BCA Indicators/Model

Executive Summary China: GeoRisk Indicator A new equilibrium between NATO, which now includes Sweden and Finland, and Russia needs to be reestablished before geopolitical risks in Europe subside. Russia aims to inflict a recession on the EU which will revive dormant geopolitical risks embedded in each country. Investors should ignore the apparent drop in China’s geopolitical risk as it could rise further until Xi Jinping consolidates power at the Party Congress this fall. Stay on the sideline on Brazilian, South African, Australian, and Canadian equities despite the commodity bull market, at least until China’s growth stabilizes. Korean risk will rise, albeit by less than Taiwanese risk. The US political cycle ensures that Biden may take further actions against adversaries in Europe, Middle East, and East Asia, putting a floor under global geopolitical risk. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Geopolitical risk will rise in the near term. Stay long gold and global defensive stocks. Feature This month we update our GeoRisk Indicators and make observations about the status of political risk for each territory, and where risks are underrated or overrated by global financial markets. Russia GeoRisk Indicator Our “Original” quantitative measure of Russian political risk – the Russian “geopolitical risk premium” shown in the dotted red line below – has fallen to new lows (Chart 1). One must keep in mind that this geopolitical premium is operating under the assumption of a “free market” but the Russian market in the past few months had been anything but free. The Russian government and central bank had been manipulating the ruble and preventing capital outflows. Hence, Russian assets and any indicator derived from it does not reflect its true risk premium, merely the resolve of its government in the geopolitical struggle. Chart 1Russia: GeoRisk Indicator While the Russia Risk Premium accurately detected the build-up in tensions before the invasion of Ukraine this year, today it gives the misleading impression that Russian geopolitical risk is low. In reality the risk level remains high due to the lack of strategic stability between Russia and the West, particularly the United States, and particularly over the question of NATO enlargement. Our “Old” Russia GeoRisk Indicator remains elevated but has slightly fallen back. This measure failed to detect the rise in risk ahead of this year’s invasion of Ukraine. We predicted the war based on non-market variables, including qualitative analysis. As a result of the failure of our indicator, we devised a “New” Russia GeoRisk Indicator after this year’s invasion, shown as the green line below. This measure provides the most accurate reading. It is pushing the upper limits, which we truncated at 4, as it did during the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThird Quarter Geopolitical Outlook: Thunder And Lightning Has Russian geopolitical risk peaked for Europe and the rest of the world? Not until a new strategic equilibrium is established between the US and Russia. That will require a ceasefire in Ukraine and a US-Russia understanding about the role of Finland and Sweden within NATO. However, Hungary is signaling that the EU should impose no further sanctions on Russia. Russia’s cutoff of natural gas exports to Europe will create economic hardship that will start driving change in European governments or policies. A full ban on Russian natural gas may not be implemented in the coming years due to lack of EU unanimity. Still, the EU cannot lift sanctions on Russia because that would enable economic recovery and hence military rehabilitation, which could enable new aggression. Also, Russia will not relinquish the territories it has taken from Ukraine even if President Putin exits the scene. No Russian leader will have the political capital to do that given the sacrifices that Russia has made. Bottom Line: Russia’s management of the ruble is distorting some of our risk indicators. Russia remains un-investable for western investors. Substantial sanction relief will not come until late in the decade, if at all. UK GeoRisk Indicator British political risk is rising, and it may surpass the peaks of the Brexit referendum period in 2016 now that Scotland is pursuing another independence referendum (Chart 2). Chart 2United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator New elections are not due until January 25, 2025 and the ruling Conservative Party has every reason to avoid an election over the whole period so that inflation can come down and the economy can recover. But an early election is possible between now and 2025. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has become a liability to his party but he is still a more compelling leader than the alternatives. If Johnson is replaced, then the change of leadership will only temporarily boost the Tories’ public approval. It will ultimately compound the party’s difficulties by dividing the party without resolving the Scottish question.  Regardless, the Tories face stiff headwinds in the coming referendum debate and election, having been in power since 2010 and having suffered a series of major shocks (Brexit, the pandemic, inflation). Bottom Line: The US dollar is not yet peaking against pound sterling, As from a global geopolitical perspective it can go further. Investors should stay cautious about the pound in the short term. But they should prefer the pound to eastern European currencies exposed to Russian instability. Germany GeoRisk Indicator German political risk spiked around the time of the 2021 election and has since subsided, including over the course of the Ukraine war (Chart 3). However, risk will rise again now that Germany has declared that it is under “economic attack” from Russia, which is cutting natural gas in retaliation to Germany’s oil embargo. Chart 3Germany: GeoRisk Indicator This spike in strategic tensions should not be underrated. Germany is entering a new paradigm in which Russian aggression has caused a break with the past policy of Ostpolitik, or economic engagement. Germany will have to devote huge new resources to energy security and national defense and will have to guard against Russia for the foreseeable future. Domestic political risk will also rise as the economy weakens and industrial activity is rationed. Germany does not face a general election until October 26, 2025. Early elections are rare but cannot be ruled out over the next few years. The ruling coalition does not have a solid foundation. It only has a 57% majority in the Bundestag and consists of an ideological mix of parties (a “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Greens, and Free Democrats). Still, Germany’s confrontation with Russia will keep the coalition in power for now. Bottom Line: From a geopolitical point of view, there is not yet a basis for the dollar to peak and roll over against the euro. That is not likely until there is a ceasefire in Ukraine and/or a new NATO-Russia understanding. France GeoRisk Indicator French political risks are lingering at fairly high levels in the wake of the general election and will only partially normalize given the likelihood of European recession and continued tensions around Russia (Chart 4). Chart 4France: GeoRisk Indicator President Emmanuel Macron was re-elected, as expected, but his Renaissance party (previously En Marche) lost its majority and Macron will struggle to win over 39 deputies to gain a majority of 289 seats in the Assembly. He will, however, be able to draw from an overall right-wing ideological majority – especially the Republicans – when it comes to legislative compromises. The election produced some surprises. The right-wing, anti-establishment National Rally of Marine Le Pen, which usually performs poorly in legislative elections, won 89 seats. The left-wing alliance (NUPES) underperformed opinion polls and has not formed a unified bloc within the Assembly. Still, the left will be a powerful force as it will command 151 seats (the sum of the left-wing anti-establishment leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise party and the Communists, Socialists, and Greens). Macron’s key reform – raising the average retirement age from 62 to 65 – will require an ad hoc majority in the Assembly. The Republicans, with 74 seats, can provide the necessary votes. But some members have already refused to side with Macron on this issue. Macron will most likely get support from the populist National Rally on immigration, including measures to make it harder to be naturalized or obtain long-term residence permits, and measures making it easier to expel migrants whose asylum applications have been refused. France will remain hawkish on immigration, but Macron will be able to rein in the populists. On energy and the environment, Macron may be able to cooperate with the Left on climate measures, but ultimately any cooperation will be constrained by the fact that Mélenchon opposes nuclear power. The Republicans and the National Rally will support Macron’s bid to shore up France’s nuclear energy sector. Popular opinion will hold up for France’s energy security in the face of Russian weaponization of natural gas. Macron and Mélenchon will clash on domestic security. Police violence has emerged as a major source of controversy since the Yellow Vest protests. Macron and the Right will protect the police establishment while the Left will favor reforms, notably the concept of “proximity police,” which would entail police officers patrolling in a small area to create stronger, more personal links between the police and the population; officers being under the control of the mayor and prefect; and ultimately most officers not carrying lethal weapons, and the ban of physically dangerous arrest techniques. Grievances over the police as well as racial inequality will likely erupt into significant social unrest in the coming years. As a second-term president without a single-party majority, Macron will increasingly focus on foreign policy. He will aim to become the premier European leader on the world stage. He will seek to revive France’s historic role as a leading diplomatic power and arbiter of Europe. He will strengthen France’s position in the EU and NATO, keep selling arms to the Middle East, and maintain a French military presence in the Sahel. Macron will favor Ukraine’s membership in the EU but also a ceasefire with Russia. He will face a difficult decision on whether to join Israeli and American military action against Iran should the latter reach nuclear breakout capacity and pursue weaponization. Bottom Line: The outperformance of French equities is stretched relative to EMU counterparts. But France will not underperform until the EU’s natural gas crisis begins to subside and a new equilibrium is established with Russia. Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy is perhaps the weakest link in Europe both economically and strategically (Chart 5). Elections are due by June 2023 but could come earlier as the ruling coalition is showing strains. A change of government would likely compromise the EU’s attempt to maintain a unified front against Russia over the war in Ukraine. Chart 5Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Before the war Italy received 40% of its natural gas from Russia and maintained pragmatic relations with the Putin administration. Now Russia is reducing flows to Italy by 50%, forcing the country into an energy crisis at a time when expected GDP growth had already been downgraded to 2.3% this year and 1.7% in 2023. Meanwhile Italian sovereign bond spreads over German bunds have risen by 64 basis points YTD as a result of the global inflation. The national unity coalition under Prime Minister Mario Draghi came together for two purposes. First, to distribute the EU’s pandemic recovery funds across the country, which amounted to 191.5 billion euros in grants and cheap loans for Italy, 27% of the EU’s total recovery fund and 12% of Italy’s GDP. Second, to elect an establishment politician in the Italian presidency to constrain future populist governments (i.e. re-electing President Sergio Mattarella). Now about 13% of the recovery funds have been distributed in 2021, the economy is slowing, Russia is cutting off energy, and elections are looming. The coalition is no longer stable. Coalition members will jockey for better positioning and pursue their separate interests. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement has already split, with leader Luigi di Maio walking out. Five Star’s popular support has fallen to 12%. The most popular party in the country is now the right-wing, anti-establishment Brothers of Italy, who receive 23% support in polling. Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, another right-wing populist party, has seen its public support fall to 15% and will be looking for opportunities. On the whole, far-right parties command 38% of popular voting intentions, while far-left parties command 17% and centrist parties command 39%. Italy’s elections will favor anti-incumbent parties, especially if the country falls into recession. These parties will be more pragmatic toward Russia and less inclined to expand the EU’s stringent sanctions regime. Implementing a ban on Russian natural gas by 2027 will become more difficult if Italy switches. Italy will be more inclined to push for a ceasefire. A substantial move toward ceasefire will improve investor sentiment, although, again, a durable new strategic equilibrium cannot be established until the US and Russia come to an understanding regarding Finland, Sweden, and NATO enlargement. Bottom Line: Investors should steer clear of Italian government debt and equities until after the next election. Spain GeoRisk Indicator Infighting and power struggles within the People’s Party (PP) have provided temporary relief for the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. However, with Alberto Nunez Feijoo elected as the new leader of PP on April 2, the People’s Party quickly recovered from its setback. It not only retook the first place in the general election polling, but also scored a landslide victory in the Andalusia regional election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, contributing 17% of the seats in the lower house. The Andalusian regional election was a test run for the parties before next year’s general election. Historically, Andalusia was PSOE’s biggest stronghold, but it was ousted by the center-right People’s Party-Citizens coalition in 2018. Since then, the People’s party has consolidated their presence and popularity in Andalusia. The snap election in June, weeks after Feijoo was elected as the new national party leader, expanded PP’s seats in the regional parliament. It now has an absolute majority in the regional parliament while the Socialists suffered its worst defeat. With the sweeping victory in Andalusia, the People’s Party is well positioned for next year’s general election. In addition, the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party continues to suffer from the stagflationary economic condition. In May, Spain recorded the second highest inflation figure in more than 30 years, slightly below its March number. Furthermore, the recent deadly Melilla incident which resulted in dozens of migrants’ death, also caused some minor setbacks within Sanchez’s ruling coalition. His far-left coalition partner joined the opposition parties in condemning Sanchez for being complacent toward the Moroccan police. The pressure is on the Socialists now, and political risk will rise in the coming months, till after the election (Chart 6). Chart 6Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: Domestic political risk will remain elevated in this polarized country, as elections are due by December 2023 and could come sooner. Populism may return if Europe suffers a recession. Russia aims to inflict a recession on the EU which is negative for cyclical markets like Spain, but Spain benefits from Europe’s turn to liquefied natural gas and has little to fear from Russia. Investors should favor Spanish stocks relative to Italian stocks. Turkey GeoRisk Indicator Turkey faces extreme political and economic instability between now and the general election due by June 2023 (Chart 7). Chart 7Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Almost any country would see the incumbent ruling party thrown from power under Turkey’s conditions. The ruling Justice and Development Party has been in charge since 2002, the country’s economy has suffered over that period, and today inflation is running at 73% while unemployment stands at 11%. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is doing everything he can with his recently expanded presidential powers to stay in office. He is making amends with the Gulf Arab states and seeking their economic support. He is also warming relations with Israel, as Turkey seeks to diversify away from Russian gas and Israel/Egypt are potential suppliers. He is doubling down on military distractions across the Middle East and North Africa. And he waged a high-stakes negotiation with the West over Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO. Russian aggression poses a threat to Turkish national interests. Turkey ultimately agreed to Finnish and Swedish membership after a show of Erdoğan strong hands in negotiating with the West over their membership, to show his domestic audience that he is one of the big boys ahead of the election. A risk to this view is that Erdoğan stages military operations against Greek-controlled Cyprus. This would initiate a crisis within NATO and put Finnish and Swedish accession on hold for a longer period. Bottom Line: Investors should not attempt to bottom-feed Turkish lira or stocks and should sell any rallies ahead of the election. A decisive election that removes Erdoğan from power is the best case for Turkish assets, while a decisive Erdoğan victory is second best. Worse scenarios include indecisive outcomes, a contested or stolen election, a constitutional breakdown, or a military coup. China GeoRisk Indicator China’s geopolitical risk is falling and relative equity performance is picking up now that the government has begun easing monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy to try to secure the economic recovery (Chart 8). Chart 8China: GeoRisk Indicator Easing regulation on Big Tech has spurred a rebound in heavily sold Chinese tech shares, while the Politburo will likely signal a pro-growth turn in policy at its July economic meeting. The worst news of the country’s draconian “Covid Zero” policy is largely priced, while positive news regarding domestic vaccines, vaccine imports, or anti-viral drugs could surprise the market. However, none of these policy signals are reliable until Xi Jinping consolidates power at the twentieth national party congress sometime between September and November (likely October). Chinese stimulus could fail to pick up as much as the market hopes and policy signals could reverse or could continue to contradict themselves. After the party congress, we expect the Xi administration to intensify its efforts to stabilize the economy. The economic work conference in December will release a pro-growth communique. The March legislative session will provide more government support for the economy if needed. However, short-term measures to stabilize growth should not be mistaken for a major reacceleration, as China will continue to struggle with debt-deflation as households and corporations deleverage and the economic model transitions to a post-manufacturing model. Bottom Line: A Santa Claus rally in the fourth quarter, and/or a 2023 rally, is likely, both for offshore and onshore equities. But long-term investors, especially westerners, should steer clear of Chinese assets. China’s reversion to autocracy and confrontation with the United States will ultimately result in tariffs and sanctions and geopolitical crises and will keep risk premiums high. Taiwan GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan’s geopolitical risk has spiked as expected due to confrontation with China. Tensions will remain high through the Taiwanese midterm election on November 26, the Chinese party congress, and the US midterm (Chart 9). But China is not ready to stage a full-scale military conflict over Taiwan yet – that risk will grow over in the later 2020s and 2030s, depending on whether the US and China provide each other with adequate security assurances. Chart 9Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Still, Taiwan is the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. China insists that it will be unified with the mainland eventually, by force if not persuasion. China’s potential growth is weakening so it is losing the ability to absorb Taiwan through economic attraction over time. Meanwhile the Taiwanese people do not want to be absorbed – they have developed their own identity and prefer the status quo (or independence) over unification. Taiwan does not have a mutual defense treaty with the United States and yet the US and Taiwan are trying to strengthen their economic and military bonds. This situation is both threatening to China and yet not threatening enough to force China to forswear the military option. At some point China could believe it must assert control over Taiwan before the US increases its military commitment. Meanwhile China, the US, Japan, South Korea, and Europe are all adopting policies to promote semiconductor manufacturing at home, and/or outside Taiwan, so that their industries are not over-reliant on Taiwan. That means Taiwan will lose its comparative advantage over time. Bottom Line: Structurally remain underweight Taiwanese equities. Korea GeoRisk Indicator The newly elected President Yoon reaffirmed the strong military tie between Korea and the US, when he hosted President Biden in Seoul in May. Both Presidents expressed interests in expanding cooperation into new areas like semiconductors, economic security, and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The new administration is also finding ways to improve relations with Japan, which soured in the past few years over the issue of forced labor during the Japanese occupation of Korea. A way forward is yet to be found, but a new public-private council will be launched on July 4 to seek potential solutions before the supreme court ruling in August which could further damage bilateral ties. President Yoon’s various statements throughout the NATO summit in Madrid on wanting a better relationship with Japan and to resolve historical issues showed this administration’s willingness towards a warming of the relations between the two countries, a departure from the previous administration. On the sideline of the NATO summit, Yoon also engaged with European leaders, dealing Korean defense products, semiconductors, and nuclear technologies, with a receptive European audience eager to bolster their defense, secure supply chain, and diversify energy source. North Korea ramped up its missile tests this year as it tends to do during periods of political transitions in South Korea. It is also rumored to be preparing for another nuclear test. Provocations will continue as the North is responding to the hawkish orientation of the Yoon administration. Investors should expect a rise in geopolitical risk in the peninsular, but on a relative basis, due to its strong alliance network, Korean risk will be lower compared to Taiwan (Chart 10). Korea will benefit from a rebound in China in the near term, but in the long-term, it is a secure source of semiconductors and high-tech exports, as Greater China will be mired in long-term geopolitical instability. Chart 10Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: Overweight South Korean equities relative to emerging markets as a play on Chinese stimulus. Overweight Korea versus Taiwan. Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s Labor Party ultimately obtained a one-seat majority in the House of Representatives following the general election in May (77 seats where 76 are needed). It does not have a majority in the Senate, where it falls 13 seats short of the 39 it needs. It will rely on the Green Party (12 seats) and a few stragglers to piece together ad hoc coalitions to pass legislation. Hence Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s domestic agenda will be heavily constrained. Pragmatic policies to boost the economy are likely but major tax hikes and energy sector overhauls are unlikely (Chart 11). Chart 11Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Fortunately for Albanese, his government is taking power in the wake of the pandemic, inflation, and Chinese slowdown, so that there is a prospect for the macroeconomic context to improve over his term in office. This could give him a tailwind. But for now he is limited. Like President Biden in the US, Albanese can attempt to reduce tensions with China after Xi Jinping consolidates power. But also like Biden, he will not have a basis for broad and durable re-engagement, since China’s regional ambitions threaten Australian national security over the long run. Global commodity supply constraints give Australia leverage over China. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on Australian currency and equities until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Brazil GeoRisk Indicator It would take a bolt of lightning to prevent former President Lula da Silva from winning re-election in Brazil’s October 2 first round election. Lula is more in line with the median voter than sitting President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s term has been marred with external shocks, following on a decade of recession and malaise. Polls may tighten ahead of the election but Lula is heavily favored. While ideologically to the left, Lula is a known quantity to global investors (Chart 12). However, Bolsonaro may attempt to cling to power, straining the constitutional system and various institutions. A military coup is unlikely but incidents of insubordination cannot be ruled out. Once Lula is inaugurated, a market riot may be necessary to discipline his new administration and ensure that his policies do not stray too far into left-wing populism. Chart 12Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil’s macroeconomic context is less favorable than it was when Lula first ruled. During the 2000s he rode the wave of Chinese industrialization and a global commodity boom. Today China is slipping into a balance sheet recession and the next wave of industrialization has not yet taken off. Brazil’s public debt dynamics discourage a structural overweight on Brazil within emerging markets. At least Brazil is geopolitically secure – far separated from the conflicts marring Russia, East Europe, China, and East Asia. It also has a decade of bad news behind it that is already priced. Bottom Line: Stay neutral Brazilian assets until global and Chinese growth stabilize and the crisis-prone election season is over. South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa’s economy continues to face major headwinds amid persistent structural issues that have yet to be adequately addressed and resolved by policy makers. The latest bout of severe energy supply cuts by the state-run energy producer, Eskom, serve as a reminder to investors that South Africa’s economy is still dealing with a major issue of generating an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Each day that electricity supply is cut to businesses and households, the local economy stalls. Among other macroeconomic issues such as high unemployment and rising inflation, low-income households which are too the median voter, are facing increasing hardships. The political backdrop is geared toward further increases in political risk going forward (Chart 13). Chart 13South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Fiscal reform and austerity are underway but won’t last long enough to make a material difference in government finances. The 2024 election is not that far out and the ruling political party, the ANC, will look to quell growing economic pressures to shore up voter support and reinforce its voter base. Fiscal austerity will unwind. Meanwhile, the bull market in global metal prices stands to moderate on weakening global growth, which reduces a tailwind for the rand, South African equities relative to other emerging markets, and government coffers, reducing our reasons for slight optimism on South Africa until global growth stabilizes. Bottom Line: Shift to a neutral stance on South Africa until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canadian political risk has spiked since the pandemic (Chart 14). Populist politics can grow over time in Canada, especially if the property sector goes bust. However, the country is geopolitically secure and benefits from proximity to the US economy. Chart 14Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Global commodity supply constraints create opportunities for Canada as governments around the world pursue fiscal programs directed at energy security, national defense, and supply chain resilience. Bottom Line: Stay neutral Canadian currency and equities. While Canada benefits from the high oil price and robust US economy, rising interest rates pose a threat to its high-debt model, while US growth faces disappointments due to Europe’s and China’s troubles.     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Alice Brocheux Research Associate alice.brocheux@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Economic growth is now a casualty, and not a driver, of monetary policy choices. Inflation is dictating where central banks are taking interest rates. Our baseline view remains that core US inflation will cool by enough on its own without the need for the Fed to deliver a policy-induced recession. However, the odds of the latter have increased after the upside surprise in the May US CPI report. The ECB has been dragged into the same morass as other major central banks – tightening policy because of soaring inflation, despite broad-based signs of sluggish economic growth. We still see the pricing of cumulative rate hikes in the euro area as being too aggressive, even after last week’s clear announcement from the ECB that a string of future rate hikes was coming. With the ECB also announcing an end to its QE program, but offering no details on a replacement, markets have been given the green light to push Italian yields/spreads higher (and the euro lower) until there is an ECB response to market fragmentation in European sovereign debt. Bottom Line: The Fed is still more likely than the ECB to follow through on rate hikes discounted in US and European interest rate curves - position for renewed widening of the Treasury-Bund spread. Italian bond yields will remain under upward pressure until the contours of an ECB plan to stabilize Peripheral Spreads alongside rate hikes are revealed – tactically position for a wider BTP-Bund spread. Central Bankers Cannot Worry About Growth … Or Your Investment Portfolio The US consumer price index (CPI) report for May was yet another bond-bearish shock in a year full of them. With US headline US inflation hitting an 41-year high of 8.6%, the Treasury market adjusted bond yields upward to reflect both higher inflation expectations and even more aggressive Fed tightening. Coming only a day after the June European Central Bank (ECB) meeting that provided guidance that a series of rate hikes would begin in July, that could include a 50bp hike at the September meeting, financial markets worldwide moved to price in the risk that policy-induced recessions were the only way to bring down soaring global inflation. The result: global bond yields soared to new highs for the year, while risk assets of all shapes and sizes were hammered. We have our doubts that today’s class of policymakers – especially the Fed - has the stomach to repeat the actions of former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who famously pushed US interest rates above the double-digit inflation rates of the late 1970s to engineer a deep recession to crush inflation. The starting point of the current tightening cycle is even further behind the curve than during the Volcker era, in terms of “realized” real interest rates, with the 10-year US Treasury yield now over five percentage points below headline US CPI inflation (Chart 1). Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyAssessing The Risks To Our Main Views Central bankers are now faced with the no-win scenario of pushing nominal policy rates higher to chase soaring inflation in a bid to maintain inflation fighting credibility, regardless of the spillover effects on financial market stability or economic growth expectations. More worryingly, the rate hikes needed to establish that credibility are not only becoming more frequent but larger. 50bps has become the “standard” size for developed market rate hikes. The Fed may have upped the ante with the 75bp hike at yesterday's FOMC meeting. Such is the reality of a funds rate still only at 1.75% but with US inflation pushing toward 9%. The timing of the latest hawkish shifts from the Fed, ECB and others is surprising, looking purely from a growth perspective. The OECD leading economic indicators for the US, euro area and China are slowing, alongside depressed consumer confidence and deteriorating business sentiment (Chart 2). Similar readings are evident in comparable measures in other major economies, both in developed and emerging economies. This would normally be the type of backdrop that would entice central banks to consider easing monetary policy - IF inflation was subdued, which is clearly not the case today. Chart 1Does Powell Need To Channel His Inner Volcker? In fact, high inflation is the reason why economic sentiment has worsened. Chart 2Worrying Signs For Global Growth​​​​​​ Consumers see income growth that is lagging inflation, especially for everyday items like gasoline and food. Businesses are seeing input costs rising, especially for labor in an environment of tight job markets. Inflation has become broad-based, across goods, services and wages. This is true for countries that are more advanced in their monetary tightening cycles - the US, Canada and the UK - where inflation rates are remarkably similar (Chart 3). But it is also now true in countries with lower (but still accelerating) inflation rates and where central banks have been slower to tighten monetary conditions, like the euro area and Australia (Chart 4). Chart 3Inflation Turning More 'Domestic' (Services / Wages) Here​​​​​​ Chart 4Still No Major Services/Wage Inflation Overshoots Here​​​​​​ For the Fed, assessing the underlying momentum of US inflation, and setting monetary policy accordingly, has become a bit trickier. While headline inflation continues to accelerate in response to rising energy and food prices, core inflation ticked lower in both April and May and now sits at 6.1%, down from 6.5% in March. Longer-term survey-based measures of inflation expectations have been moving steadily higher, with the University of Michigan 5-10 year consumer inflation expectations survey now up to a 14-year high of 3.3% (Chart 5). Yet longer-term market-based inflation expectations have been more stable, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven now at 2.66%, down from the late April peak of 3.02%. There are also some mixed signals visible within the US inflation data. Core goods CPI inflation clocked in at 8.5% in May, down from the recent peak of 12.4% in February 2022, while core services CPI inflation accelerated to a 14-year high of 5.2% in May (Chart 6). A similar divergence can be seen when looking at the Atlanta Fed’s measures of “sticky” and “flexible” price inflation. Core flexible CPI inflation – measuring prices that adjust more rapidly – has fallen from a peak of 19% to 12.3% in May. At the same time, core sticky CPI inflation for prices that are slower to adjust sped up to an 31-year high of 5% in May. Chart 5Some Mixed Inflation Messages For The Fed​​​​​​ Chart 6US Inflation Will Eventually Be Lower, But 'Stickier'​​​​​​ Chart 7Stick With UST-Bund Spread Widening Trades In terms of the Fed’s next policy moves, the acceleration of core services (and sticky) inflation means underlying inflation momentum remains strong enough to make it difficult for the Fed to tighten by less than markets are discounting over the next year. Yet the deceleration of core goods (and flexible) inflation, if it continues, can lead to an eventual peak in overall US inflation. This would ease pressure on the Fed to tighten policy more aggressively than markets are expecting to slam the brakes on US economic growth. For nervous markets worried about Fed-induced recession risks, the clear peak in US inflation that we had been expecting has likely been pushed out further into the latter half of 2022. Thus, a significant fall in US Treasury yields that would provide relief to stressed risk assets is unlikely in the near term. Our preferred way to play that upward pressure on US Treasury yields is through an underweight stance on US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, rather than a below-benchmark duration stance. That is particularly true versus German Bunds - the 10-year UST-Bund yield spread is now well below the fair value level from our fundamental valuation model (Chart 7). Bottom Line: It is not clear that the Fed needs to “pull a Volcker” and generate a policy-induced recession to cool off US inflation. However, the Fed is far more likely to hike rates in line with market expectations than the ECB over the next 6-12 months. Stay underweight US Treasuries versus core Europe in global bond portfolios. The ECB Takes The Patient Off Life Support The ECB is finally coming to grips with surging European inflation. At last week’s policy meeting, the ECB Governing Council voted to end new bond buying via the Asset Purchase Program, while also signaling that a 25bp rate hike was on the way in July, with more hikes to follow – perhaps as much as 50bps in September if inflation remains elevated. Chart 8Markets Pricing In A Highly Aggressive ECB The central bank provided a new set of quarterly economic projections that, unsurprisingly, included significant upward revisions to the inflation forecasts. The 2022 headline HICP inflation forecast was bumped from 5.1% to 6.8%, the 2023 forecast from 2.1% to 3.5% and the 2024 forecast was nudged higher from 1.9% to 2.1%. The projections for core HICP inflation were also increased to 3.3% for 2022, 2.8% for 2023 and 2.3% for 2024. The central bank now expects euro area inflation to stay above its 2% inflation target throughout its forecast period – even with a 20% decline in oil prices, and 36% fall in natural gas prices, built into the projection between 2022 and 2024. A move towards tighter monetary policy has been heralded by our ECB Monitor, which remains elevated largely due to its inflation component (Chart 8). By contrast, the growth component of the Monitor has rolled over and is now at levels consistent with unchanged monetary policy. Yet in the current environment of very elevated inflation, concerns about the economy are taking a back seat to maintaining the ECB’s inflation-fighting credibility. In the relatively young history of the ECB, dating back to the inception of the euro in 1998, there have only been three true hiking cycles that involved multiple interest rate increases: 2000, 2006-08 and 2011. In each case, both growth and inflation were accelerating in a broad-based way across the majority of euro area countries. Today, inflation is surging, with the headline HICP inflation rate hitting 8.1% in May, while core inflation (ex energy and food) is a more subdued but still high 4.4%. Economic growth is decelerating, however, with leading economic indicators now slowing in a majority of euro area countries (Chart 9). Chart 9Coming Up: An Unusual ECB Tightening Cycle That Ignores Growth The ECB’s updated economic growth forecasts were downgraded for this year and next, with real GDP growth now expected to reach 2.8% in 2022 and 2.1% in both 2023 and 2024. Cutting growth forecasts for the current year was inevitable given the uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine war and soaring European energy prices. However, the projected growth rates do seem optimistic in the face of deeply depressed readings on economic sentiment from reliable measures like the ZEW index or the European Commission consumer confidence index, both of which have fallen sharply to levels last seen during the 2020 pandemic shock (Chart 10). Demand for European exports is also sluggish, particularly exports to China which are now flat in year-over-year terms. A similar pattern can be seen in the ECB’s inflation forecasts, which seem too optimistic in projecting lower wage growth and core inflation through 2024, even with the euro area unemployment rate forecasted to stay below 7% - under the OECD’s full employment estimate of 7.7% over the same period (Chart 11). Chart 10Overly Optimistic ECB Growth Forecasts​​​​​​ Chart 11Overly Optimistic ECB Inflation Forecasts?​​​​​​ The ECB is facing the same communications problem as other central banks at the moment. There is a fear of forecasting a major growth slowdown that would scare financial markets, even though that is a necessary condition to help bring down elevated inflation. At the same time, projections of a big decline in inflation that would limit the need for economy-crushing monetary tightening are not credible in the current environment of historically elevated headline inflation with very low unemployment rates. Interest rate markets understand the bind that the ECB finds itself in, and have moved to price in a very rapid jump in policy rates over the next 1-2 years. The 1-month OIS rate, 2-years forward is now at 2.5%, a high level compared to estimates of the neutral ECB policy rate, which lies between 1-1.5%. Core European bond yields have moved up alongside those rising rate expectations, with the 10-year German bund yield now at 1.64%, a far cry from the -0.18% yield at the start of 2022. Additional German yield increases will prove to be more difficult in the months ahead. There has already been a major upward adjustment in the inflation expectations component of yields, with the 10-year euro CPI swap rate now up to 2.6% compared to 2% at the start of this year (Chart 12). Importantly, those inflation expectations have stabilized of late, even in the face of high oil prices. Meanwhile, real bond yields, while still negative, have also moved up substantially and are now back to levels that prevailed before the ECB introduced negative policy rates in 2014 (bottom panel). With so much bond-bearish news now priced into core European bond yields, additional yield increases from here would require a more fundamental driver – an upward repricing of terminal interest rate expectations. On that note, the German yield curve is signaling that the terminal rate in the euro area is not much above 1.75%, as that is where bond yield forwards have converged to for both long and short maturity bonds (Chart 13). Chart 12How Much Higher Can Bund Yields Realistically Go?​​​​​​ Chart 13Markets Signaling A 1.75% Terminal Rate Given our view that the neutral rate in Europe is, at best, no more than 1.5%, ECB rate hikes much beyond that level would likely invert a Bund curve that is priced for only a 1.75% terminal rate. An inverted Bund curve would also raise the odds that Europe enters a policy-induced recession – turning a bond bearish outcome into a bond bullish one. Even with the relatively aggressive policy expectations priced into European bond yields, it is still too soon to raise European duration exposure with inflation still accelerating. We prefer maintaining a neutral duration stance until there is a clear peak in realized European inflation – an outcome that would also favor a shift into Bund curve steepeners as the markets price out rate hikes and, potentially, begin to discount future rate cuts. Does The ECB Even Have A Plan For Italian Debt? The ECB seems to have a clear near-term plan on the timing, and even the potential size, of rate hikes. There is far less clarity on how it will deal with stabilizing sovereign bond yields post-APP in the countries that benefitted from ECB asset purchases, most notably Italy. By offering no details on a replacement to APP buying of riskier European debt at last week’s policy meeting, markets were given the green light to test the ECB’s resolve by pushing Italian bond yields higher (and the euro lower). Volatility in both markets will continue until there is a credible ECB response to so-called “market fragmentation” in European sovereign debt (i.e. higher yields and wider spreads versus Bunds in the Periphery). With the benchmark 10-year Italian BTP yield pushing above 4%, the ECB tried to calm markets yesterday by announcing an emergency meeting of the Governing Council to discuss “anti-fragmentation” policy options. The announcement triggered a relief rally in BTP prices, likely fueled by short covering. But the ECB statement was again light on concrete details, only noting that: a)     reinvestments from maturing bonds from the now-completed Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) could be used “flexibly” to support stressed parts of the European bond market b)     the timeline for ECB researchers to prepare proposals for a “new anti-fragmentation instrument” would be accelerated. We expect the ECB to eventually produce a credible bond buying plan to support Peripheral European bond markets – but only after an “iterative” trial-and-error process where trial balloon proposals are floated and skeptical financial markets respond. Chart 14Stay Cautious On Italian Government Bonds There is almost certainly some serious horse trading going on within the ECB Governing Council, with inflation hawks demanding more rate hikes in exchange for their support of new plans to deal with market fragmentation. Details such as the size of any new program, the conditions under which it would be activated, and country purchase limits (if any) will need to be ironed out. Internal ECB debates will prolong that trial-and-error process with financial markets, keeping yield/spread/FX volatility elevated in the short-term. On a strategic (6-18 month) time horizon, we see a neutral allocation to Italy in global bond portfolios as appropriate, given the tradeoff between increasingly attractive yields and the uncertain timing of effective ECB market stabilization proposals. On a more tactical horizon (0-6 months), we expect Italian yields and spreads versus Germany to remain under upward pressure until a viable anti-fragmentation program is announced (Chart 14). To play for that move, we are introducing a new position in our Tactical Overlay Trade portfolio, selling 10-year Italy futures and buying 10-year German Bund futures. The details of the new trade, including the specific futures contracts and weightings for the two legs of the trade to make it duration-neutral, can be found in the Tactical Trade table on page 18. As we monitor and discuss this trade in future reports, we will refer to the well-followed 10-year Italy-Germany spread (currently 225bps) to determine targets and stop levels of this bond futures spread trade. We are setting a stop-out on this trade if the 10-year Italy-Germany spread has a one-day close below 200bps, while targeting a potential widening to 275-300bps (the 2018 peak in that spread). Bottom Line: The ECB’s lack of conviction on designing a plan to support Peripheral bond markets during the upcoming period of interest rate hikes will keep upward pressure on Peripheral yields/spreads over the next few months.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. The key conclusion of the FMH is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price reflects all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Using the FMH over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does Bottom Line: As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Feature For nations and societies, disagreement and conflict are unhealthy. But for financial markets, the opposite is true – it is the lack of disagreement and conflict that is unhealthy. This is because the market needs disagreement to generate liquidity, the ability to trade quickly and in large volume without destabilizing the market price. If I want to buy a share, then somebody must sell me that share. It follows that I and the seller must disagree about the attractiveness of the share at the current price. Likewise, if I and like-minded individuals want to buy ten million shares, it follows that lots of market participants must disagree with us. If lots of market participants do not disagree with us, there will be insufficient liquidity to complete the transaction without a price change. And if too many people are engaged in groupthink, the price change could be extreme. Markets Become Inefficient When There Is Not Enough Disagreement How can there be major disagreement about the attractiveness of an investment when we all have access to the same facts and information? According to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) there cannot be, because asset prices always reflect all available information.1   Unfortunately, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons – ranging from the milliseconds of momentum-driven high-frequency trading (HFT) to the decades of a value-driven pension fund. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes the reality of different time horizons. Crucially, the FMH acknowledges that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. In other words, they disagree (Box I-1). Box 1-1The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does For example, the momentum-based high frequency trader might interpret a sharp one-day sell-off as a sell signal, but the value-based pension fund might interpret the same information as a buying opportunity. This disagreement will create liquidity without requiring a big price adjustment. Thereby it also fosters market stability. The key conclusion of the Fractal Market Hypothesis is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price does reflect all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Buy and sell orders will no longer match without a price change, possibly extreme. Can we measure the loss of efficiency in a specific investment, and thereby anticipate a potential trend reversal? The answer is yes, by monitoring its fractal dimension, using the expression in the Appendix. Although many readers may find the concept of a fractal dimension intimidating, the idea is simple and intuitive. It just measures the complexity – or information content – in an object or structure. Thereby, when an investment’s fractal dimension reaches its lower limit, it warns that the information content of longer-term investors is missing from the price.  When the longer-term investors do ultimately re-enter the price setting process, the question is: will they endorse the recent trend because of some major change in the fundamentals – such as the start of the Russia/Ukraine war? Or will they reject it, as an unjustified deviation from a fundamental anchor. In most cases, it is the latter: a rejection and a trend reversal. As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Fractal Trading Update Using the Fractal Market Hypothesis over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. A fragile fractal structure warns of a crowded trade. One structured recommendation was closed flat: Short Personal Goods versus Consumer Services. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. As for the unstructured recommendations, for which we do not define profit targets or expiry dates, we are pleased to report that out of 31 recommendations, only 2 failed to experience a countertrend reversal. Wins 1) November 18th: Short ILS/GBP Achieved its profit target of 4.2 percent. 2) November 25th: Short Coffee versus Cocoa (Chart I-1) Achieved almost half of its 30 percent profit target at expiry. Chart I-1Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In Coffee Versus Cocoa 3) January 20th: Short World Semiconductors versus Tech (Chart I-2) Achieved its profit target of 6 percent. Chart I-2Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Semiconductors Versus Technology 4) March 10th: Long EUR/CHF Achieved its profit target of 3.6 percent. 5)  April 14th: Short World Basic Resources versus Market (Chart I-3) Achieved its profit target of 11.5 percent. Chart I-3Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Basic Resources Versus Market In addition, Short World Personal Goods versus Consumer Services which was opened on December 9th reached a high-water mark of 10.5 percent but expired flat. Losses 1) December 2nd: Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech Hit its stop loss of 9.5 percent. 2) January 13th: Long Poland versus US: 10-Year Government Bonds Reached a high-water mark of 3.7 percent, but then reversed to hit its stop loss of 8 percent. In the current geopolitical crisis, Poland has been a casualty due to its lengthy border with Ukraine. 3) February 3rd: Short Nickel versus Silver (Chart I-4) Hit its stop loss at 20 percent following an explosive short-squeeze rally in the Nickel price. Chart I-4Nickel's Short-Squeeze Rally Forced A Price Trend Prolongation Open Trades 1) January 27th: Long MSCI Korea versus All-Country World (Chart I-5) Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 6 percent (versus an 8 percent target). Chart I-5Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Rebound In Korea Versus All-Country World 2) February 24th: Long US Biotech versus US Tech Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 10.5 (versus a 17.5 percent target). 3) March 3rd: Short World Banks versus Consumer Services Reached a high-water mark of 7.3 percent (versus a 12 percent target), but then reversed and is in loss. 4) March 24th: Long 5-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss. 5) April 7th: Short World Non-Life Insurance versus Homebuilders (Chart I-6) Open, in profit having reached a high-water mark of 12.4 percent (versus a 14 percent target). Chart I-6Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Non-Life Insurance Versus Homebuilders 6) April 7th: Long JPY/CHF Reached a high-water mark of 3.4 percent versus a 4 percent target, but then reversed into modest loss. This suggests that the trade needed a narrower profit target. 7) April 28th: Short High Dividend ETF versus US 10-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss, having reached a high-water mark of 2.9 percent (versus a 6 percent target). 8) May 19th: Short FTSE 100 versus STOXX Europe 600 Open, and flat. 9) June 2nd: Long JPY/USD (Chart I-7) Open, and flat. Chart I-7The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point 10) June 2nd: Short Australia Basic Resources versus World Market (Chart I-8) Open, and flat. Chart I-8The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Our full watchlist of 29 investments that are at, or approaching turning points, is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Appendix: Calculating The Fractal Dimension Of A Financial Market Chart 1AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 2Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 3Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 4US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 5BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 6Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 7CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 8CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 9Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 10The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 11The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 12FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 13Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 14The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 15The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 16Food And Beverage Outperformance Exhausted Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 18The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 24The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Chart 28US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 29GBP/USD At A Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Hadi Elzein Research Associate hadi.elzein@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Strictly speaking, the EMH assumes there is some disagreement, but that this disagreement is random and follows a standard Gaussian (bell-curve) distribution. Therefore, the EMH assumes that a share price just follows a random walk until new (unpredictable) fundamental information arrives. Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations 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  

Executive Summary Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Bond yields in the developed world have ticked higher recently, due to a renewed increase in oil prices and the spillover effect from more hawkish policy expectations out of Europe. The competing forces of slowing global growth momentum and geopolitical uncertainty on one side, and high inflation with tightening monetary policies on the other, will keep global government bond yields rangebound over the next several months. UK investment grade corporate bonds now offer an intriguing combination of higher yields, attractive spread valuations and strong financial health. By maturity, shorter-maturity corporates offer the best value. At the industry level, spreads look most attractive for Financials. A hawkish Bank of England, both through rate hikes and upcoming outright sales of corporate debt the central bank has purchased via quantitative easing, remains a major headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Sectors most at risk to central bank sales are Water, Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Non-Cyclicals. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening. Trendless, Friendless Bond Markets Chart 1Recovering From The Ukraine War Shock... Although it may not feel like it given the ferocity of some daily price swings, many important financial markets have not moved all that much, cumulatively, since the first major shock of 2022 – the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. For example, the S&P 500 is only down around -2% from the pre-invasion level, while the VIX index of equity option volatility is at 24, seven points below the closing level on February 23 (Chart 1). The Bloomberg US investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 12bps above its pre-invasion level, down 20bps from the peak seen in mid-May. More recently, even US bond yields have shown signs of stabilization. The 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a 2.70-3.15% range since the start of April, while the MOVE index of US Treasury option volatility has fallen by one-quarter since its most recent peak in early May. Not all markets, however, have seen this kind of relative stability. Global oil prices are trading close to post-invasion highs, as are government bond yields in Germany and the UK. High-yield credit spreads in the US and Europe are both still around 50bps above where they were pre-invasion. The DXY US dollar index is 6% above the pre-invasion level, led by the USD/JPY currency pair that has appreciated to levels last seen in 2002. Given the mix of slowing global growth momentum and ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, but with persistent high inflation and tightening global monetary policy, it is unsurprising that financial markets are having a difficult time formulating a consistent message. This is especially true for global government bond yields. Chart 2Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Even as market-based inflation expectations have eased a bit in recent weeks, bond yields across the developed world have been unable to decline because markets continue to discount more rate hikes (Chart 2). Yet with such a significant amount of monetary tightening now priced in across all countries, global bond yields are more likely to stay rangebound over the next 3-6 months than begin a new trend. Chart 3DM Bond Yields Discounting Tight Monetary Policy 10-year government bond yields and 2-year-ahead interest rate expectations in overnight index swap (OIS) curves are trading in lockstep in the US, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia (Chart 3). This correlation indicates that longer-term bond yields have become a pure play on future policy rate expectations, rather than a reflection of rising inflation expectations as was the case in 2021. However, both yields and rate expectations are now trading close to, or even well above, plausible estimates of neutral nominal policy rates in all regions - including estimates provided by central bankers themselves. For example, in Australia, where the RBA just delivered a 50bp rate hike this week, markets are pricing in a peak Cash Rate between 3.5-4%, even with RBA Governor Philip Lowe stating that the neutral rate is likely in the 2-3% range – a view that we agree with. The situation is even more extreme in the euro area, with the euro area OIS curve now pricing in a peak policy rate between 1.5-2%, with most of that increase coming over the next 12 months. While we expect the ECB to fully exit the negative (deposit) rate era by September, rate hikes beyond that are far less likely given slowing euro area growth momentum and still-moderate euro area inflation beyond the spillover effects from energy costs. Only in the US are markets potentially underestimating the potential peak in the fed funds rate for this tightening cycle. Estimates of the longer-run (neutral) funds rate from the latest set of FOMC projections back in March ranged from 2.0-3.0%. Thus, the current level of 10-year bond yields, and 2-year-ahead rates discounted in the US OIS curve, are only at the top end of that range. It is possible that the Fed will have to raise rates to restrictive levels (i.e. above 3%) given the size of the current US inflation overshoot. More importantly, the US neutral rate is likely higher than the Fed thinks it is, possibly as high as 4% according to BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin. We continue to see the US as the one major government bond market where there is a risk that markets are underestimating the neutral policy rate. For that reason, we remain underweight US Treasuries in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. Don’t Dismiss The QT Effect One other factor that has likely kept global bond yields elevated, even as global growth has softened, has been the shift away from central bank asset purchases towards quantitative tightening (QT). As policymakers have moved to slow, or even stop, the buying of government bonds, the term premium component of longer-term bond yields has risen. The moves have been quite large. Using our own in-house estimates, the term premium on 10-year government bond yields have jumped by about 100bps on average in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Europe since the lows seen during the 2020 COVID global recession (Chart 4). The jump in term premiums is occurring at the same time as markets have moved to price in more rate hikes and a higher path for real interest rates (bottom panel). Chart 4Yields Repricing As QE Moves To QT​​​​​​ Chart 5Stay Neutral Global Duration Exposure​​​​​​ That combined effect of the upward repricing of term premiums – especially as more price-sensitive private investors replace the demand for bonds from price-insensitive central banks - but with less upward movement in already elevated interest rate expectations will keep longer-term bond yields in trading ranges during the “Global QT Phase” over at least the next six months and likely longer. That message is reinforced by our Global Duration Indicator, which is heralding a peak in global bond yield momentum over the latter half of 2022 (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios, with yields in the major developed markets likely to stay rangebound over the next few months. Assessing The Value In UK Investment Grade Corporates Chart 6A Big Jump In UK Investment Grade Corporate Yields Global credit markets have had a rough time in 2022, and UK corporate debt is no exception. The Bloomberg UK Corporate index of investment grade corporate debt has delivered a year-to-date total return of -11%, as the index yield-to-maturity rose 174bps to 4% - the highest level since 2014 (Chart 6). Relative to UK Gilts, the results have also been grim as corporate credit spreads have widened, with the Bloomberg UK corporate index realizing an excess return of -3% since the start of the year. We have maintained a neutral stance on UK corporate bond exposure in our global model bond portfolio during the selloff. This was the result of a relative value opinion, as we have concentrated our more defensive view on global investment grade corporate debt with an underweight to US corporates. However, after the significant repricing of UK investment grade credit, it is now a good time to reassess our opinion on the asset class. Spread Valuation From a pure spread valuation perspective, UK investment grade now looks more attractive. Our preferred valuation metric – 12-month breakeven spreads - shows that the UK investment grade corporate index spread, on a duration-adjusted basis, is now in the 75th percentile of its history over the past 25 years (Chart 7). Chart 7UK Corporate Spreads Now Offer Some Value We find 12-month breakevens to a useful spread valuation measure, as they show how much spreads would need to widen to make the expected one-year-ahead return on a credit product equal to that of a duration-matched position in government bonds. In other words, breakevens measure the spread “cushion” against excess return losses from spread widening. What makes the current attractive reading on UK investment grade spread valuation so interesting is that the absolute level of spreads is still relatively low. The Bloomberg UK investment grade corporate index spread is currently 170bps, but during previous episodes where the 12-month breakeven as near the top quartile ranking – as is currently the case – the index spread ranged from 200-350bps. The reason for that relates to the index duration which, at 7.3 years, is down 1.5 years from the 2020 peak and at the lowest level since 2011. Some of that lower duration is related to the convexity effect from higher corporate bond yields. But there has also been a reduction in the average maturity of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, with the index average maturity now at 10.4 years, down a full year lower over the past 12 months and the lowest average maturity since 1999. UK companies appear to have shortened up the maturity profile of their bond issuance, which helped reduce the riskiness (duration) of corporate bond returns to rising yields. Thus, the message from the 12-month breakevens is correct – UK investment grade corporate bond yields are attractive from a historical perspective, on a duration-adjusted basis. Chart 8UK Credit Curves Are Relatively Flat When looking within the UK investment grade universe, the messages on valuation are a bit more mixed. The UK credit curve is not particularly steep, when looking at the spread differences by credit rating within the benchmark index universe (Chart 8). There is a similar message when looking at 12-month breakevens broken down by credit rating, where there is little difference between the percentile rankings (Chart 9). However, the 12-month breakeven percentile rankings broken down by maturity buckets show that shorter-maturity bonds have noticeably higher percentile rankings than longer-maturity UK corporates (top panel). From a cross-country perspective, UK corporate breakeven percentile rankings are much higher than equivalent rankings for US corporates, but are lower than those of the euro area. Chart 9Shorter-Maturity UK Spreads Are More Attractive Corporate Financial Health Our top-down UK Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) - which uses data on non-financial corporate sector revenues, expenses and balance sheets taken from GDP accounts – has shown a very strong improvement in UK corporate financial health over the past few years (Chart 10). The biggest improvements are in the categories related to debt service, with interest coverage at the highest level since 2002 and debt coverage is at the highest level since 1999. Chart 10UK Corporates Can Withstand Higher Borrowing Rates​​​​​​ Chart 11Stay Neutral UK Corporates Until The BoE Is Done​​​​​ The message from our top-down UK CHM is similar to the conclusions from an October 2021 BoE report that analyzed the UK corporate sector from a financial stability perspective. In that report, the BoE used a bottom-up sample of 500 UK companies and concluded that corporate borrowing rates could rise as much as 400bps before the share of companies with a “distressed” interest coverage ratio below 2.5 would rise to the past historical peak. Within our top-down UK CHM, relatively wide corporate profit margins are also contributing to the strong reading on UK corporate health. Like the interest/debt coverage ratios, those margins provide some cushion to profits in the current environment of high inflation and elevated input costs for businesses. The all-in message from our UK CHM is that financial health is a fundamental tailwind for UK corporate bond performance. Monetary Policy Attractive spread valuations and strong financial health metrics would normally justify an overweight stance on any corporate bond market. However, the monetary policy cycle is also an important factor that drives corporate bond performance. Currently, with the BoE not only hiking rates but also moving to QT on asset purchases, monetary policy is a severe headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyIt’s Time To Flip The Script - Upgrade UK Gilts The annual growth rate of the BoE’s balance sheet has proven to be a reliable leading indicator of UK corporate bond annual excess returns. With the growth in the balance sheet set to turn negative in the latter half of 2022 (Chart 11), it will prove difficult for UK credit spreads to narrow in a way that will boost excess returns. The BoE’s aggressive (by its standards) rate hiking cycle, in response to UK inflation that is nearing 10% alongside a very tight labor market, remains a threat to UK economic growth that is already losing some momentum. As we discussed in a recent Special Report, the UK neutral interest rate is likely no more than 1.5-2%. If the BoE were to follow current market pricing and push Bank Rate toward 2.5%, this would be a restrictive policy stance that would likely result in a sharp growth slowdown if not a full-blown recession. Importantly, our UK Central Bank Monitor is showing signs of peaking (bottom panel), due to signs of slower economic growth and tightening financial conditions. A peak in UK inflation would help reduce the Monitor even further, and would likely correspond to a pause on BoE rate hikes – a necessary condition before we would upgrade our recommended stance on UK investment grade corporates to overweight. Some Final Thoughts On Industry Sector Valuation Our UK investment grade corporate sector valuation model is a cross-sectional analysis of individual industry/sector corporate credit spreads, after controlling for differences in duration, convexity and credit rating. The model is currently signaling that there are few compelling valuation stories with positive “risk-adjusted” spreads (Chart 12). Only Financials look cheap, while Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Capital Goods are all trading at expensive risk-adjusted spreads. Chart 12Not Many Compelling Values Within UK Corporates By Industry An additional risk to UK corporate bond performance relates to the BoE’s decision to unwind its corporate bond portfolio. The BoE has announced that there will be outright sales from the corporate holdings accumulated over the past couple of years, with a goal of having the stock of debt fully unwound by the end of 2023. This is important for much of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, where the BoE holds between 8-10%, on average, of outstanding debt (Chart 13).1 Chart 13The BoE Has Become An Important Corporate Bondholder When we compare our risk-adjusted spreads versus the BoE ownership share by sector, we conclude that Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Other Utilities offer the most unattractive combination of expensive spreads and high BoE concentration (Chart 14). We recommended underweight allocations to those sectors within an overall neutral allocation to UK corporates. Chart 14BoE Asset Sales Are A Major Risk For Some UK Corporate Sectors Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, given the mix of attractive valuations but tighter monetary policy. Favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In Chart 13, we use the market capitalization of each sector from the Bloomberg UK corporate bond index in the numerator of all ratios shown, as a proxy for outstanding debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Sentiment On Sterling Is Depressed The pound will suffer in the short term, setting the stage for a coiled-spring rebound. Cable is extremely cheap by most measures (Feature chart). The BoE could engineer a soft landing in the UK economy. If successful, it will annihilate sterling vigilantes, in a volte-face of the ERM crisis. We are cognizant of near-term risks. As such, we are long EUR/GBP with a target of 0.90, but will be buyers of cable at 1.20. Ultimately, the pound is undervalued on a longer-term basis. GBP/USD should touch 1.36 over the next 12-18 months. RECOMMENDATIONS INCEPTION LEVEL inception date RETURN long eur/gbp 0.846 2021-10-15 0.27 Bottom Line: The pound will likely face pressure in the near term, but will fare well over a cyclical horizon. Our 12-month target is 1.36. This target is based on a modest reversion towards PPP fair value, and some erosion in the “crisis” discount. Admittedly, sentiment on the pound is very depressed, and we could be wrong in our near-term assessment and cable has indeed bottomed. Feature Chart 1A Play On Cable Downside There has been much discussion around the premise that the pound could enter a capitulation phase, akin to an emerging market-style currency crisis. With inflation sitting at 9%, well above the Bank of England’s 2% target, the narrative is that interest rates need to rise substantially but will, at the same time, kill any recovery. The result will be a sharp fall in the pound. We began to highlight the near-term risks to cable in October of last year, going long EUR/GBP in the process, as a way to play sterling downside (Chart 1). That said, our longer-term view on the pound remained positive. In this report, we review what has changed since, and if a negative longer-term view is now warranted.   UK Balance Of Payments Almost all currency crises are rooted in a deterioration of the external balance, and this is certainly true for the UK. The trade deficit sits at 7.9% of GDP, the worst among G10 countries (Chart 2). As a result, the current account is also in deficit. That said, there are reasons for optimism. Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyAn Update On Sterling The Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggests that a change in methodology in January 2022 could be exarcebating the deterioration in the latest release of the trade balance. In our view, there are two key reasons why the UK’s balance of trade is worsening. The first is the oil shock – fuels constitute 11% of UK imports. Second, unprecedented fiscal stimulus led to an overshoot in goods imports. These negative forces are likely cyclical in nature, rather than structural. It is also noteworthy that most of the goods imported into the UK are machinery and transport equipment, which could go a long way in improving its productive capacity (Chart 3). Chart 2The UK Trade Balance Has Deteriorated Chart 3Goods Imports Have Been A Hit To The UK Trade Balance In parallel, there has been a structural improvement in the UK’s current account balance. This has mostly been driven by a rising primary income balance. In short, investments abroad are earning more, relative to domestic liabilities (Chart 4). The UK runs a large negative international investment position. Despite this, it has maintained the ability to issue debt bought by foreigners, while investing in high-return assets abroad. Secondary income has admittedly been in a structural deficit, but a falloff in transfer payments under the Brexit agreement will significantly improve this balance (Chart 5). Chart 4The UK Current Account Is Improving Chart 5A Fall In Brexit Payments Will Mend Secondary Income Finally, the pound’s share of global foreign exchange turnover is 12.8%, just behind the dollar, euro, and yen. That said, London dwarfs New York, Hong Kong, and Tokyo as a hub for foreign exchange trading (Chart 6). The pound also very much remains among the most desirable global currencies. Global allocation of FX reserves in sterling have been rising over the last decade (Chart 7). It currently stand at 4.8%, higher than the RMB at 2.8%, and all other emerging market currencies combined. Chart 6London Remains An Important Financial Center Chart 7The Pound Is Still A Reserve Currency It is noteworthy to revisit the period the pound experienced an EM-style crisis – under the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), when cable was effectively pegged to the German mark at an expensive level. At the time, UK inflation was running hot, while German inflation was more subdued. By importing monetary policy from the Bundesbank, the BoE was able to tame inflation, but at a high cost to growth. In Germany, the reunification boom warranted much higher interest rates, which was not appropriate for the UK . Cable eventually collapsed by 32.9% peak-to-trough, as the UK ran out of foreign currency reserves. Chart 8Cable Is Very Cheap There are three key differences between that episode and today: The pound is freely floating. Foreign exchange markets are extremely fluid and adjust to expectations quite quickly. A collapse in the pound seems unlikely, unless the UK faces a new large exogenous shock. Inflation is running hot in many countries, not just the UK. The pound is extremely cheap, and stimulative for the economy. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the pound is at record lows (Chart 8).     Will The BoE Make A Policy Mistake? Sterling is pricing in a policy mistake by the BoE. First, inflation is well above its 2% target. Second, the labor market has tightened significantly. The unemployment rate hit a 47-year low of 3.7%, and job vacancies are low, pushing wages higher. As such, either the BoE allows inflation expectations to become unmoored, destroying the purchasing power of the pound, or kills the recovery to maintain credibility (Chart 9). Chart 9The UK Labor Market Is Tight While difficult, there are reasons to believe the BoE can achieve a soft landing. According to an in-house study, only one-third of the rise in UK inflation has been driven by demand-side pull, with the balance related to supply factors.1 The latter have been the usual suspects – rising energy costs, supply shortages, and even legacies of the Brexit shock (Chart 10). UK electricity prices have cratered since the opening of the 1,400MW undersea cable with Norway (Chart 11). Chart 10Most Of The Increase To UK Prices Is Supply-Driven Chart 11A Sharp Drop In Electricity Prices Second, it is likely that the neutral rate of interest in the UK is lower in a post-Brexit, post-COVID-19 world. This is visible in trend productivity growth, but even the size of the labor force has shrunk significantly. The UK workforce is down by 560,000 people since the start of the pandemic. This has been partly due to less immigration and more retirees, but the vast majority has been due to health side-effects from the pandemic, and delays in getting adequate medical care. As a result, there has barely been a recovery in the UK participation rate (Chart 12). Chart 12AThe Participation Rate In The UK Is Below Trend Chart 12BA Low Participation Rate Across Many Regions In hindsight, a least-regrets strategy to policy tightening – lift rates faster now, and then back off if financial conditions tighten sufficiently – seems appropriate. Frontloading the pace of tightening will flatten the UK gilts curve further. With most borrowing costs in the UK tied to the longer end of the curve, refinancing costs might not edge up that much, while inflation expectations will be well contained. The real canaries in the coal mine from this strategy are the economies of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, where household debt is much more elevated (Chart 13), and the percentage of variable rate mortgages  are higher. Chart 13Household Debt Is Not Alarming In The UK Larger fiscal stimulus will partially offset the near-term hit from tighter monetary policy. The additional £15 billion cost-of-living package announced last month is quite substantial at 0.7% of GDP. This gives the BoE breathing room to tighten policy in the near term. The redistributionist nature of the plan – taxing windfall profits from large energy companies, and using that to subsidize consumers most in need – could be what is required to achieve a soft landing, if the energy shock is temporary. Our Global Fixed Income colleagues upgraded UK gilts to overweight last month, on the basis that market pricing further out the SONIA curve was too aggressive. In our prior report on sterling, we also suggested that market expectations for interest rate increases may have overshot. Money markets are discounting a peak in the bank rate at 2.8%. The BoE’s new Market Participants survey suggests it will peak at 1.75%. While the BoE will deliver sufficient monetary tightening to lean against near-term inflationary pressures, it will be very wary to overdo it. This is especially true if the neutral rate in the economy is much lower. What Next For The Pound? Our view is that the pound faces near-term risks but is a buy longer term. There is an old adage that credibility is hard to earn, but easy to lose. For the UK in particular, this hits the mark. The Bank of England is the oldest central bank in the world, after the Riksbank. Yes, the BoE can make a policy mistake (as it has in the past), but treating the pound as an emerging market asset is a stretch (Chart 14). That said, our Chief European Strategist, Mathieu Savary, believes stagflation is not fully priced into UK assets. In the near term, he might be right. The UK’s large trade deficit puts the onus on foreigners to dictate movements in the pound. The pound does well when animal spirits are fervent. So far, markets have bid up a substantial safe-haven premium into the dollar (Chart 15). As a proxy, the pound has been sold. Northern Ireland could also return as a thorn in the side of sterling.  Chart 14The Pound Is A Risk-On Currency Cable And EM Stocks Chart 15The Dollar Has A Hefty Safe-Haven Premium From a bird’s eye view, three factors tend to drive currencies – the macroeconomic environment, valuation, and sentiment. For now, markets have latched on to the GBP’s vulnerability to an EM-style crisis. That said, cable is very cheap, even accounting for elevated UK inflation. Our in-house PPP model suggests the pound could appreciate by 4% per year, over the next 10 years, just to revert to fair value (Chart 16). Chart 16Cable Is Cheap Admittedly, the UK desperately needs an improvement in productivity growth for further currency gains. To encourage capital inflows that the pound depends on, the UK needs to be at the forefront of disruptive technologies such as electric cars, digital currencies, 3D printing, and even innovations in gene therapy. High finance and fashion will remain relevant for London, but the need for innovation is high.  Investment Conclusions Chart 17Sentiment On Sterling Is Depressed The pound will likely face pressure in the near term, but will fare well over a cyclical horizon. Our 12-month target is 1.36. This target is based on a modest reversion towards PPP fair value, and some erosion in the “crisis” discount. Admittedly, sentiment on the pound is very depressed, and we could be wrong in our near-term assessment if cable has indeed bottomed. Our intermediate-term timing model suggests that GBP is undervalued and has bottomed. Technical indicators also warn that cable is ripe for a fervent rebound (Chart 17). Particularly, our intermediate-term technical indicator is rebounding from oversold levels. The Aussie would outperform the pound in the long term, but AUD/GBP is vulnerable to a commodity relapse in the shorter term.   Housekeeping We were stopped out of our short EUR/JPY trade for a loss of -2.78%, as oil prices and bond yields rebounded. This trade is a hedge to our pro-cyclical portfolio, so we will look to reenter it at more attractive levels. We are also lowering the stop-loss on our short RUB trade. This is a speculative bet many clients will not be able to play, but we expect it to payoff over the longer term.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Michael Saunders, "The route back to 2% inflation," (Speech given at the Resolution Foundation), May 9, 2022.   Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Markets Priced For A Restrictive Level Of Australian Rates The neutral interest rate in Australia is lower than in past cycles, for several reasons: low potential growth, weak productivity, high household debt and inflated housing valuations. Interest rate markets are discounting a very aggressive monetary tightening cycle in Australia, with the RBA Cash Rate expected to reach 2.6% by end-2022 and 3.1% by end-2023. Australian inflation will peak in H2/2022, and the RBA will not need to raise rates beyond the midpoint of the RBA's estimated neutral range of 2-3%. The Australian dollar has not responded to rising interest rate expectations or high commodity prices, largely due to weak Chinese growth. The Aussie is cheap and has upside if China delivers more economic stimulus. The newly-elected Labor-led government will not be able to pursue its ambitious social and environmental agenda without finding more revenue to offset the inflationary impact of larger budget deficits. Expect modest fiscal stimulus, with increased spending, but also minor tax hikes for multinational corporations and high-income earners. Bottom Line: For global bond investors, an overweight allocation to Australian government bonds is warranted with the RBA likely to disappoint aggressive market rate hike expectations. For currency investors, the undervalued Australian dollar is an attractive play on an eventual rebound of Chinese growth. Feature The month of May has been eventful for investors in Australia. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) delivered its first interest rate hike since 2010 on May 3, a move that markets had expected but which was much earlier than the RBA’s prior forward guidance. The May 21 federal election returned the Labor party to power for the first time since 2013. These events introduce new risks for the Australian economy and financial markets, altering a policy backdrop that had been highly stimulative - and, more importantly, highly predictable - during the pandemic but must now change in response to the new reality of high inflation. In this Special Report, jointly published by BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy, Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, we discuss the investment implications of the start of the monetary tightening cycle and the new government in Australia. Our main conclusions: markets are somehow pricing in both too many RBA rate hikes and not enough currency upside for the Australian dollar, while expectations for major fiscal policy changes should be tempered. Will The RBA Kill The Economic Recovery? Australian government bonds have been one of the worst performers in the developed world so far in 2022 (Chart 1), delivering a total return of -9.1% in AUD terms, and -9% in USD-hedged terms, according to Bloomberg. The benchmark 10-year yield now sits at 3.20%, up +142bps since the start of the year but off the 8-year intraday high of 3.6% reached in early May. Australia has historically been a “high-beta” bond market that sees yields rise more when global bond yields are rising. That is a legacy of the days when the RBA had to push policy rates to levels that exceeded other major central banks like the Fed during global tightening cycles. But by the RBA’s own admission, the neutral policy interest rate is now lower than in previous years, perhaps no more than 0% in real terms according to RBA Governor Philip Lowe. Our RBA Monitor, which consists of economic and financial variables that typically correlate to pressure on the RBA to tighten or ease policy, has been signaling since mid-2021 that higher interest rates were increasingly likely (Chart 2). However, markets have moved to price in a very rapid and aggressive tightening, with a whopping 268bps of rate hikes discounted over the next year in the Australian overnight index swap (OIS) curve. Chart 1Australian Bond Yields Have Surged Vs Global Peers​​​​​ Chart 2Markets Expect Very Aggressive RBA Tightening​​​​​​ The growth component of the RBA Monitor will likely soon ease up with the OECD leading economic indicator for Australia in a clear downtrend (bottom panel). However, the inflation component of the RBA Monitor will stay elevated for longer given current high inflation - headline CPI inflation in Australia hit a 20-year high of 5.1% in Q1/2022 - and the tight Australian labor market. Even with those robust inflation pressures, markets are pricing in a peak level of interest rates that appears far more restrictive than the RBA is willing, and likely able, to deliver. We see three primary reasons for this. Weak Potential Growth Implies A Lower Neutral Rate The OIS curve is priced for the RBA Cash Rate staying between 3-4% over the next decade (Chart 3). The real policy rate (adjusted by CPI swap forwards as the proxy for inflation expectations), is expected to average around 1% over that same period. Those are the highest “terminal rate” estimates among the G10 economies. At the press conference following the May 3 rate hike, RBA Governor Lowe noted that “it’s not unreasonable to expect that the normalization of interest rates over the period ahead could see interest rates rise to 2.5%”. Lowe said that was the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% inflation target, thus the expected normalization of policy rates would take the inflation-adjusted real rate to 0%. That is a far cry from the more aggressive increase in real rates discounted in the Australian OIS and CPI swap curves. Lowe also noted that a real rate above 0% “over time […] would require stronger productivity growth in Australia.” On that front, the data is not suggesting that the RBA will need to reconsider its views on the neutral real interest rate anytime soon. The 5-year annualized growth rate of labor productivity is an anemic -0.8%, down from the mid-2010s peak of around 1.5% and far below the late-1990s peak of around 2.5% (Chart 4). Chart 3Markets Priced For A Restrictive Level Of Australian Rates​​​​​ Chart 4A Powerful Structural Reason For A Lower Australian Neutral Rate​​​​​ Chart 5The Australian Housing Cycle Is Peaking Assuming a pre-pandemic growth rate of the working age population of between 1-1.5%, and productivity around 0.5%, Australia’s potential GDP growth rate is, at best, around 2% (middle panel) and is likely even lower than that. The working-age population growth rate fell to 0% during the pandemic due to migration restrictions that have yet to be lifted. However, population growth had already been slowing pre-COVID due to falling birth rates and reduced worker visa caps in 2018-19. High Household Debt Raises Interest Rate Sensitivity Of Consumer Demand Sluggish trend growth is not the only reason why Australia’s neutral interest rate is lower than markets are discounting. Given elevated housing valuations and aggressive lending practices, highly indebted Australian households are now more sensitive to rate increases than in years past. Australian mortgage lenders began aggressively issuing shorter-term (typically 3-year) fixed rate mortgages in 2020 after the collapse in bond yields due to the initial COVID shock, to entice borrowers to lock in low interest rates. This raised the share of new fixed rate mortgages from a historic average around 15% of all new mortgages to nearly 50%. Since the RBA ended its yield curve control policy last November, which targeted 3-year bond yields, 3-year fixed mortgage rates have surged from 2.93% to 4.34%. That already has had an impact on housing demand - home price growth has peaked in the major cities according to CoreLogic, while building approvals are contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 5). As the surge of fixed rate mortgage loans begin to mature in 2023, Australian homeowners will see a major spike in refinancing costs, both for fixed rate and variable rate lending. This trend should weaken home demand, and house price inflation, even further. Inflation Will Soon Peak The RBA expects softer house price inflation to help slow overall Australian inflation rates. The central bank is projecting headline CPI inflation to fall from the latest 5.1% to 4.3% by June 2023 and 2.9% by June 2024 (Chart 6). That would still be a level near the top of the RBA target band, but the downtrend could be even faster than that. As in many other countries, the latest surge in Australian inflation has been led by a rapid increase in goods prices related to severe demand/supply mismatches at a time of global supply chain bottlenecks. Australian goods inflation hit an 31-year high of 6.6% in Q1/2022, essentially matching the housing component of the CPI index (Chart 7). Yet with US goods inflation having already peaked, as have global shipping costs, it is likely that Australia goods inflation will soon follow suit. This will lower headline Australian inflation to levels more consistent with services inflation, which reached 3% in Q1/2022. Chart 6The RBA Sees Persistent Above-Target Inflation That floor in more domestically-driven services inflation will also be influenced by the pace of wage growth in Australia. The latest reading on the best wage indicator Down Under, the Wage Price Index, showed that year-over-year wage growth only reached 2.4% in Q1/2022. Chart 7Australia Goods Inflation Should Soon Peak​​​​​ This is a surprisingly low outcome given the tightness of the Australian labor market with the unemployment rate at an all-time low of 3.9% (Chart 8). Depressed labor supply is not a factor keeping the unemployment rate low, as the labor force participation rate and hours worked are both above pre-pandemic levels. Prior to the rate hike at the May 3 policy meeting, the RBA had been highlighting soft wage growth as a reason to delay the start of the monetary tightening cycle. After the May meeting, RBA Governor Lowe noted that according to the RBA’s “liaison” surveys of Australian businesses, nearly 40% of respondents said they were giving wage increases above 3%. The RBA believes that wage growth in the 3-4% range is consistent with Australian inflation remaining within the RBA’s 2-3% target band, a condition that was deemed necessary before rate hikes could begin. The message from the RBA liaison surveys was enough to trigger the start of the tightening cycle. While the Australia OIS curve is priced for an aggressive series of rate hikes, and shorter-term interest rate expectations are elevated, there is less inflationary concern priced into medium-term inflation expectations. The 5-year/5-year forward Australia CPI swap is at 2.2%, down -15bps since the start of 2022 and barely within the RBA target band. Some of that is a global factor – the 5-year/5-year forward US TIPS breakeven has declined by -44bps over just the past month. However, the Australia 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap peaked at the start of the year, just as Australian interest rate expectations began to ratchet higher (the 2-year Australia government bond yield was 0.35% at the start of 2022 and now sits at 2.61%). An increasing amount of discounted rate hikes, occurring alongside falling inflation expectations, is a sign that markets are incrementally pricing in a restrictive monetary policy. We agree with RBA Governor Lowe’s assessment that the neutral nominal Cash Rate is, at best, 2.5%. Thus, the current discounted peak in the Cash Rate of 3.2% would be restrictive. Very strong consumer spending growth at a time when inflation was already high could be a sign that a restrictive monetary stance is now necessary. However, the outlook for Australian consumption is not without risks. Consumer confidence has plunged alongside declining purchasing power, as wage growth has lagged the inflation upturn (Chart 9). While the expectation is that inflation will peak and wage growth will pick up over the latter half of 2022, it is still uncertain if the relative moves will be large enough to give a meaningful lift to real wage growth and consumer spending power. Chart 8Medium-Term Inflation Expectations Falling, Despite Low Unemployment​​​​​​ Chart 9Headwinds For The Australian Consumer​​​​​​ The RBA believes that consumer spending will be supported by the high level of savings, with the household saving rate currently at 13.6%. Yet the high level of household debt means that debt service burdens will rise as interest rates move higher, which may limit the degree to which Australian consumers run down savings to fuel greater consumer spending. Another reason why a more restrictive monetary policy could be needed is if there was a substantial loosening of fiscal policy that was fueling faster growth, especially at a time when inflation was already overshooting. This makes an analysis of the latest election results highly relevant to the path of Australian interest rates. Bottom Line: Markets are pricing in a shift to a restrictive level of interest rates in Australia, an outcome that is not necessary with inflation set to peak at a time of high household leverage. Labor Party Takes Power With Limited Political Capital Australia’s federal election on May 21 brought a Labor Party government into power, headed by new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. National policy is unlikely to change substantially. Australia has low political risk but high geopolitical risk – meaning that domestic politics are manageable for investors but China’s conflict with the West and other geopolitical events are revolutionizing Australia’s place in the world. The previous Liberal-National Coalition government had been in power since 2013, had never found a stable leader, and had been buffeted by a series of external shocks: a commodity bust, China trade conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, and inflation. Hence it is no surprise that Labor came back to power – it almost did so in 2019. However, Labor’s popularity is questionable. The new government does not have a robust political mandate: Labor will fall short of a single-party majority (or will have a very thin majority at best): As we go to press, Labor won 74 seats out of 151 in the House of Representatives. A party needs 76 seats for a majority. Labor will likely rely on three Green Party seats and some of the 10 independents to pass legislation. These minor parties will have considerable influence. Labor’s popular vote share is underwhelming: Labor won 32.8% of the popular vote, down from 33.3% in 2019, and beneath the 36% of the vote won by the outgoing Liberal-National Coalition (Table 1). The Green Party rose to 12% of the vote. While this only translates to three seats in parliament, the Greens will hold the balance of power. Table 1Australian Federal Election Results, 2022 Labor does not control the Senate: A bill requires a majority vote in both the House and Senate for passage. A majority requires 38 seats, but Labor and the Greens are currently slated to fall short at 36 seats. Hence, as in the House, the Labor Party will rely on “cross-bench” votes from minor parties to get a majority for bills. Labor won through pragmatism and moderation: Having suffered a surprise defeat in 2019, the Labor Party adopted a more moderate and pragmatic tone in the current election. Prime Minister Albanese campaigned on a motto of “safe change,” declared that he was “not woke,” and adopted a relatively hawkish tilt on trade and foreign policy (China relations) and immigration (“boat people”). Labor has limited room for maneuver in international relations: China’s economy is slowing down and stimulus does not work as well as it used to. China’s political system is reverting to autocracy and the Xi Jinping administration is attempting to carve a sphere of influence in the region, increasing long-term security threats to Australia in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. China has declared a “no limits” strategic partnership with a belligerent Russia, leaving the US no option but to pursue containment strategy against both powers. Prime Minister Albanese has already met with President Biden and the Quadrilateral Dialogue to emphasize Australia’s need to counter China’s newly assertive foreign policy. While Albanese may attempt to reduce trade tensions with China, any such moves will be heavily constrained. Inflation, not climate change, brought Labor to power: The media is hailing the election as a historic shift on the question of climate change and climate policy. But popular opinion has not changed much on this topic in recent years and the election results only partially support the thesis. A better explanation is that the pandemic and its inflationary aftermath galvanized opposition to the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Hence both fiscal policy and climate policy – the most important areas of change – will be constrained by inflation. Chart 10Australia Cannot Cut Defense Amid China Challenge There are two key policy takeaways from the above assessment: First, on fiscal policy, the new Labor-led government will face limitations due to inflation and the macroeconomic cycle. It will likely respond to inflation – the crisis that got it elected – even though China’s slowdown will produce negative surprises for global and Australian growth. The government will not be able to cut defense spending given the geopolitical setting (Chart 10). That means it will also not be able to pursue its ambitious social and environmental agenda without finding more revenue to offset the inflationary impact of larger budget deficits. Tax hikes are coming for multinational corporations and high-income earners. In terms of the size of the fiscal impact, the Labor Party promised spending increases worth AUD$18.9 billion (1.0% of GDP), to be offset by tax hikes amounting to AUD$11.5 billion in new revenue (0.6% of GDP). The result would be an AUD$7.5 billion increase in the budget deficit (0.4% of GDP) – a net fiscal stimulus (Chart 11). Currently the IMF projects a 1.84% fiscal drag in the cyclically adjusted budget deficit for 2023, so Labor’s plans would reduce that drag by 0.4%. However, the fiscal plans will change once the new Treasurer James Chalmers produces a new budget proposal in October. Comparison with a like-minded economy is therefore useful to put the policy change into perspective. Canada’s politics shifted from center-right to center-left in 2015 and the left-leaning government at that time put forward an agenda similar to Australia’s Labor Party today. Ultimately the budget balance declined from 0.17% to -0.45% of GDP from peak to trough (Chart 12). This 0.62% of GDP stimulus provides a point of comparison. Yet inflation was not a constraint on government spending at that time. The new Australian government may not exceed that size of stimulus in an inflationary context. But it could easily surpass it if the global economy falls back into recession. Chart 11Australian Labor’s Proposed Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12Canada Offers Clue To Size Of Australian Stimulus​​​​​​ Second, on climate policy, the new ruling coalition probably will pass major climate legislation, given the importance of Greens and left-leaning independents. But Labor will have to constrain the smaller parties’ climate ambitions to preserve popular support in areas where fossil fuel industries remain strong. Australia consumes substantially more carbon per capita than other developed economies and will continue to rely on fossil fuel exports for growth. In other words, climate policy will bring incremental rather than radical change. Bottom Line: If a global recession is avoided, then the new government’s counter-cyclical fiscal policies may work. If not, they will produce a double whammy for the Australian economy: new corporate and resource taxes on top of a slowdown in exports. The AUD As A Shock Absorber Despite a higher repricing of the interest rate curve in Australia, and elevated commodity prices, the Australian dollar (AUD) has been very soft. Part of the story is broad-based US dollar strength that has sapped any potential rebound in the AUD. More specifically, a survey of the key drivers of the AUD unveils the main source of currency weakness, by process of elimination: The divergence in monetary policy between the RBA and the Fed? No. Clearly, that has not been a driver this time around as the RBA is expected to lift rates to 3.2% over the next 12 months, in line with market pricing for rate hikes from the Federal Reserve. The commodity cycle? No. Commodity prices are softening, after being in a supply-driven bull market. As a premier resource producer, the Australian economy is intricately intertwined with the outlook for coal, iron ore, copper and even liquefied natural gas prices. As Chart 13 highlights, the AUD has massively deviated from the level implied by rising terms of trade for Australia. This is a departure from a historical correlation that has been in place since the end of the Bretton Woods system. Resource booms tend to be either demand or supply driven, or a combination of both. This time around supply restrictions have played a major role. The message from the AUD is that it responds much better to improving demand conditions. Global and relative growth dynamics? YES: The overarching driver of a weak AUD as hinted above has been slowing Chinese demand. The Zero COVID-19 policy in China has led to a drastic reduction in import volumes. This is hurting Australia’s external balance at the margin, as Chinese import volumes contract (Chart 14). Chart 13The AUD Has Lagged Terms Of Trade​​​​​ Chart 14The AUD Is Very Sensitive To China There are two key takeaways from the above analysis. First, the hawkish path for interest rates priced for the RBA is not yet reflected in a weak AUD. This implies that currency and bond markets are on a collision course. Either the RBA ratifies market pricing and triggers a coiled spring rebound in the AUD, or hawkish expectations will be tempered as inflationary pressures moderate. Second, the AUD will be very sensitive to any improvement in Chinese demand, the overarching driver of currency weakness. We expect the Chinese authorities to ramp up credit stimulus, to offset weakening demand from the Zero COVID-19 policy. The AUD has historically been very sensitive to changes in Chinese money and credit variables (Chart 15). From a fundamental perspective, a lot of pessimism is embedded in the Aussie dollar. Australian GDP has already recovered above pre-pandemic levels and could be on a path to achieve escape velocity if China recovers. Chinese fiscal and monetary policy should be eased going forward. Chinese bond yields have already dropped, reflecting an easing in domestic financial conditions. Meanwhile, Australia’s commodity exposure is well suited for a green energy shift. Besides being relatively competitive in supplying the types of raw materials that China needs and wants, (higher-grade ore, which is more expensive, but pollutes less, and is in high demand in China), Australia is a big exporter of liquefied natural gas, whose prices have been soaring in recent months and is critical in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and green energy shift (Chart 16). This will provide a multi-year tailwind for Australian export volumes and terms of trade. Chart 15The Chinese Economy Could Be Bottoming​​​​​ Chart 16Australia Is Resource Superstar​​​​​ Bottom Line: BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy went long AUD at 72 cents. In the near term, this position could prove quite volatile as markets try to discern a clear path for global growth. But given cheap valuations and beaten down sentiment, it should prove profitable in the longer term. Investment Conclusions For Fixed Income Investors Chart 17Australian Government Bond Investment Recommendations Our careful analysis of Australian growth, inflation, the RBA’s likely next moves leads us to the following investment conclusions for Australian bonds (Chart 17): Maintain neutral duration exposure within dedicated Australian bond portfolios (for now): On a forward basis, the entire Australian yield curve is converging to that discounted 3.5% peak in the Cash Rate (top panel). Eventually, Australian bond yields will fall once inflation clearly peaks in H2/2022 and markets realize that the RBA will not be hiking as fast as expected, justifying an above-benchmark duration tilt. Until then, Australian bond yields will be rangebound, especially with the RBA no longer buying bonds via quantitative easing, leaving more bond issuance to be absorbed by private investors. Underweight Australian inflation-linked bonds versus nominal-paying government bonds: Inflation will soon peak, and the discounted RBA stance is too hawkish – a recipe for lower inflation breakevens. Overweight Australian government bonds within global bond portfolios: Australia has returned to its “high-yield-beta” status, which means that an overweight stance is warranted when global bond yields are stable or falling. BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy’s Global Duration Indicator, a growth-focused leading indicator of the momentum of global bond yields, is signalling a more stable backdrop for global yields over the rest of 2022. The Duration Indicator is also a fine leading indicator of the relative return performance of Australian government bonds (middle panel) and is supportive of an overweight stance on Australian debt. Go Long December 2022 Australia Bank Bill futures: This is a tactical trade (i.e. investment horizon of no more than six months), based on the extreme pricing of rate hikes by year-end. The market price of the December 2022 futures contract is currently 97.11, or an implied interest rate of 2.89% compared to the current RBA Cash Rate of 0.35%. That contract is priced for far too many rate hikes than will be delivered over the remaining seven RBA meetings of 2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist ChesterN@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Executive Summary Markets Priced For A Restrictive Level Of Australian Rates The neutral interest rate in Australia is lower than in past cycles, for several reasons: low potential growth, weak productivity, high household debt and inflated housing valuations. Interest rate markets are discounting a very aggressive monetary tightening cycle in Australia, with the RBA Cash Rate expected to reach 2.6% by end-2022 and 3.1% by end-2023. Australian inflation will peak in H2/2022, and the RBA will not need to raise rates beyond the midpoint of the RBA's estimated neutral range of 2-3%. The Australian dollar has not responded to rising interest rate expectations or high commodity prices, largely due to weak Chinese growth. The Aussie is cheap and has upside if China delivers more economic stimulus. The newly-elected Labor-led government will not be able to pursue its ambitious social and environmental agenda without finding more revenue to offset the inflationary impact of larger budget deficits. Expect modest fiscal stimulus, with increased spending, but also minor tax hikes for multinational corporations and high-income earners. Bottom Line: For global bond investors, an overweight allocation to Australian government bonds is warranted with the RBA likely to disappoint aggressive market rate hike expectations. For currency investors, the undervalued Australian dollar is an attractive play on an eventual rebound of Chinese growth. Feature The month of May has been eventful for investors in Australia. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) delivered its first interest rate hike since 2010 on May 3, a move that markets had expected but which was much earlier than the RBA’s prior forward guidance. The May 21 federal election returned the Labor party to power for the first time since 2013. These events introduce new risks for the Australian economy and financial markets, altering a policy backdrop that had been highly stimulative - and, more importantly, highly predictable - during the pandemic but must now change in response to the new reality of high inflation. In this Special Report, jointly published by BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy, Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, we discuss the investment implications of the start of the monetary tightening cycle and the new government in Australia. Our main conclusions: markets are somehow pricing in both too many RBA rate hikes and not enough currency upside for the Australian dollar, while expectations for major fiscal policy changes should be tempered. Will The RBA Kill The Economic Recovery? Australian government bonds have been one of the worst performers in the developed world so far in 2022 (Chart 1), delivering a total return of -9.1% in AUD terms, and -9% in USD-hedged terms, according to Bloomberg. The benchmark 10-year yield now sits at 3.20%, up +142bps since the start of the year but off the 8-year intraday high of 3.6% reached in early May. Australia has historically been a “high-beta” bond market that sees yields rise more when global bond yields are rising. That is a legacy of the days when the RBA had to push policy rates to levels that exceeded other major central banks like the Fed during global tightening cycles. But by the RBA’s own admission, the neutral policy interest rate is now lower than in previous years, perhaps no more than 0% in real terms according to RBA Governor Philip Lowe. Our RBA Monitor, which consists of economic and financial variables that typically correlate to pressure on the RBA to tighten or ease policy, has been signaling since mid-2021 that higher interest rates were increasingly likely (Chart 2). However, markets have moved to price in a very rapid and aggressive tightening, with a whopping 268bps of rate hikes discounted over the next year in the Australian overnight index swap (OIS) curve. Chart 1Australian Bond Yields Have Surged Vs Global Peers​​​​​ Chart 2Markets Expect Very Aggressive RBA Tightening​​​​​​ The growth component of the RBA Monitor will likely soon ease up with the OECD leading economic indicator for Australia in a clear downtrend (bottom panel). However, the inflation component of the RBA Monitor will stay elevated for longer given current high inflation - headline CPI inflation in Australia hit a 20-year high of 5.1% in Q1/2022 - and the tight Australian labor market. Even with those robust inflation pressures, markets are pricing in a peak level of interest rates that appears far more restrictive than the RBA is willing, and likely able, to deliver. We see three primary reasons for this. Weak Potential Growth Implies A Lower Neutral Rate The OIS curve is priced for the RBA Cash Rate staying between 3-4% over the next decade (Chart 3). The real policy rate (adjusted by CPI swap forwards as the proxy for inflation expectations), is expected to average around 1% over that same period. Those are the highest “terminal rate” estimates among the G10 economies. At the press conference following the May 3 rate hike, RBA Governor Lowe noted that “it’s not unreasonable to expect that the normalization of interest rates over the period ahead could see interest rates rise to 2.5%”. Lowe said that was the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% inflation target, thus the expected normalization of policy rates would take the inflation-adjusted real rate to 0%. That is a far cry from the more aggressive increase in real rates discounted in the Australian OIS and CPI swap curves. Lowe also noted that a real rate above 0% “over time […] would require stronger productivity growth in Australia.” On that front, the data is not suggesting that the RBA will need to reconsider its views on the neutral real interest rate anytime soon. The 5-year annualized growth rate of labor productivity is an anemic -0.8%, down from the mid-2010s peak of around 1.5% and far below the late-1990s peak of around 2.5% (Chart 4). Chart 3Markets Priced For A Restrictive Level Of Australian Rates​​​​​ Chart 4A Powerful Structural Reason For A Lower Australian Neutral Rate​​​​​ Chart 5The Australian Housing Cycle Is Peaking Assuming a pre-pandemic growth rate of the working age population of between 1-1.5%, and productivity around 0.5%, Australia’s potential GDP growth rate is, at best, around 2% (middle panel) and is likely even lower than that. The working-age population growth rate fell to 0% during the pandemic due to migration restrictions that have yet to be lifted. However, population growth had already been slowing pre-COVID due to falling birth rates and reduced worker visa caps in 2018-19. High Household Debt Raises Interest Rate Sensitivity Of Consumer Demand Sluggish trend growth is not the only reason why Australia’s neutral interest rate is lower than markets are discounting. Given elevated housing valuations and aggressive lending practices, highly indebted Australian households are now more sensitive to rate increases than in years past. Australian mortgage lenders began aggressively issuing shorter-term (typically 3-year) fixed rate mortgages in 2020 after the collapse in bond yields due to the initial COVID shock, to entice borrowers to lock in low interest rates. This raised the share of new fixed rate mortgages from a historic average around 15% of all new mortgages to nearly 50%. Since the RBA ended its yield curve control policy last November, which targeted 3-year bond yields, 3-year fixed mortgage rates have surged from 2.93% to 4.34%. That already has had an impact on housing demand - home price growth has peaked in the major cities according to CoreLogic, while building approvals are contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 5). As the surge of fixed rate mortgage loans begin to mature in 2023, Australian homeowners will see a major spike in refinancing costs, both for fixed rate and variable rate lending. This trend should weaken home demand, and house price inflation, even further. Inflation Will Soon Peak The RBA expects softer house price inflation to help slow overall Australian inflation rates. The central bank is projecting headline CPI inflation to fall from the latest 5.1% to 4.3% by June 2023 and 2.9% by June 2024 (Chart 6). That would still be a level near the top of the RBA target band, but the downtrend could be even faster than that. As in many other countries, the latest surge in Australian inflation has been led by a rapid increase in goods prices related to severe demand/supply mismatches at a time of global supply chain bottlenecks. Australian goods inflation hit an 31-year high of 6.6% in Q1/2022, essentially matching the housing component of the CPI index (Chart 7). Yet with US goods inflation having already peaked, as have global shipping costs, it is likely that Australia goods inflation will soon follow suit. This will lower headline Australian inflation to levels more consistent with services inflation, which reached 3% in Q1/2022. Chart 6The RBA Sees Persistent Above-Target Inflation That floor in more domestically-driven services inflation will also be influenced by the pace of wage growth in Australia. The latest reading on the best wage indicator Down Under, the Wage Price Index, showed that year-over-year wage growth only reached 2.4% in Q1/2022. Chart 7Australia Goods Inflation Should Soon Peak​​​​​ This is a surprisingly low outcome given the tightness of the Australian labor market with the unemployment rate at an all-time low of 3.9% (Chart 8). Depressed labor supply is not a factor keeping the unemployment rate low, as the labor force participation rate and hours worked are both above pre-pandemic levels. Prior to the rate hike at the May 3 policy meeting, the RBA had been highlighting soft wage growth as a reason to delay the start of the monetary tightening cycle. After the May meeting, RBA Governor Lowe noted that according to the RBA’s “liaison” surveys of Australian businesses, nearly 40% of respondents said they were giving wage increases above 3%. The RBA believes that wage growth in the 3-4% range is consistent with Australian inflation remaining within the RBA’s 2-3% target band, a condition that was deemed necessary before rate hikes could begin. The message from the RBA liaison surveys was enough to trigger the start of the tightening cycle. While the Australia OIS curve is priced for an aggressive series of rate hikes, and shorter-term interest rate expectations are elevated, there is less inflationary concern priced into medium-term inflation expectations. The 5-year/5-year forward Australia CPI swap is at 2.2%, down -15bps since the start of 2022 and barely within the RBA target band. Some of that is a global factor – the 5-year/5-year forward US TIPS breakeven has declined by -44bps over just the past month. However, the Australia 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap peaked at the start of the year, just as Australian interest rate expectations began to ratchet higher (the 2-year Australia government bond yield was 0.35% at the start of 2022 and now sits at 2.61%). An increasing amount of discounted rate hikes, occurring alongside falling inflation expectations, is a sign that markets are incrementally pricing in a restrictive monetary policy. We agree with RBA Governor Lowe’s assessment that the neutral nominal Cash Rate is, at best, 2.5%. Thus, the current discounted peak in the Cash Rate of 3.2% would be restrictive. Very strong consumer spending growth at a time when inflation was already high could be a sign that a restrictive monetary stance is now necessary. However, the outlook for Australian consumption is not without risks. Consumer confidence has plunged alongside declining purchasing power, as wage growth has lagged the inflation upturn (Chart 9). While the expectation is that inflation will peak and wage growth will pick up over the latter half of 2022, it is still uncertain if the relative moves will be large enough to give a meaningful lift to real wage growth and consumer spending power. Chart 8Medium-Term Inflation Expectations Falling, Despite Low Unemployment​​​​​​ Chart 9Headwinds For The Australian Consumer​​​​​​ The RBA believes that consumer spending will be supported by the high level of savings, with the household saving rate currently at 13.6%. Yet the high level of household debt means that debt service burdens will rise as interest rates move higher, which may limit the degree to which Australian consumers run down savings to fuel greater consumer spending. Another reason why a more restrictive monetary policy could be needed is if there was a substantial loosening of fiscal policy that was fueling faster growth, especially at a time when inflation was already overshooting. This makes an analysis of the latest election results highly relevant to the path of Australian interest rates. Bottom Line: Markets are pricing in a shift to a restrictive level of interest rates in Australia, an outcome that is not necessary with inflation set to peak at a time of high household leverage. Labor Party Takes Power With Limited Political Capital Australia’s federal election on May 21 brought a Labor Party government into power, headed by new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. National policy is unlikely to change substantially. Australia has low political risk but high geopolitical risk – meaning that domestic politics are manageable for investors but China’s conflict with the West and other geopolitical events are revolutionizing Australia’s place in the world. The previous Liberal-National Coalition government had been in power since 2013, had never found a stable leader, and had been buffeted by a series of external shocks: a commodity bust, China trade conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, and inflation. Hence it is no surprise that Labor came back to power – it almost did so in 2019. However, Labor’s popularity is questionable. The new government does not have a robust political mandate: Labor will fall short of a single-party majority (or will have a very thin majority at best): As we go to press, Labor won 74 seats out of 151 in the House of Representatives. A party needs 76 seats for a majority. Labor will likely rely on three Green Party seats and some of the 10 independents to pass legislation. These minor parties will have considerable influence. Labor’s popular vote share is underwhelming: Labor won 32.8% of the popular vote, down from 33.3% in 2019, and beneath the 36% of the vote won by the outgoing Liberal-National Coalition (Table 1). The Green Party rose to 12% of the vote. While this only translates to three seats in parliament, the Greens will hold the balance of power. Table 1Australian Federal Election Results, 2022 Labor does not control the Senate: A bill requires a majority vote in both the House and Senate for passage. A majority requires 38 seats, but Labor and the Greens are currently slated to fall short at 36 seats. Hence, as in the House, the Labor Party will rely on “cross-bench” votes from minor parties to get a majority for bills. Labor won through pragmatism and moderation: Having suffered a surprise defeat in 2019, the Labor Party adopted a more moderate and pragmatic tone in the current election. Prime Minister Albanese campaigned on a motto of “safe change,” declared that he was “not woke,” and adopted a relatively hawkish tilt on trade and foreign policy (China relations) and immigration (“boat people”). Labor has limited room for maneuver in international relations: China’s economy is slowing down and stimulus does not work as well as it used to. China’s political system is reverting to autocracy and the Xi Jinping administration is attempting to carve a sphere of influence in the region, increasing long-term security threats to Australia in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. China has declared a “no limits” strategic partnership with a belligerent Russia, leaving the US no option but to pursue containment strategy against both powers. Prime Minister Albanese has already met with President Biden and the Quadrilateral Dialogue to emphasize Australia’s need to counter China’s newly assertive foreign policy. While Albanese may attempt to reduce trade tensions with China, any such moves will be heavily constrained. Inflation, not climate change, brought Labor to power: The media is hailing the election as a historic shift on the question of climate change and climate policy. But popular opinion has not changed much on this topic in recent years and the election results only partially support the thesis. A better explanation is that the pandemic and its inflationary aftermath galvanized opposition to the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Hence both fiscal policy and climate policy – the most important areas of change – will be constrained by inflation. Chart 10Australia Cannot Cut Defense Amid China Challenge There are two key policy takeaways from the above assessment: First, on fiscal policy, the new Labor-led government will face limitations due to inflation and the macroeconomic cycle. It will likely respond to inflation – the crisis that got it elected – even though China’s slowdown will produce negative surprises for global and Australian growth. The government will not be able to cut defense spending given the geopolitical setting (Chart 10). That means it will also not be able to pursue its ambitious social and environmental agenda without finding more revenue to offset the inflationary impact of larger budget deficits. Tax hikes are coming for multinational corporations and high-income earners. In terms of the size of the fiscal impact, the Labor Party promised spending increases worth AUD$18.9 billion (1.0% of GDP), to be offset by tax hikes amounting to AUD$11.5 billion in new revenue (0.6% of GDP). The result would be an AUD$7.5 billion increase in the budget deficit (0.4% of GDP) – a net fiscal stimulus (Chart 11). Currently the IMF projects a 1.84% fiscal drag in the cyclically adjusted budget deficit for 2023, so Labor’s plans would reduce that drag by 0.4%. However, the fiscal plans will change once the new Treasurer James Chalmers produces a new budget proposal in October. Comparison with a like-minded economy is therefore useful to put the policy change into perspective. Canada’s politics shifted from center-right to center-left in 2015 and the left-leaning government at that time put forward an agenda similar to Australia’s Labor Party today. Ultimately the budget balance declined from 0.17% to -0.45% of GDP from peak to trough (Chart 12). This 0.62% of GDP stimulus provides a point of comparison. Yet inflation was not a constraint on government spending at that time. The new Australian government may not exceed that size of stimulus in an inflationary context. But it could easily surpass it if the global economy falls back into recession. Chart 11Australian Labor’s Proposed Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12Canada Offers Clue To Size Of Australian Stimulus​​​​​​ Second, on climate policy, the new ruling coalition probably will pass major climate legislation, given the importance of Greens and left-leaning independents. But Labor will have to constrain the smaller parties’ climate ambitions to preserve popular support in areas where fossil fuel industries remain strong. Australia consumes substantially more carbon per capita than other developed economies and will continue to rely on fossil fuel exports for growth. In other words, climate policy will bring incremental rather than radical change. Bottom Line: If a global recession is avoided, then the new government’s counter-cyclical fiscal policies may work. If not, they will produce a double whammy for the Australian economy: new corporate and resource taxes on top of a slowdown in exports. The AUD As A Shock Absorber Despite a higher repricing of the interest rate curve in Australia, and elevated commodity prices, the Australian dollar (AUD) has been very soft. Part of the story is broad-based US dollar strength that has sapped any potential rebound in the AUD. More specifically, a survey of the key drivers of the AUD unveils the main source of currency weakness, by process of elimination: The divergence in monetary policy between the RBA and the Fed? No. Clearly, that has not been a driver this time around as the RBA is expected to lift rates to 3.2% over the next 12 months, in line with market pricing for rate hikes from the Federal Reserve. The commodity cycle? No. Commodity prices are softening, after being in a supply-driven bull market. As a premier resource producer, the Australian economy is intricately intertwined with the outlook for coal, iron ore, copper and even liquefied natural gas prices. As Chart 13 highlights, the AUD has massively deviated from the level implied by rising terms of trade for Australia. This is a departure from a historical correlation that has been in place since the end of the Bretton Woods system. Resource booms tend to be either demand or supply driven, or a combination of both. This time around supply restrictions have played a major role. The message from the AUD is that it responds much better to improving demand conditions. Global and relative growth dynamics? YES: The overarching driver of a weak AUD as hinted above has been slowing Chinese demand. The Zero COVID-19 policy in China has led to a drastic reduction in import volumes. This is hurting Australia’s external balance at the margin, as Chinese import volumes contract (Chart 14). Chart 13The AUD Has Lagged Terms Of Trade​​​​​ Chart 14The AUD Is Very Sensitive To China There are two key takeaways from the above analysis. First, the hawkish path for interest rates priced for the RBA is not yet reflected in a weak AUD. This implies that currency and bond markets are on a collision course. Either the RBA ratifies market pricing and triggers a coiled spring rebound in the AUD, or hawkish expectations will be tempered as inflationary pressures moderate. Second, the AUD will be very sensitive to any improvement in Chinese demand, the overarching driver of currency weakness. We expect the Chinese authorities to ramp up credit stimulus, to offset weakening demand from the Zero COVID-19 policy. The AUD has historically been very sensitive to changes in Chinese money and credit variables (Chart 15). From a fundamental perspective, a lot of pessimism is embedded in the Aussie dollar. Australian GDP has already recovered above pre-pandemic levels and could be on a path to achieve escape velocity if China recovers. Chinese fiscal and monetary policy should be eased going forward. Chinese bond yields have already dropped, reflecting an easing in domestic financial conditions. Meanwhile, Australia’s commodity exposure is well suited for a green energy shift. Besides being relatively competitive in supplying the types of raw materials that China needs and wants, (higher-grade ore, which is more expensive, but pollutes less, and is in high demand in China), Australia is a big exporter of liquefied natural gas, whose prices have been soaring in recent months and is critical in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and green energy shift (Chart 16). This will provide a multi-year tailwind for Australian export volumes and terms of trade. Chart 15The Chinese Economy Could Be Bottoming​​​​​ Chart 16Australia Is Resource Superstar​​​​​ Bottom Line: BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy went long AUD at 72 cents. In the near term, this position could prove quite volatile as markets try to discern a clear path for global growth. But given cheap valuations and beaten down sentiment, it should prove profitable in the longer term. Investment Conclusions For Fixed Income Investors Chart 17Australian Government Bond Investment Recommendations Our careful analysis of Australian growth, inflation, the RBA’s likely next moves leads us to the following investment conclusions for Australian bonds (Chart 17): Maintain neutral duration exposure within dedicated Australian bond portfolios (for now): On a forward basis, the entire Australian yield curve is converging to that discounted 3.5% peak in the Cash Rate (top panel). Eventually, Australian bond yields will fall once inflation clearly peaks in H2/2022 and markets realize that the RBA will not be hiking as fast as expected, justifying an above-benchmark duration tilt. Until then, Australian bond yields will be rangebound, especially with the RBA no longer buying bonds via quantitative easing, leaving more bond issuance to be absorbed by private investors. Underweight Australian inflation-linked bonds versus nominal-paying government bonds: Inflation will soon peak, and the discounted RBA stance is too hawkish – a recipe for lower inflation breakevens. Overweight Australian government bonds within global bond portfolios: Australia has returned to its “high-yield-beta” status, which means that an overweight stance is warranted when global bond yields are stable or falling. BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy’s Global Duration Indicator, a growth-focused leading indicator of the momentum of global bond yields, is signalling a more stable backdrop for global yields over the rest of 2022. The Duration Indicator is also a fine leading indicator of the relative return performance of Australian government bonds (middle panel) and is supportive of an overweight stance on Australian debt. Go Long December 2022 Australia Bank Bill futures: This is a tactical trade (i.e. investment horizon of no more than six months), based on the extreme pricing of rate hikes by year-end. The market price of the December 2022 futures contract is currently 97.11, or an implied interest rate of 2.89% compared to the current RBA Cash Rate of 0.35%. That contract is priced for far too many rate hikes than will be delivered over the remaining seven RBA meetings of 2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist ChesterN@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused a sharp increase in US interest rates. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. In addition to a severe contraction in real home improvement spending, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. The growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, the breadth of house prices and building permits, consumer surveys, housing equity sector relative performance, and the fact that mortgage rates have likely peaked for the year point to a more optimistic outlook for housing. At a minimum, they do not yet suggest that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is recessionary. Structural factors are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. The opposite is true: the US and several other developed market economies have underbuilt homes over the past decade. This should limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Feature Chart II-1The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused US interest rates to rise at an extremely rapid pace. Panel 1 of Chart II-1 highlights that the spread between the US 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield reached a 20-year high in early April of this year. Panel 2 shows that the two-year change in the 30-year mortgage rate will reach the highest level since the early 1980s by the end of this year if mortgage rates remain at their current level. Over the longer run, it is the level of interest rates that matters more than their change. However, changes in interest rates and other key financial market variables are also important drivers of economic activity, especially when they happen very rapidly. Given the speed of the recent adjustment in US interest rates, and the fact that the Fed funds rate will have likely reached the Fed’s neutral rate forecast by the end of this year, investors have understandably become concerned about the potential for a recession in the US. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. We conclude that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, several signs suggest that this slowdown is not recessionary. Investors should remain laser-focused on the pace of housing-related activity over the coming 6-12 months, but for now our assessment of the housing market is consistent with a modest overweight stance towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. A Brief Review Of The Housing Sector’s Contribution To Growth Table II-1 highlights the importance of the housing sector as a driver/predictor of US recessions. This table highlights that real residential investment is not a particularly important contributor to real GDP growth during nonrecessionary quarters, but it is the only main expenditure component exhibiting negative growth on average in the year prior to a recession.1 Table II-1Real Residential Investment Tends To Contract In The Year Prior To A Recession When examining the contribution to economic growth from the housing sector, investors and housing market analysts often fully equate real residential investment with housing construction. In fact, while direct construction of housing units accounts for a sizeable portion of the contribution to growth from housing, it is just one of four components. This is an important point, as one of the often-overlooked elements of real residential investment has strongly leading properties and is currently providing a very negative signal about the housing sector. Chart II-2 breaks down what we consider as aggregate real “housing-related activity”, and Chart II-3 presents the contributions to annualized quarterly growth in housing activity from the four components. For the sake of completeness, we include personal consumption expenditures on furnishings and household equipment as part of housing-related activity, alongside the two main components of real residential investment: permanent site construction (including single and multi-family properties), and “other structures.” In reality, “other structures” is not predominantly accounted for by the construction of different types of residential properties; it is almost entirely composed of spending on home improvements and brokerage commissions on the sale of existing residential properties. Chart II-2Housing Construction Is An Important Part Of Residential Investment, But There Are Other Contributing Factors Chart II-3Home Improvement Spending And Brokerage Commissions Also Drive Residential Investment     Aside from the link between existing home sales and the general demand for newly-built homes, the prominence of brokerage commissions in other residential structures investment helps explain why existing home sales are strongly correlated with real residential investment (Chart II-4, panel 1). Given that a distributed lag of monthly housing starts maps closely to permanent site construction (panel 2), starts and existing home sales explain a good portion of the contribution to growth from housing-related activity. Of the two remaining components of housing-related activity, Chart II-5 highlights that personal consumption expenditures on furniture and household equipment generally coincide with the pace of housing construction and new home sales. We take this to mean that the consumption component of housing-related activity is typically a derivative of the decision to build a new home or sell an existing one. Chart II-4Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Chart II-5The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying   What is not coincident with construction and existing home sales is residential home improvement: Panel 2 of Chart II-5 highlights that it has strongly leading properties, and is currently contracting at its worst rate since the 2008 recession. Data on real home improvement spending is only available quarterly from 2002, so the ability to compare the current situation to previous housing market cycles is limited. But the pace of contraction is worrying and underscores that investors should be on the lookout for corroborating signs of a major contraction in the housing market. Is The Housing Data Sending A Recessionary Signal? In addition to the severe contraction in real home improvement spending shown in Chart II-5, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. In particular, Chart II-6 highlights that both the growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, that housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and that the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, there are also several signs pointing to a more optimistic outlook for housing, or at least indicating that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is not recessionary. We review these more optimistic indicators below. The Breadth Of House Prices And Building Permits In sharp contrast to previous periods of serious housing market weakness and/or recessionary periods, there is no sign yet of a major slowdown in US house price appreciation including cities with the weakest gains. In fact, Chart II-7 highlights that house prices have recently been reaccelerating on a very broad basis after having slowed in the second half of last year, which hardly bodes poorly for new home construction. Chart II-6A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway Chart II-7No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices   It is true that US house price data is somewhat lagging, so it is quite likely that price weakness is forthcoming. However, there has been no sign of a major slowdown in prices through to March 2022, by which point 30-year mortgage rates had already risen 200 basis points from their 2021 low. More importantly, Chart II-8 highlights that a state-by-state diffusion index of authorized housing permits has done a very good job at leading the growth in permits nationwide, and is currently not pointing to a contraction in activity. Chart II-9 presents explanatory models for the growth in US housing starts and total home sales based on our state permits diffusion index, pending home sales, the change in mortgage rates, and housing affordability. The chart underscores that a contraction in housing activity is not what these variables would predict, even though starts and sales should be growing at a much more modest pace than what has prevailed on average over the past two years. Chart II-8Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Chart II-9Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome     Consumer Surveys The University of Michigan consumer survey shows that consumers feel it is the worst time to buy a home since the early-1980s (Chart II-10), which seems like a clearly negative sign for the housing market and an indication of the likely impact of tighter policy on housing-related activity. And yet, panel 2 highlights that this is the result of the fact that house prices in the US have surged during the pandemic, not that mortgage rates have risen too high. It is true that the number of survey respondents citing “interest rates are too high” is rising sharply, but this factor as a share of all “bad time to buy” reasons given is not meaningfully higher than it was in 2018, 2011, or 2006. It is clear that high prices are also the culprit for why consumers report that it is a bad time to buy large household durables and not that large household durables are unaffordable or that interest rates are too high (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Chart II-11Same Story For Large Household Durables   It may seem counterintuitive for investors to see Charts II-10 and II-11 as in any way positive for the housing market. But, to us, the notion that elevated house prices are the main source of poor affordability supports the idea that a normalization of the housing market will occur through a combination of marginally lower demand, a slower pace of house price appreciation, and a sustained pace of housing market construction. This implies that existing home sales may be weaker than housing construction over the coming year, but the latter will help to support the contribution to overall economic growth from housing-related activity. Housing Sector Relative Performance Despite the significant slowdown in real home improvement spending and the recent decline in the NAHB’s housing market index, Chart II-12 highlights that home improvement retail and homebuilding stocks have not exhibited significantly negative abnormal returns over the past year – as they did in 1994/1995 and in the lead up to the global financial crisis. The chart, which presents a rolling 1-year “Jensen’s alpha” measure for both industries, attempts to capture the risk-adjusted performance of the industry versus the S&P 500. While the chart shows that both industries have generated negative alpha over the past year, the magnitude does not appear to be consistent with a recession. In the case of homebuilder stocks in particular, negative abnormal returns over the past year should have been meaningfully worse given the year-over-year change in mortgage rates. Chart II-13 highlights that homebuilder performance has not been cushioned by a deep valuation discount in advance of the rise in mortgage rates. Chart II-12Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Chart II-13Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked   In short, the important takeaway for investors is that the relative performance of housing-related stocks is not yet consistent with a housing-led US recession. Mortgage Rates Are Not Restrictive, And Have Likely Peaked As we highlighted in Chart II-1, the two-year change in the US 30-year conventional mortgage rate will be the largest in history by the end of this year, save the Volcker era, if the mortgage rate remains at its current level. However, it is not just the change in interest rates that matters for economic activity, but rather also the level. Encouragingly, Chart II-14 highlights that the level of mortgage rates has not yet risen into restrictive territory relative to the economy’s underlying potential rate of growth. In addition, it appears that mortgage rates have overreacted to the expected pace of monetary tightening – and thus have likely peaked for this year. Two points support this view: First, panel 2 of Chart II-14 highlights that the 30-year mortgage rate is one standard deviation too high relative to the 10-year Treasury yield, underscoring that the former has overshot. And second, Chart II-15 highlights that the mortgage rate is still too high even after controlling for business cycle expectations, current coupon MBS yields, and bond & equity market volatility. Chart II-14Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Chart II-15No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched   Structural Factors Supporting Housing Construction Chart II-16The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Our analysis above points to a scenario in which the housing market slows in a nonrecessionary fashion, supported by relatively buoyant construction activity. Structural factors, which are mostly a legacy of the global financial crisis, are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US and other developed market economies. We presented Chart II-16 in our June 2021 Special Report, which shows the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies: the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1) and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or a flat trend (panel 2). The US, along with the euro area, the UK, and Japan, all belong to the first group, with commodity-producing and Scandinavian countries belonging to the second group. The point of the chart is that the US and most other major DM economies have seemingly experienced a chronic undersupply of homes in the wake of the global financial crisis, which should continue to support housing construction activity even if demand for housing is slowing because of a sharp increase in mortgage rates. Given that the trend in real residential investment to GDP is a somewhat crude metric of housing supply, Chart II-17 presents a more precise measure for the US. It shows the standardized trend in permanent site residential structures investment (both single- and multi-family) relative to both the US population and the number of households. The chart makes it clear that the US vastly overbuilt homes from the late-1990s to 2007, but also vastly underbuilt since 2008. Relative to the number of households, real permanent site residential structures investment is still half of a standard deviation below its long-term average – even after the surge in construction that occurred in 2020. Chart II-18 highlights a similar message: it shows that the US homeowner vacancy rate (the proportion of the housing stock that is vacant and for sale) was at a 66-year low at the end of the first quarter. Chart II-19 shows that the monthly supply of existing one-family homes on the market is also at a multi-decade low, but that the supply of new homes for sale spiked in April. Chart II-17More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses Chart II-18The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low     At first blush, this spike in the monthly supply of new homes relative to sales is quite concerning, as it has risen back to levels that prevailed in 2007. One point to note is that the increase in new home inventory relates to homes still under construction; the inventory of completed homes for sale remains quite low. In addition, from the perspective of a homebuilder, a rise in the monthly supply of new homes relative to home sales is only concerning if it translates into a significant increase in the amount of time to sell a completed home, as has historically been the case (Chart II-20). Chart II-19Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Chart II-20...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes   Chart II-20 highlights that a fairly significant divergence between these two series has emerged over the past decade. Despite roughly five-six months’ supply of new home inventory on average since 2012, the median number of months required to sell a new home rarely exceeded four. In early-2019 the monthly supply of new homes also spiked, and a relatively modest and nonrecessionary slowdown in housing starts was sufficient to prevent any meaningful rise in the amount of time required to sell a newly completed home. Notably, the models that we presented in Chart II-9 led the slowdown in total home sales and starts in late-2018/early-2019, and they are not pointing to a major contraction today. The key point for investors is that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. In fact, the opposite is true: despite a surge in construction during the pandemic, it remains below its historical average relative to the population and especially the number of households. This should act to limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and therefore reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Investment Implications We noted in our May report that the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set a recessionary tone to any weakness in US macroeconomic data, and that a recession scare was likely. Recent negative housing market data surprises underscore that a slowdown in the US housing market is clearly underway, and that this will likely feed recessionary concerns for a time. Investors should continue to be highly focused on the evolution of US macro data when making asset allocation decisions over the coming 6-12 months, as the current economic and financial market environment remains highly uncertain. This should include a strong focus on the housing market, as consumer surveys highlight that the overall impact of falling real wages and high house prices could cause a more pronounced slowdown in housing-related activity than we expect – and that the change and level of interest rates would imply. Nevertheless, our analysis of the historical predictors of housing construction and sales points to the conclusion that the ongoing housing market slowdown is not likely to be recessionary in nature. This, in conjunction with the factors that we noted in Section 1 of our report, support maintaining a modest overweight towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     This is aside from the contribution to growth from imports, which mechanically subtract from consumption and investment when calculating GDP.

Highlights The economic and financial market developments that have occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risks that we identified in our recent reports. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Still, several factors continue to suggest that this is indeed a scare, and not an actual recession. Section 2 of this month’s report reviews the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, we do not yet see signs that this slowdown is recessionary. It remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports in response to a seemingly imminent European embargo on Russian oil, and whether Russia will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy has failed to contain the disease, and it is now clear that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Our base case view is that additional fiscal & monetary support is forthcoming if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. Our profit margin warning indicators have deteriorated over the past month, and it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 margins is likely. Still, a major decline should be avoided, and we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year. We continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months, along with a neutral regional equity stance, a modestly overweight stance towards value over growth, an overweight stance towards small caps, a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, and short US dollar positions. Not Out Of The Woods Yet Chart I-1In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory May was a painful month for the equity market. Globally, stocks fell more than 4% in US$ terms, led by the US. May’s selloff pushed global stocks close to bear market territory relative to their early-January high (Chart I-1), a threshold that was breached in intra-day terms in the US last week. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. In our view, the economic and financial market developments that occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risk we identified in our recent reports. We continue to recommend that investors remain minimally overweight risky assets. Our view that investors should not be underweight risky assets hinges on three expectations: the avoidance of a US recession over the coming year, a continuation of Russian natural gas exports to key gas-reliant European countries, and the announcement from Chinese policymakers of either significant additional stimulus in its traditional form or income-support policies of the type that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Confirmation of these expectations is likely to push us to upgrade our recommended stance toward risky assets, especially if equities continue to sell off in response to growth fears. Conversely, we are likely to recommend downgrading risky assets to neutral or underweight if evidence mounts that our expectations are unlikely to materialize. A US Recession Scare Is Underway We noted in last month’s report that the US economy would likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but that a recession scare was quite likely. We emphasized a probable slowdown in the housing market as the locus of investors’ recessionary concern, and the US housing market data is indeed now surprising significantly to the downside (Chart I-2). We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Chart I-3 highlights that the composition of the US equity selloff since the beginning of the year has looked quite unlike the growth-driven selloffs that occurred over the past decade, in that real bond yields have been a strong driver of the decline in stocks. By contrast, May’s decline has looked more like a typical growth scare, with real bond yields somewhat cushioning the impact of a significant rise in the equity risk premium. Chart I-2The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing Chart I-3May’s Selloff Was Driven By Growth Fears, Not Rising Interest Rates   Chart I-4 highlights that it is not just the housing market that is worrying investors. The chart shows that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator (LEI) is slowing quite sharply, in line with previous episodes of a major growth scare. And while the weakest components of the LEI modestly improved on average in April, Chart I-5 highlights that the collapse in real wage growth alongside the recently severe underperformance of consumer stocks has fed concerns that high inflation has eroded household purchasing power – and that a contraction in real spending is imminent. Chart I-4A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway Chart I-5The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks     In Section 2 of this month’s report we provide further analysis supporting the view that the US housing market will not drive the US economy into recession. But we do continue to believe that a slowdown in housing activity is likely, and that concerns about a housing-driven recession will linger. Still, several factors continue to suggest that the US is experiencing a recession scare, and not an actual recession: The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is currently predicting US real GDP growth that is only modestly below trend in Q2, and the overall estimate continues to be dragged significantly lower by a sizably negative contribution from the change in inventories (Chart I-6). Without this negative inventories effect, the Atlanta Fed’s model would be forecasting real annualized growth of over 3%. After having decelerated significantly in the second half of last year because of a broadening in consumer price inflation, Chart I-7 highlights that real personal consumption expenditures reaccelerated and real personal income ex-transfers stabilized in Q1. Chart I-6No Sign Of A Major Decline In Q2 Consumer Spending Chart I-7Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating     US manufacturing industrial production surged in April, led by motor vehicle production (Chart I-8, panel 1). It is true that industrial production is a coincident indicator and thus does not necessarily argue against the idea that a recession is imminent. A pickup in vehicle production is encouraging, however, as it suggests that the 15% surge in the level of new car prices over the past year that contributed to the erosion in household real incomes may be set to reverse (panel 2). Chart I-8A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power Services spending is likely to improve, as deliveries of Pfizer’s Paxlovid antiviral drug continue to ramp up and vaccines are eventually approved for children under the age of six. Charts I-9A and I-9B highlight several real services spending categories that remain below their pre-pandemic levels, which in our view have been clearly linked to the pandemic and are not likely to be permanently lower. Americans have not likely stopped going to the gym, amusement parks, movies, live concerts, or the dentist, nor have their stopped needing to put elderly relatives in nursing care homes. They are also highly unlikely to stop traveling. There is some internal debate at BCA about the impact that working-from-home trends will have on the level of services spending, but we would note that essentially all of the spending categories shown in Charts I-9A and I-9B have exhibited uptrends that only appear to have been affected by consumer responses to the Delta and Omicron waves of the pandemic. Widely-available treatment options that reduce the fatality rate of the disease close to that of the flu are likely to be perceived by the public as an effective end of the pandemic, boosting spending on lagging categories of services spending. Chart I-9AAn Eventual End To The Pandemic… Chart I-9B…Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending     Based on high-frequency data from OpenTable, the number of seated diners in US restaurants is not exhibiting any major warning signs for US consumer spending (Chart I-10). Real spending in restaurants has been strongly correlated with overall real personal consumption expenditures over the past two decades, and thus Chart I-10 is not suggesting that a collapse in overall spending is imminent. Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending As a final point concerning the risk of recession in the US, investors should note that the recent behavior of inflation expectations is encouraging and points to a potentially imminent peak in Fed hawkishness. Over the past few months, we have expressed our concern about the pace of increase in long-dated household inflation expectations. We highlighted last month that long-term market-based inflation expectations were also exhibiting some potential signs of becoming unanchored. However, Chart I-11 highlights that the momentum of long-dated household inflation expectations is now starting to flag, and that long-term market-based inflation expectations recently decreased in response to escalating growth fears. Chart I-12 clearly shows a slowing pace of core consumer prices, which will act to restrain further significant increases in long-dated inflation expectations. Chart I-11Long-Dated Inflation Expectations Point To A Potentially Imminent Peak In Fed Hawkishness Chart I-12Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing     Chart I-13 highlights that investors expect the Fed to raise the policy rate by the end of the year to a level even higher than what Jerome Powell implied during the Fed’s May press conference: a target range for the Fed funds rate of 2.5-2.75%, corresponding to two more 50 basis point hikes and three 25 basis point hikes during the FOMC’s September, November, and December meetings. Chart I-13Expectations For Fed Rate Hikes This Year Are Likely To Come Down If Inflation Continues To Moderate It is likely that the market’s expectation for rate hikes this year will fall over the coming few months if the monthly pace of core inflation continues to slow. The Fed itself may soon signal a less intense pace of tightening than Powell recently implied – a perspective that we feel is supported by the minutes of the May FOMC meeting. That would allow the US economy to “digest” the recent adjustment in interest rates with less uncertainty about the economic outlook, which would lower the odds that a “mid-cycle slowdown” morphs into a full-blown recession. A Debilitating Energy-Driven Recession In Europe Is Not In The Cards, For Now The key issue pertaining to the European economic outlook remains the question of whether Europe’s imports of Russian natural gas will be interrupted. A European embargo of Russian oil now seems likely, which would likely cause Russian oil production to decline. Our Commodity & Energy strategy service now expects Brent oil to trade at $120/bbl on average for the remainder of the year, $5/bbl higher than current levels (Chart I-14). We agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s updated oil price forecast, but we have a different view about the odds that Russia will respond to a European oil embargo by cutting its natural gas exports to the EU. We still think this is a risk, not yet a likely event, although it may still occur later in the year. A full and immediate cutoff of natural gas exports to gas-dependent European countries such as Germany and Italy would not only destabilize the Russian economy by substantially reducing its current account surplus, it would also cause a severe recession in Europe through a combination of gas rationing to industries by government decree and surging energy prices (Chart I-15). Chart I-14A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl Chart I-15A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession   That could erode European voters’ willingness to provide military support for Ukraine, but it could instead backfire and galvanize European public opinion against Russia – and remove leverage that may be potentially used to secure a ceasefire agreement that will preserve its military gains in eastern Ukraine. Chart I-16Europe Is Replenishing Its Gas Storage, But It Cannot Yet Withstand A Full Cutoff Russia may respond to an oil embargo by throttling the amount of natural gas exported to key European countries in a fashion that raises natural gas prices and prevents European countries from building up sufficient storage for the upcoming winter – a process that is underway but is far from complete (Chart I-16). But it remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports, and whether it will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China: The Only Way Out Is Through Among the three pillars of the global economy – the US, China, and Europe – the last is arguably the least important. Today, the US and China are the core drivers of global demand, and we are therefore more concerned about the economic impact of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy than we are about a slowdown or mild recession in Europe. Given how contagious the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has shown itself to be, and given how widespread recent outbreaks have been, it is now clear that China’s zero-tolerance policy has failed to contain the disease and that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Despite public statements to the contrary, we suspect that Chinese policymakers are well aware of this situation, but are constrained by the consequences of removing the zero-tolerance policy. Recent studies suggest that China could face intensive care demand that is sixteen times existing capacity and upwards of 1.5 million deaths by removing the policy,1 roughly 1.5 times the cumulative amount of deaths that have occurred in the US during the pandemic. But the economic consequences of maintaining the zero-tolerance policy will also be severe, and therefore also likely represent a constraint on policymakers. Charts I-17 and I-18 show that China’s labor market and industrial sector have already slowed sharply over the past few months, at a pace and magnitude that is unlikely to be politically sustainable for much longer. In addition, Chart I-19 shows that China’s credit impulse fell meaningfully in April. Chart I-17China’s Labor Market Is Cratering… Chart I-18…As Is Its Manufacturing Sector       Chart I-19More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread This would be tolerable if the decline in activity was likely to be short-lived as it was at the very beginning of the pandemic, but we no longer see this as a probable outcome. We acknowledge that reported cases of COVID-19 have steadily declined in cities in the Yangtze River region, and we agree that the Shanghai lockdown may soon end for a time. But we doubt that this will mark the end of outbreaks in the region, or prevent major outbreaks from occurring in other parts of the country. If China cannot relax its zero-tolerance policy or tolerate the degree of economic weakness entailed by its continued application, then additional fiscal and monetary support is likely. While China’s leadership has stepped up its pro-growth policy measures, as evidenced by the recent cut in the 5-year loan prime rate, we strongly suspect that more support will be needed. This support may take the form of traditional stimulus via local government spending, or it may involve the introduction of income-support policies of the kind that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chart I-20The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies Chinese policymakers who are eager to prevent another significant releveraging of the economy and who want to avoid another major deterioration in housing affordability may perhaps be forgiven for seeing the developed economy experience with these programs as a poor roadmap to follow. House prices have exploded in most advanced economies during the pandemic, which has significantly contributed to a major decline in affordability. However, with the benefit of hindsight, Chinese policymakers would likely be able to recalibrate any income support program to avoid some of the excesses that occurred in DM countries, such as policies that caused aggregate disposable income to increase in the US and Canada during the pandemic. In addition, Chart I-20 highlights that the starting point for the Chinese property market is one in which house prices are seemingly poised to contract at the worst pace since late 2014 / early 2015. The latter suggests that Chinese policymakers have more ability to support household income without causing an explosion in house prices and speculative activity than DM policymakers did in 2020. Regardless of its form, it is the view of the Bank Credit Analyst service that China cannot avoid the provision of significant additional fiscal/monetary support if it maintains its zero-tolerance COVID policy for the remainder of the year given our assumption that potentially major outbreaks will continue. It is our base case view that additional support is forthcoming over the coming weeks and months if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. US Corporate Profits In A Nonrecessionary Slowdown Scenario Chart I-21US Forward Earnings Very Rarely Fall While The Economy Continues To Expand Chart I-3 highlighted that the US equity market selloff in May shifted from one that was strongly driven by rising real government bond yields to one in which a rising equity risk premium was the dominant driver. And yet, the chart showed that there has been no negative contribution to US stock prices from falling earnings expectations, with expected earnings having continued to rise since the beginning of the year. While it may seem counterintuitive to investors that forward earnings expectations are not falling in the middle of a major growth scare, Chart I-21 highlights that this is not abnormal. The chart highlights that forward earnings expectations rarely decline outside of the context of a recession, because actual earnings typically do not decline when the economy is expanding. This means that the potential for earnings to decline shows up as a rise in the equity risk premium during growth scares, which is what has generally occurred since the beginning of the year (excluding energy, forward EPS estimates have fallen slightly this year). In last month’s Section 2, we noted that nonrecessionary earnings declines almost always occur because of contractions in profit margins. We argued that risks to US equity margins might rise later this year. In fact, since we published our report last month, some of these risks have already materialized: our new profit margin warning indicator has jumped significantly (Chart I-22), and our sector profit margin diffusion index has fallen below the boom/bust line (Chart I-23). As such, it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 profit margins is likely over the coming year, which contrasts with analyst EPS growth expectations of 9.5% and sales per share growth expectations of 8% (meaning that analysts are currently forecasting a margin expansion). Chart I-22A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... Chart I-23...Now Looks Likely     Will a likely contraction in profit margins cause an outright decline in earnings over the coming year? Investors should acknowledge that this is a risk, but for now our answer is no. Chart I-24For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable Taken at face value, our sector diffusion index shown in Chart I-23 suggests that profit margins are set to decline by 2 percentage points over the coming year, which would indeed imply a 7-8% contraction in earnings per share assuming 8% revenue growth. However, the index is much better at predicting inflection points in profit margins than the magnitude of the change; in several cases over the past three decades the model correctly predicted a decline in profit margins, but implied a much larger change in margins than what actually occurred. In addition, our model shown in Chart I-22 has yet to cross above the 50% mark into probable territory, and Chart I-24 highlights that net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are falling but have not yet reached levels that would be consistent with a major margin decline. In sum, we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year given our expectation of a nonrecessionary slowdown scenario. This implies that US equity returns will be uninspiring over the coming year, but they will be likely be positive and will likely beat the returns offered from bonds. Investment Strategy Recommendations Considerable uncertainty remains about the global economic and financial market outlook, and there are several identifiable risks that would warrant an underweight stance towards risky assets were they to materialize. We agree that an aggressively overweight stance is not justified. Chart I-25Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline However, the fact that corporate profits do not usually fall while the economy is expanding underscores why investors should be reluctant to significantly cut their risky asset exposure unless a recession appears likely. Without a recession, the US equity risk premium is very likely to decline (Chart I-25), meaning that 10-year Treasury yields closer to 4% or a significant contraction in profit margins would be required for US stocks to post negative returns over the coming 6-12 months. We would not rule out either of these outcomes, but we also do not think that they are probable. To conclude, it is fair to say that global investors are not out of the woods yet, but we continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets on the basis that the US will avoid a recession over the coming year, Russia is not yet likely to push Europe into a debilitating recession, and China will further ease fiscal & monetary policy to support growth. In addition to a modest overweight towards stocks in a multi-asset portfolio, we continue to recommend the following: A neutral regional equity stance, with global ex-US equities on upgrade watch in response to an improvement in the European economic outlook and further fiscal & monetary support in China. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. As such, ex-US stocks have outperformed for the wrong reasons, and investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. A modestly overweight stance towards value over growth stocks on the basis of better valuation. However, most of the pandemic-related outperformance of growth stocks has already reversed (Chart I-26), suggesting that the outperformance of value is getting late. An overweight stance toward global small-cap stocks over their large-cap peers, as they are now unequivocally inexpensive and have remained resilient as global growth fears have intensified (Chart I-27). Chart I-26Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Chart I-27Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap   A modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Short US dollar positions, as the dollar is clearly benefiting from growth fears that will wane. In addition, the US dollar is very expensive, and extremely overbought. Concerning our recommended duration stance, we acknowledge that a slower pace of rate hikes than what investors currently expect and a slowing pace of inflation would normally argue for a long duration stance. But we do not expect the Fed to stop raising interest rates unless a recession seems likely, and a slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This, in turn, increases the odds that the Fed funds rate will peak at a higher level than investors currently expect, which should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. On balance, this suggests that investors should be modestly short duration, even if long-maturity bond yields move temporarily lower over the coming few months. Long-duration positions are perhaps reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon, but over a 6-12 month time horizon we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 26, 2022 Next Report: June 30, 2022 II.  Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession? The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused a sharp increase in US interest rates. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. In addition to a severe contraction in real home improvement spending, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. The growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, the breadth of house prices and building permits, consumer surveys, housing equity sector relative performance, and the fact that mortgage rates have likely peaked for the year point to a more optimistic outlook for housing. At a minimum, they do not yet suggest that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is recessionary. Structural factors are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. The opposite is true: the US and several other developed market economies have underbuilt homes over the past decade. This should limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Chart II-1The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused US interest rates to rise at an extremely rapid pace. Panel 1 of Chart II-1 highlights that the spread between the US 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield reached a 20-year high in early April of this year. Panel 2 shows that the two-year change in the 30-year mortgage rate will reach the highest level since the early 1980s by the end of this year if mortgage rates remain at their current level. Over the longer run, it is the level of interest rates that matters more than their change. However, changes in interest rates and other key financial market variables are also important drivers of economic activity, especially when they happen very rapidly. Given the speed of the recent adjustment in US interest rates, and the fact that the Fed funds rate will have likely reached the Fed’s neutral rate forecast by the end of this year, investors have understandably become concerned about the potential for a recession in the US. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. We conclude that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, several signs suggest that this slowdown is not recessionary. Investors should remain laser-focused on the pace of housing-related activity over the coming 6-12 months, but for now our assessment of the housing market is consistent with a modest overweight stance towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. A Brief Review Of The Housing Sector’s Contribution To Growth Table II-1 highlights the importance of the housing sector as a driver/predictor of US recessions. This table highlights that real residential investment is not a particularly important contributor to real GDP growth during nonrecessionary quarters, but it is the only main expenditure component exhibiting negative growth on average in the year prior to a recession.2 Table II-1Real Residential Investment Tends To Contract In The Year Prior To A Recession When examining the contribution to economic growth from the housing sector, investors and housing market analysts often fully equate real residential investment with housing construction. In fact, while direct construction of housing units accounts for a sizeable portion of the contribution to growth from housing, it is just one of four components. This is an important point, as one of the often-overlooked elements of real residential investment has strongly leading properties and is currently providing a very negative signal about the housing sector. Chart II-2 breaks down what we consider as aggregate real “housing-related activity”, and Chart II-3 presents the contributions to annualized quarterly growth in housing activity from the four components. For the sake of completeness, we include personal consumption expenditures on furnishings and household equipment as part of housing-related activity, alongside the two main components of real residential investment: permanent site construction (including single and multi-family properties), and “other structures.” In reality, “other structures” is not predominantly accounted for by the construction of different types of residential properties; it is almost entirely composed of spending on home improvements and brokerage commissions on the sale of existing residential properties. Chart II-2Housing Construction Is An Important Part Of Residential Investment, But There Are Other Contributing Factors Chart II-3Home Improvement Spending And Brokerage Commissions Also Drive Residential Investment     Aside from the link between existing home sales and the general demand for newly-built homes, the prominence of brokerage commissions in other residential structures investment helps explain why existing home sales are strongly correlated with real residential investment (Chart II-4, panel 1). Given that a distributed lag of monthly housing starts maps closely to permanent site construction (panel 2), starts and existing home sales explain a good portion of the contribution to growth from housing-related activity. Of the two remaining components of housing-related activity, Chart II-5 highlights that personal consumption expenditures on furniture and household equipment generally coincide with the pace of housing construction and new home sales. We take this to mean that the consumption component of housing-related activity is typically a derivative of the decision to build a new home or sell an existing one. Chart II-4Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Chart II-5The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying   What is not coincident with construction and existing home sales is residential home improvement: Panel 2 of Chart II-5 highlights that it has strongly leading properties, and is currently contracting at its worst rate since the 2008 recession. Data on real home improvement spending is only available quarterly from 2002, so the ability to compare the current situation to previous housing market cycles is limited. But the pace of contraction is worrying and underscores that investors should be on the lookout for corroborating signs of a major contraction in the housing market. Is The Housing Data Sending A Recessionary Signal? In addition to the severe contraction in real home improvement spending shown in Chart II-5, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. In particular, Chart II-6 highlights that both the growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, that housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and that the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, there are also several signs pointing to a more optimistic outlook for housing, or at least indicating that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is not recessionary. We review these more optimistic indicators below. The Breadth Of House Prices And Building Permits In sharp contrast to previous periods of serious housing market weakness and/or recessionary periods, there is no sign yet of a major slowdown in US house price appreciation including cities with the weakest gains. In fact, Chart II-7 highlights that house prices have recently been reaccelerating on a very broad basis after having slowed in the second half of last year, which hardly bodes poorly for new home construction. Chart II-6A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway Chart II-7No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices   It is true that US house price data is somewhat lagging, so it is quite likely that price weakness is forthcoming. However, there has been no sign of a major slowdown in prices through to March 2022, by which point 30-year mortgage rates had already risen 200 basis points from their 2021 low. More importantly, Chart II-8 highlights that a state-by-state diffusion index of authorized housing permits has done a very good job at leading the growth in permits nationwide, and is currently not pointing to a contraction in activity. Chart II-9 presents explanatory models for the growth in US housing starts and total home sales based on our state permits diffusion index, pending home sales, the change in mortgage rates, and housing affordability. The chart underscores that a contraction in housing activity is not what these variables would predict, even though starts and sales should be growing at a much more modest pace than what has prevailed on average over the past two years. Chart II-8Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Chart II-9Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome     Consumer Surveys The University of Michigan consumer survey shows that consumers feel it is the worst time to buy a home since the early-1980s (Chart II-10), which seems like a clearly negative sign for the housing market and an indication of the likely impact of tighter policy on housing-related activity. And yet, panel 2 highlights that this is the result of the fact that house prices in the US have surged during the pandemic, not that mortgage rates have risen too high. It is true that the number of survey respondents citing “interest rates are too high” is rising sharply, but this factor as a share of all “bad time to buy” reasons given is not meaningfully higher than it was in 2018, 2011, or 2006. It is clear that high prices are also the culprit for why consumers report that it is a bad time to buy large household durables and not that large household durables are unaffordable or that interest rates are too high (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Chart II-11Same Story For Large Household Durables   It may seem counterintuitive for investors to see Charts II-10 and II-11 as in any way positive for the housing market. But, to us, the notion that elevated house prices are the main source of poor affordability supports the idea that a normalization of the housing market will occur through a combination of marginally lower demand, a slower pace of house price appreciation, and a sustained pace of housing market construction. This implies that existing home sales may be weaker than housing construction over the coming year, but the latter will help to support the contribution to overall economic growth from housing-related activity. Housing Sector Relative Performance Despite the significant slowdown in real home improvement spending and the recent decline in the NAHB’s housing market index, Chart II-12 highlights that home improvement retail and homebuilding stocks have not exhibited significantly negative abnormal returns over the past year – as they did in 1994/1995 and in the lead up to the global financial crisis. The chart, which presents a rolling 1-year “Jensen’s alpha” measure for both industries, attempts to capture the risk-adjusted performance of the industry versus the S&P 500. While the chart shows that both industries have generated negative alpha over the past year, the magnitude does not appear to be consistent with a recession. In the case of homebuilder stocks in particular, negative abnormal returns over the past year should have been meaningfully worse given the year-over-year change in mortgage rates. Chart II-13 highlights that homebuilder performance has not been cushioned by a deep valuation discount in advance of the rise in mortgage rates. Chart II-12Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Chart II-13Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked   In short, the important takeaway for investors is that the relative performance of housing-related stocks is not yet consistent with a housing-led US recession. Mortgage Rates Are Not Restrictive, And Have Likely Peaked As we highlighted in Chart II-1, the two-year change in the US 30-year conventional mortgage rate will be the largest in history by the end of this year, save the Volcker era, if the mortgage rate remains at its current level. However, it is not just the change in interest rates that matters for economic activity, but rather also the level. Encouragingly, Chart II-14 highlights that the level of mortgage rates has not yet risen into restrictive territory relative to the economy’s underlying potential rate of growth. In addition, it appears that mortgage rates have overreacted to the expected pace of monetary tightening – and thus have likely peaked for this year. Two points support this view: First, panel 2 of Chart II-14 highlights that the 30-year mortgage rate is one standard deviation too high relative to the 10-year Treasury yield, underscoring that the former has overshot. And second, Chart II-15 highlights that the mortgage rate is still too high even after controlling for business cycle expectations, current coupon MBS yields, and bond & equity market volatility. Chart II-14Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Chart II-15No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched   Structural Factors Supporting Housing Construction Chart II-16The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Our analysis above points to a scenario in which the housing market slows in a nonrecessionary fashion, supported by relatively buoyant construction activity. Structural factors, which are mostly a legacy of the global financial crisis, are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US and other developed market economies. We presented Chart II-16 in our June 2021 Special Report, which shows the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies: the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1) and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or a flat trend (panel 2). The US, along with the euro area, the UK, and Japan, all belong to the first group, with commodity-producing and Scandinavian countries belonging to the second group. The point of the chart is that the US and most other major DM economies have seemingly experienced a chronic undersupply of homes in the wake of the global financial crisis, which should continue to support housing construction activity even if demand for housing is slowing because of a sharp increase in mortgage rates. Given that the trend in real residential investment to GDP is a somewhat crude metric of housing supply, Chart II-17 presents a more precise measure for the US. It shows the standardized trend in permanent site residential structures investment (both single- and multi-family) relative to both the US population and the number of households. The chart makes it clear that the US vastly overbuilt homes from the late-1990s to 2007, but also vastly underbuilt since 2008. Relative to the number of households, real permanent site residential structures investment is still half of a standard deviation below its long-term average – even after the surge in construction that occurred in 2020. Chart II-18 highlights a similar message: it shows that the US homeowner vacancy rate (the proportion of the housing stock that is vacant and for sale) was at a 66-year low at the end of the first quarter. Chart II-19 shows that the monthly supply of existing one-family homes on the market is also at a multi-decade low, but that the supply of new homes for sale spiked in April. Chart II-17More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses Chart II-18The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low     At first blush, this spike in the monthly supply of new homes relative to sales is quite concerning, as it has risen back to levels that prevailed in 2007. One point to note is that the increase in new home inventory relates to homes still under construction; the inventory of completed homes for sale remains quite low. In addition, from the perspective of a homebuilder, a rise in the monthly supply of new homes relative to home sales is only concerning if it translates into a significant increase in the amount of time to sell a completed home, as has historically been the case (Chart II-20). Chart II-19Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Chart II-20...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes   Chart II-20 highlights that a fairly significant divergence between these two series has emerged over the past decade. Despite roughly five-six months’ supply of new home inventory on average since 2012, the median number of months required to sell a new home rarely exceeded four. In early-2019 the monthly supply of new homes also spiked, and a relatively modest and nonrecessionary slowdown in housing starts was sufficient to prevent any meaningful rise in the amount of time required to sell a newly completed home. Notably, the models that we presented in Chart II-9 led the slowdown in total home sales and starts in late-2018/early-2019, and they are not pointing to a major contraction today. The key point for investors is that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. In fact, the opposite is true: despite a surge in construction during the pandemic, it remains below its historical average relative to the population and especially the number of households. This should act to limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and therefore reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Investment Implications We noted in our May report that the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set a recessionary tone to any weakness in US macroeconomic data, and that a recession scare was likely. Recent negative housing market data surprises underscore that a slowdown in the US housing market is clearly underway, and that this will likely feed recessionary concerns for a time. Investors should continue to be highly focused on the evolution of US macro data when making asset allocation decisions over the coming 6-12 months, as the current economic and financial market environment remains highly uncertain. This should include a strong focus on the housing market, as consumer surveys highlight that the overall impact of falling real wages and high house prices could cause a more pronounced slowdown in housing-related activity than we expect – and that the change and level of interest rates would imply. Nevertheless, our analysis of the historical predictors of housing construction and sales points to the conclusion that the ongoing housing market slowdown is not likely to be recessionary in nature. This, in conjunction with the factors that we noted in Section 1 of our report, support maintaining a modest overweight towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators generally paint a pessimistic picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is at its weakest level in almost three decades, and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still expensive. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have broken down, and have not yet reached levels that would indicate an imminent reversal. Investors should be, at most, very modestly overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Equity earnings will likely rise over the coming year if the US economy avoids a recession (as we expect), but analysts are pricing in too much growth over the coming year. A contraction in profit margins is now likely, signaling that earnings will grow at a low single-digit pace. Net earnings revisions are falling, but are not yet signaling a large enough decline in margins that would cause earnings to contract even in the face of positive revenue growth. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral regional equity allocation. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. Investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. Within a fixed-income portfolio, long-duration positions are reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon given that 10-year Treasurys are significantly oversold. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. A slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. Our composite technical indicator for commodity prices continues to highlight that commodities are overbought. Still, the geopolitical situation continues to favor higher energy prices, as a seemingly imminent European oil embargo against Russia will likely lower Russian oil production.  Additional fiscal & monetary support in China is likely to cause a renewed rally in industrial metals, although they may fall in the nearer-term as COVID-19 cases continue to spread across China. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals prices given that Russia’s aggression has sped up Europe’s decarbonization timeline. US and global LEIs remain in positive territory but have now rolled over significantly from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index is now rising, which may herald a stabilization in our global LEI. Manufacturing PMIs are falling in the US and globally, but have not yet fallen below the boom/bust line and are far from levels normally consistent with a recession. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators     Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Cai, J. . et al., Modeling Transmission Of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in China, Nature Medicine. May 10, 2022. 2     This is aside from the contribution to growth from imports, which mechanically subtract from consumption and investment when calculating GDP.

Special Report

Executive Summary Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Complementing the US Political Strategy Quantitative Presidential And Senate Election Models, we introduce our Quantitative House Of Representatives Election Model. Our House election model measures the expected change in seats that will be won or lost by the incumbent party (Democratic Party) in the midterm election. The model predicts that Democrats will lose 21 seats, giving up control of the House and resulting in political gridlock from 2023 to 2025 even if the Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting is effectively over. In a last ditch effort, Democrats will look to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Post-midterm, financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that should warrant investors taking a defensive position. ​​​ Asset Initiation Date Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 2022-02-23 6.1% Bottom Line: Stay tactically defensive until US election risk subsides and global macro risks stabilize.     The 2020 US election was hotly contested and future elections, like the upcoming 2022 midterm election, will be closely watched by investors. BCA’s US Political Strategy has introduced two quantitative models over the past year that aim to predict both the Presidential election in 2024 and the Senate election in 2022.  In this report we introduce our House election model, so that we now provide readers with a quantitative model-based estimate for all three major US elections. With the 2022 midterms scheduled for November 8, our House model provides valuable insight into control of Congress in 2023-24. In the 2020 election the Democrats held onto the House while winning the Senate and the White House – the so-called “Blue Sweep.” But the Democrats lost 13 House seats while the GOP gained 14, leaving a mere five-seat margin for President Biden today (221 versus 208 seats today, with six vacancies). In 2022, markets expect Republicans to take control of the House and Senate given the well-established pattern that the president’s party performs badly in midterm elections.1 Our House model agrees, and points to the Democrats losing 21 seats later this year. The Model And Variables Our House model uses a simpler modelling approach than our Presidential and Senate models. Unlike those two models, we do not predict any state level outcomes, nor do we assign a probability to any predictions. For starters, House elections do not occur at the state level but rather at the level of congressional districts. Secondly, we are primarily interested in the overall control of the House rather than individual elections. Therefore our model predicts the number of seats the incumbent party will lose or gain (seat swing), and hence its control of the House.  Our model is based off a simple linear regression. Uniquely, in our suite of three models, our House model does not include any economic variables. Rather, the model is based off three independent political variables that explain our dependent variable. Due to data constraints on one of our independent variables, our sample size is limited to 20 observable House elections, from 1982-2020. Our model is defined as: Change In House Seatsi= β0+β1Var1i+β2Var2i+β3Var3i+εi Change In House Seats. This is the dependent variable in the model and what we aim to predict. A negative change means the incumbent party will lose seats while a positive change means the incumbent party will win seats. Congressional approval (Var1). This variable measures the public’s approval rating on “how congress is doing its job.” We take the average net approval rating (approval less disapproval) in an election year. A positive net rating supports the incumbent party in gaining seats while a negative rating does the opposite.  Generic congressional ballot (Var2). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress in a given election. We take the average net support rate in an election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). The larger the president’s party’s deficit on the generic ballot rate, the more House seats it tends to lose. Defending House seats (Var3). The last independent variable is inspired by work from Sabato’s Crystal Ball.2 This measures the number of House seats defended by the incumbent president’s party in an election year. The more seats to defend, the more seats tend to be lost. One variable we omitted is presidential approval. Readers might find this surprising as presidential job approval ratings have tended to correlate reasonably well with House seats gained and lost in midterm elections. Our reason for excluding this variable is that three explanatory variables explain a high degree of variation in the dependent variable. Combined, our three variables explain more than 80% of the variation in the dependent variable. This is more than satisfactory from a statistical standpoint and keeps the model simplistic in nature. Democrats To Lose The House As it stands, our election model predicts that Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022 (Table 1). The Democrats are predicted to lose 21 seats. This prediction is based off current values of our independent variables as calculated and shown below. For the number of defending House seats, we allocate two of three vacant seats to the Democrats to defend.3 This adds up to 224 seats. Table 1Quant Model Predicts A Democrat Loss For this report, we are only concerned with election outcomes pertaining to midterm elections. In this regard, our model’s prediction is in line with historical outcomes for the president’s party (Chart 1). That is, the president’s party almost always loses House seats in a midterm election. While our model does not provide any probability measure for the predicted outcome, it is in line with market expectations that Democrats will lose the House later in the year. Currently, market implied odds for the Democrats to retain the House are just 16%, as opposed to 87% for Republicans to gain control (Chart 2). Most other private forecasts for the House also point to Democrats losing control.4  Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Chart 2Republicans Overwhelmingly Favored To Take The House Back Testing Our Model Chart 3In-Sample Back Testing Results Our House model performs well during in-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1982-2020) but show results for midterm election outcomes only. Our model correctly predicted the direction of seat change (positive or negative) for 80% of outcomes, missing the direction of seat swing for just the 1998 and 2002 midterm elections (Chart 3). The latter two elections are the only two in the post-WWII period in which the president’s party gained seats and this was due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. the Dotcom Bubble and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). During this same test, when our model correctly predicted the directional change in seat swing, it only over-predicted the change once (in 1986), highlighting a more conservative forecast over time. In 2022, given the stagflationary economic backdrop and President Biden’s weak approval rating, the voting public may very well punish the Democrats harder in November than our model expects. Chart 4Out-Sample Back Testing Results During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2002-2018, comprising of just five midterm elections. Our model correctly predicts the direction of seat swing in 80% of the midterm elections, just like our in-sample testing showed (Chart 4). 2002 is again a standout election where our model incorrectly predicted the direction of seat swing. Closing In On Election Day The midterm election is approximately five months away. Our Senate model predicts the Democrats will lose control of the Senate. Our House model suggests Democrats will lose the lower chamber too. This view is in line with the consensus across markets, forecasters, and historical outcomes. Given the poor showing by Democrats in the 2020 House election, this House prediction will be hard to change. The Senate race could still see some surprises, such as via the Supreme Court. But all in all the “Blue Sweep” of 2020 is already over. The headwinds against the president’s party have gained even more momentum in the context of high inflation, falling consumer confidence, and low real wages. These factors were not measured in our model, but they do form a basis for voting intentions in elections. Coupled with President Biden’s low approval ratings, in general and in specific policy areas like the economy, the Democratic party will need to pull off  a political “Hail Mary” to retain the Senate, let alone the House, later this year. Investment Takeaways President Biden and the Democrats may look to the 1934, 1962, 1998, and 2002 elections for proof that the ruling party can perform well in the midterms. But 1998 was a period of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity, while 2002 came in the wake of a historic attack on the homeland. The 1934 election reinforced a crisis-era government and as such could serve as a model for Biden, but today’s situation is not as dire as the Great Depression. The 1962 analogy is perhaps the best, since Biden, like President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, could conceivably benefit from an escalating showdown with Russia this fall. But Kennedy’s Democrats still lost a net of four seats in the House that year – and Kennedy’s approval rating was above 60% while Biden’s is barely 40%. COVID-19 was an unprecedented shock that continues to play out across the economic and political environment in the US. But while the Republicans suffered from the pandemic itself, the Democrats now own the stagflationary aftermath. Democratic enthusiasm should revive a bit from now until the election, but it would take a massive shock to reverse the general trend. There is a strong correlation between opinion polling in the beginning of the year and the midterm election results. Facing a shellacking, Democrats will make one last-ditch effort to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Given the energy crisis in Europe, there is potential for Biden’s renewable energy subsidies to be repackaged into a general “energy security” bill that drops the former hostility to fossil fuels. This could be matched with limited tax changes, including the 15% minimum corporate tax rate that Biden negotiated with other countries. Otherwise US fiscal policy will virtually freeze even if the Senate stays in Democratic hands. Taxes will no longer be able to rise from 2023 but spending will not be subject to cuts. Heading into 2024, gridlock will be reinforced by our presidential quant election model’s slightly higher odds of Democrats retaining the White House, which we think are underestimated at present. Hence Biden is lined up to retain veto power even if Democrats squander the House and Senate in 2022, as long as his administration avoids a recession. Financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that will keep us on the sidelines. Global growth is wobbly. Global supply chains remain constrained, affecting growth outcomes and adding to elevated price levels. China’s zero-covid policy and the absence of a credible plan for US-China tariff reduction and economic re-engagement continue to weigh on sentiment. Fed rate hikes are still generating uncertainty. The Middle East is unstable and likely to bring additional energy supply disruptions. Lastly, the Russia-Ukraine war has yet to come to a ceasefire and Russia is likely to reduce energy supplies to Europe in retaliation for Germany’s energy ban and NATO enlargement. With this backdrop in mind, we remain tactically defensive. We see the potential for improvement after the US election brings a reduction in policy uncertainty – as long as geopolitical risks and inflation also stabilize.   Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious to read through our model’s estimated regression coefficients as well as conditional forecasts given certain levels of our independent variables. These are discussed herein: Regression Coefficients As mentioned earlier, our model is estimated exclusively by political variables. The beta coefficients for the three explanatory variables are shown below alongside their t-statistics and p-values. All three of these variables tested statistically significant at 5% and 10% levels. The regression’s R-squared value is 0.8183, meaning that the explanatory variables help explain 81.83% of the variation in the dependent variable (Table A1). Clients can recreate the model’s prediction by multiplying the current level of each variable as it stands today by that variable’s respective beta coefficient and adding the constant at the end of the equation. Be sure to follow the methodology explained earlier in the text if such an exercise is of interest. Also, conditional forecasts can be created by holding certain parameters constant should clients want to better understand what differing levels of the three explanatory variables may imply for the change in House seats. Table A1Regression Coefficients Conditional Forecasts We will create simple conditional forecasts for two explanatory variables. Let’s start with the net congressional approval variable. Forecasts will be generated with data intervals calculated over the course of President Biden’s first term in office so far. The lowest net congressional approval rating was -67 ppt and the highest was -25 ppt. We will use 10 ppt intervals between -20 ppt an -70 ppt. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Table A2Conditional Forecasts In Table A2, we hold our other explanatory variables constant at their prevailing levels while we assume differing levels for the net congressional approval variable. We will apply this method to conditional forecasts using the net generic congressional ballot. Table A2 shows us that a more negative net congressional approval rate suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Of course, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat (only whole seats), but this conditional forecast illustrates the point of the variable’s impact on the overall outcome. Table A3Conditional Forecasts Changing to the net generic congressional ballot, our conditional forecast for values ranging from -2 ppt to + 5 ppt are shown in Table A3. This range shows the high and low of the net generic congressional ballot through President Biden’s first term in office. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Like before, the results in Table A3 shows us that a more negative net generic congressional ballot suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Again, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat. But the results in Table A3 show that changes in House seats are more sensitive to changes in the net generic congressional ballot variable compared to the net congressional approval variable. This is due to two reasons: The net generic congressional ballot variable is a strong predictor of House election outcomes. It’s larger beta value indicates it’s high degree of sensitivity for the dependent variable, implying that it is the most important variable in our model, and that changes to it have the largest impact on the modelled outcome, that is predicted changes in House seats.   Footnotes 1     See The American Presidency Project. "Seats in Congress Gained/Lost by the President's Party in Mid-Term Elections," October 29, 2018. presidency.ucsb.edu 2     See Kyle Kondik, “The Kinds of Seats that Flip in Midterms,” Sabato’s Crystal Ball, May 11, 2022, UVA Center For Politics, centerforpolitics.org. 3    For our 2022 prediction, we allocate vacant House seats evenly between Democrats and Republicans. For example, if there are six vacant seats, each party will be allocated three seats to defend on top of the House seats that they already occupy. If there are an odd number of vacant seats, for example three, each party will receive one seat added to their count, then the incumbent party will receive the remaining seat. 4    See fivethirtyeight.com, 270towin.com and racetowh.com, among others. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment​​​​​​​ Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets​​​​​​​