chart 5). To get a 12-month forecast for Energy CPI we therefore need forecasts for the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. In this analysis, we will consider two possible scenarios for energy prices. First, a benign ‘low oil price’ scenario where we assume that the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil follow the paths discounted in their respective futures curves. Second, we consider a ‘high oil price’ scenario that incorporates the view of our Commodity & Energy Strategy service that a drop in Russian oil supply, among other factors, will cause the Brent crude oil price to reach $119 per barrel by the end of this year and average $117 per barrel in 2023.5 To incorporate this outlook into our model, we regress the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil on the Brent crude oil price and extrapolate forward using our commodity strategists’ forecasts. The ‘low oil price’ scenario has Energy CPI inflation falling from its current 32.9% level all the way down to -9.9% during the next 12 months. In contrast, our ‘high oil price’ scenario has it falling to just 15.8%. Food Inflation (13% Of Headline CPI) Chart 6Modeling Food Inflation Our Food CPI model is based on the cost of fertilizer, agricultural commodity prices and diesel prices. This model has done a reasonably good job explaining trends in Food CPI inflation over time, but the last few months have seen food inflation jump well above the levels suggested by our model (Chart 6). Given that the inputs to our Food CPI model are highly correlated with the oil price, we also apply the ‘low oil price’ and ‘high oil price’ scenarios discussed above to our Food CPI forecast. Using this method, the ‘low oil price’ scenario has Food CPI inflation falling to 3.8% during the next 12 months and the ‘high oil price’ scenario has it coming down to 4.2%. One key risk to these forecasts is that they both assume that the current gap between food inflation and our model’s fair value will close. It’s possible that other factors not included in our model could prevent the gap from closing. We therefore consider our Food CPI forecast to be quite optimistic. Core Goods Inflation (21% Of Headline CPI) Chart 7Modeling Goods Inflation Core goods inflation, currently running at 6.9%, appears to have already peaked following its post-pandemic surge. We model Core Goods CPI using the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index, as it is the supply chain constraints that arose during the pandemic that explain the bulk of the movement in core goods prices since that time (Chart 7).6 To forecast Core Goods CPI, we assume that global supply chain constraints continue to ease and that the New York Fed’s index reverts to its pre-pandemic level during the next 12 months. This gives us a forecast for 12-month Core Goods CPI inflation of 0%. Shelter Inflation (32% Of Headline CPI) Chart 8Modeling Shelter Inflation We model shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, using the unemployment rate, rental vacancy rate and home prices (Chart 8). Except for the unemployment rate, all our model’s independent variables enter with a lag of at least 12 months. In other words, we wouldn’t expect any near-term change in home prices to impact Shelter CPI for at least a year. To forecast Shelter CPI, we assume that the unemployment rate rises to 4% during the next 12 months. This results in a shelter inflation forecast of 4.7% for the next 12 months. Much like with food inflation, we tend to view this forecast as relatively optimistic as it assumes a large reversion from the current rate of shelter inflation back to our model’s fair value. It’s conceivable that other factors not included in our model, such as rapid wage growth, could prevent this reversion from occurring. Services ex. Shelter Inflation (24% Of Headline CPI) Chart 9Modeling Services Inflation This final component of CPI is a bit of a hodgepodge of different service industries that may not have much in common. However, we find that wage growth does a good job of tracking its trends (Chart 9). We therefore model Services ex. Shelter CPI using the Employment Cost Index, which enters our model with a 10 month lag. To forecast Services ex. Shelter CPI, we assume that the Employment Cost Index holds steady at its current growth rate. This gives us a Services ex. Shelter CPI inflation forecast of 5.5% for the next 12 months. Combining Our Bottom-Up Inflation Forecasts & Investment Conclusions Combining our bottom-up forecasts, we calculate a 12-month headline CPI inflation rate of 2.4% for the ‘low oil price’ scenario and a rate of 4.8% for the ‘high oil price’ scenario. For core CPI inflation, we calculate a 12-month forecast of 3.6%. Given the optimistic assumptions that we incorporated into our forecasts, particularly the large reversions of food and shelter inflation back to our estimated fair value levels, we view the risks to our forecasts as heavily tilted to the upside. We also acknowledge that the re-normalization of global supply chains may not proceed as smoothly as the scenario that is baked into our forecasts. Any hiccup in that process would cause our goods inflation forecast to be too low. Chart 10Inflation Forecasts Chart 10 shows our 12-month headline and core CPI forecasts alongside the market-implied forecast from the CPI swap curve, currently 3.16%. Notice that the market-implied inflation forecast is much closer to the bottom-end of our range of headline CPI estimates, and we have already acknowledged that a lot of things will have to go right for our estimates to pan out. In other words, we see a high likelihood that 12-month headline CPI will be above 3.16% for the next 12 months which, according to our TIPS Golden Rule, tells us that we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. While we acknowledge that there is likely some value in going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries today, we are inclined to maintain our recommended neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals for now. Given the recent drop in oil prices, we anticipate further weakness in headline inflation during the next couple of months. This could push TIPS breakeven inflation rates even lower in the near term, creating even more value. The bottom line is that we see attractive value in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. While we maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, we anticipate turning more bullish in the near future, hopefully from a better entry point after one or two more weak CPI prints. Appendix Chart A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) Table A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) Chart A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) Table A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) Chart A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) Table A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) Chart A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) Table A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) Chart A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) Table A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) Chart A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) Table A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. 2 In this report we use the 1-year CPI swap rate because it is easier to access. 3 To make the TIPS Golden Rule easy to implement, we use seasonally adjusted headline CPI for all our calculations even though TIPS are technically linked to the non-seasonally adjusted index. We also ignore the fact that TIPS coupons adjust to CPI releases with a lag. Our analysis shows that the rule works very well even without incorporating these complications. 4 CPI swap rates are only available from 2004 onwards, so this is the largest historical sample we can use. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “EU Russian Oil Embargoes, Higher Prices”, dated August 18, 2022. 6 For more details on the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/overview Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 16 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1Are Expectations Too Dovish?​​​ The bond market is now priced for the fed funds rate to peak at 3.44% in January and then head back down to 2.79% by the end of 2023 (Chart 1). We strongly push back against the idea that the Fed will be cutting rates in 2023. While inflation will fall during the next few months, strong wage growth suggests that it will be sticky above the Fed’s 2% target for some time. What’s more, comments from yesterday’s ISM PMI release show that “companies continue to hire at strong rates”. Our sense is that it will be difficult to push the unemployment rate up significantly even as economic activity slows. Given that inflation is likely to fall during the next few months, we recommend keeping portfolio duration ‘at benchmark’ for the time being. However, we are now actively looking for an opportunity to reduce portfolio duration and we could change our recommended allocation in the near term. Stay tuned. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview​​​​​ Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 109 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -274 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 11 bps on the month and it currently sits at 144 bps. Similarly, our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread moved down to its 54th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see spreads narrow further during the next couple of months as inflation finally shows signs of rolling over. That said, the persistent removal of monetary accommodation and inverted yield curve will limit how much spreads can compress. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 434 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -493 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 100 bps on the month to reach 469 bps, 100 bps above the 2017-19 average and 62 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – moved lower in July. It currently sits at 6.2% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, there’s a good chance that high-yield spreads can continue their relief rally during the next couple of months as inflation falls. Due to the flatness of the yield curve, we think it will be difficult for spreads to move below the average seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). However, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to roughly 5% of excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This potential return is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will be inclined to downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to 4%.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 129 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4  We noted that MBS’s poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is at its end. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have the incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. The implication is that excess MBS returns will be stronger going forward. That said, we still don’t see enough value in MBS spreads to increase our recommended allocation. The average index spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS remains close to its lowest level since 2000 (panel 4). At the coupon level, we observe that low-coupon MBS have much higher duration than high-coupon MBS and that convexity is close to zero for the entire coupon stack. This makes the relative coupon trade a direct play on bond yields. We had been recommending that investors favor low-coupon (1.5%-2.5%) MBS over high-coupon (3%-4.5%) MBS to take advantage of falling bond yields (bottom panel). Now that bond yields have fallen, we think it is wise to take profits on this position and shift to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -708 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 155 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -784 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 45 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -659 bps. The EM Sovereign Index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 53 bps in July. The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 116 bps in July. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. EM currencies continue to struggle versus the US dollar (bottom panel), and depreciating exchange rates will continue to act as a headwind for USD-denominated EM bond performance. Our Emerging Market Strategy service expects continued near-term weakness in EM currencies.5 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -169 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire.6 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers, even as economic growth slows and federal fiscal thrust turns to drag. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past few months. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 85%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 89%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 95%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/5 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened out to the 10-year maturity point in July. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 28 bps on the month while the 5-year/30-year slope steepened 17 bps. The 2/10 and 5/30 slopes now stand at -22 bps and +30 bps, respectively. We closed our position long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell in a recent report.7 The reason for the move is that the 5-year note no longer offers a yield advantage versus the 2/10 barbell. That 2/5/10 butterfly spread has continued to compress during the past three weeks, and it now sits at -10 bps (Chart 7). In that same report we initiated a new recommendation: buy the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 5-year note. This position offers a much more attractive yield advantage of 51 bps (bottom panel). Our new position will deliver strong returns if the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope steepens, something that is likely to occur if the market prices out the rate cuts that are currently discounted for next year. This would be in line with our base case expectation. However, if our base case is wrong and a deep recession forces the Fed to cut rates during the next 6-12 months, then our position should also benefit from a bull-steepening of the 2/5 slope. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 270 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +256 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 20 bps on the month, moving back above the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator now shows that TIPS are modestly cheap versus nominals (panel 2). We upgraded TIPS from underweight to neutral in a recent report.8 In that report we noted that TIPS valuation had improved considerably in recent months as the cost of inflation compensation embedded in the market trended down. For example, the 1-year CPI swap rate currently sits at 3.94%, down from a peak of 5.9% in June. Given our expectation that core inflation will be sticky around 4%, the cost of inflation compensation looks a lot more compelling than it did even a month ago. We also closed our long-standing recommendation to short 2-year TIPS in a report published two weeks ago.9 We made this change after the 2-year TIPS yield moved into positive territory for the first time since 2020, up from a 2021 low of -3.07% (bottom panel). We are not yet ready to upgrade TIPS to overweight, despite much improved valuation, because headline inflation is much more likely to trend lower than higher during the next few months. That said, if current valuations persist, we will likely be looking to upgrade TIPS once more before the end of the year.  ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -52 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 10 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -43 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -104 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. Nowhere is this more evident than in the steep drop in the amount of outstanding credit card debt that was witnessed in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 9). In 2022, consumers have started to re-lever. The personal savings rate was just 5.1% in June and the amount of outstanding credit card debt has recovered to its pre-COVID level (bottom panel). But while household balance sheets are starting to deteriorate, they remain exceptionally strong in level terms. In other words, it will be some time before we see enough deterioration to cause a meaningful uptick in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -175 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 18 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -123 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 22 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -319 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently slightly above their historic averages. Further, last week’s Q2 GDP report confirmed that commercial real estate (CRE) investment remains weak (Chart 10). Weak investment will continue to support CRE price appreciation which will benefit CMBS spreads. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 bps in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -15 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 9 bps on the month. It currently sits at 54 bps, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.  Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 78 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of July 29, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of July 29, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 34 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 34 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 29, 2022) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3 For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Charts That Matter, “Beware Of Another Downleg In Risk Assets”, dated June 30, 2022. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Conjectures About The US Economy”, dated July 19, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns