Currencies

Listen to a short summary of this report     Executive Summary On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall without much loss in production or employment. Skeptics will argue that such benign disinflations rarely occur, pointing to the 1982 recession. But long-term inflation expectations were close to 10% back then. Today, they are broadly in line with the Fed’s target. Equities will recover from their recent correction as headline inflation continues to fall and the risks of a US recession diminish. Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted Bottom Line: The US economy is entering a temporary Goldilocks period of falling inflation and stronger growth. The latest correction in stocks will end soon. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter.   Dear Client, I will be attending BCA’s annual conference in New York City next week. Instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Mathieu Savary, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, and Robert Robis, BCA’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist, on Monday, September 12. Their report will discuss estimates of global neutral interest rates. We will resume our regular publication schedule on September 16. Best Regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist The Hawks Descend On Jackson Hole Chart 1Markets Still Think The Fed Will Start Cutting Rates Next Year Jay Powell’s Jackson Hole address jolted the stock market last week. Citing the historical danger of allowing inflation to remain above target for too long, the Fed chair stressed the need for “maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time.” Powell’s comments were consistent with the Fed’s dot plot, which expects rates to remain above 3% right through to the end of 2024. However, with the markets pricing in rate cuts starting in mid 2023, his remarks came across as decidedly hawkish (Chart 1). While Fedspeak can clearly influence markets in the near term, our view is that the economy calls the shots over the medium-to-long term. The Fed sees the same data as everyone else. If inflation comes down rapidly over the coming months, the FOMC will ratchet down its hawkish rhetoric, opting instead for a wait-and-see approach. The Slope of Hope Could inflation fall quickly in the absence of a deep recession? The answer depends on a seemingly esoteric concept: the slope of the aggregate supply curve. Economists tend to depict the aggregate supply curve as being convex in nature – fairly flat (or “elastic”) when there is significant spare capacity and becoming increasingly steep (or “inelastic”) as spare capacity is exhausted (Chart 2). The basic idea is that firms do not require substantially higher prices to produce more output when they have a lot of spare capacity, but do require increasingly high prices to produce more output when spare capacity is low. Chart 2The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted When the aggregate supply curve is very elastic, an increase in aggregate demand will mainly lead to higher output rather than higher prices. In contrast, when the aggregate supply curve is inelastic, rising demand will primarily translate into higher prices rather than increased output. In early 2020, most of the developed world found itself on the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. The unemployment rate in the OECD stood at 5.3%, the lowest in 40 years (Chart 3). In the US, the unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low of 3.5%. Thus, not surprisingly, as fiscal and monetary policy turned simulative, inflation moved materially higher. Goods inflation, in particular, accelerated during the pandemic (Chart 4). Perhaps most notably, the exodus of people to the suburbs, combined with the reluctance to use mass transit, led to a surge in both new and used car prices (Chart 5). The upward pressure on auto prices was exacerbated by a shortage of semiconductors, itself a consequence of the spike in the demand for electronic goods. Chart 3The Pandemic Began When The Unemployment Rate In The OECD Was At A Multi-Decade Low Chart 4With Supply Unable To Meet Demand, Goods Prices Surged During The Pandemic The supply curve for labor also became increasingly inelastic over the course of the pandemic. Once the US unemployment rate fell back below 4%, wages began to accelerate sharply. The kink in the Phillips curve had been reached (Chart 6). Chart 5Car Prices Went On Quite A Ride During The Pandemic Chart 6Wage Growth Soared When The Economy Moved Beyond Full Employment Chart 7Job Switchers Usually See Faster Wage Growth Faster labor market churn further turbocharged wage growth. Both the quits rate and the hiring rate rose during the pandemic. Typically, workers who switch jobs experience faster wage growth than those who do not (Chart 7). This wage premium for job switching increased during the pandemic, helping to lift overall wage growth. A Symmetric Relationship? All this raises a critical question: If an increase in aggregate demand along the inelastic side of the aggregate supply curve mainly leads to higher prices rather than increased output and employment, is the inverse also true – that is, would a comparable decrease in aggregate demand simply lead to much lower inflation without much of a loss in output or employment? If so, this would greatly increase the odds of a soft landing. Skeptics would argue that disinflations are rarely painless. They would point to the 1982 recession which, until the housing bubble burst, was the deepest recession in the post-war era. The problem with that comparison is that long-term inflation expectations were extremely high in the early 1980s. Both consumers and professional forecasters expected inflation to average nearly 10% over the remainder of the decade (Chart 8). To bring down long-term inflation expectations, Paul Volcker had to engineer a deep recession. Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Much Better Anchored Now Than In The Early 1980s Chart 9Real Long Terms Bond Yields Are Currently A Fraction Of What They Were Four Decades Ago Jay Powell does not face such a problem. Both survey-based and market-based long-term inflation expectations are well anchored. Whereas real long-term bond yields reached 8% in 1982, the 30-year TIPS yield today is still less than 1% (Chart 9). The Impact of Lower Home Prices Chart 10Supply-Side Constraints Limited Home Building During The Pandemic, Helping To Push Up Home Prices While falling consumer prices would boost real incomes, helping to keep the economy out of recession, a drop in home prices would have the opposite effect on consumer spending. As occurred with other durable goods, a shortage of building materials and qualified workers prevented US homebuilders from constructing as many new homes as they would have liked during the pandemic. The producer price index for construction materials soared by over 50% between May 2020 and May 2022 (Chart 10). As a result, rising demand for homes largely translated into higher home prices rather than increased homebuilding.  Real home prices, as measured by the Case-Shiller index, have increased by 25% since February 2020, rising above their housing bubble peak. As we discussed last week, US home prices will almost certainly fall in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well over the coming years. Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Have Not Been Using Their Homes As ATMs How much of a toll will falling home prices have on the economy? It took six years for home prices to bottom following the bursting of the housing bubble. It will probably take even longer this time around, given that the homeowner vacancy rate is at a record low and reasonably prudent mortgage lending standards will limit foreclosure sales. Thus, while there will be a negative wealth effect from falling home prices, it probably will not become pronounced until 2024 or so. Moreover, unlike during the housing boom, US households have not been tapping the equity in their homes to finance consumption (Chart 11). This also suggests that the impact of falling home prices on consumption will be far smaller than during the Great Recession. Inelastic Commodity Supply While inelastic supply curves had the redeeming feature of preventing a glut of, say, new autos or homes from emerging, they also limited the output of many commodities that face structural shortages. Compounding this problem is the fact that the demand for many commodities is very inelastic in the short run. When you combine a very steep supply curve with a very steep demand curve, small shifts in either curve can produce wild swings in prices.  Nowhere is this problem more evident than in Europe, where a rapid reduction in oil and gas flows has caused energy prices to soar, forcing policymakers to scramble to find new sources of supply.  Europe’s Energy Squeeze At this point, it looks like both the UK and the euro area will enter a recession. In continental Europe, the near-term outlook is grimmer in Germany and Italy than it is in France or Spain. The latter two countries are less vulnerable to an energy crunch (Spain imports a lot of LNG while France has access to nuclear energy). Both countries also have fairly resilient service sectors (Spain, in particular, is benefiting from a boom in tourism). The good news is that even in the most troubled European economies, the bottom for growth is probably closer at hand than widely feared. Despite the fact that imports of Russian gas have fallen by more than 60%, Europe has been able to rebuild gas inventories to about 80% of capacity, roughly in line with prior years (Chart 12). It has been able to achieve this feat by aggressively buying gas on the open market, no matter the price. While this has caused gas prices to soar, it sets the stage for a possible retreat in prices in 2023, something that the futures market is already discounting (Chart 13). Chart 12Europe: Squirrelling Away Gas For The Winter Chart 13Natural Gas Prices In Europe Will Come Back Down To Earth Europe is also moving with uncharacteristic haste to secure new sources of energy supply. In less than one year, Europe has become America’s biggest overseas market for LNG. A new gas pipeline linking Spain with the rest of Europe should be operational by next spring. In the meantime, Germany is building two “floating” LNG terminals. Germany has also postponed plans to mothball its nuclear power plants and has approved increased use of coal-fired electricity generators. Chart 14The Euro Is Undervalued France is seeking to boost nuclear capacity. As of August 29, 57% of nuclear generation capacity was offline. Electricité de France expects daily production to rise to around 50 gigawatts (GW) by December from around 27 GW at present. For its part, the Dutch government is likely to raise output from the massive Groningen natural gas field. All this suggests that contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The euro, which is 30% undervalued against the US dollar on a purchasing power parity basis, will rally (Chart 14). Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Investment Conclusions Chart 15Falling Inflation Should Boost Real Wages And Buoy Consumer Confidence On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall with little loss in production or employment. Will this be the end of the story? Probably not. As inflation falls, US real wage growth, which is currently negative, will turn positive. Consumer confidence will improve, boosting consumer spending in the process (Chart 15). The aggregate demand curve will shift outwards again, triggering a “second wave” of inflation in the back half of 2023. Rather than cutting rates next year, as the market still expects, the Fed will raise rates to 5%. This will set the stage for a recession in 2024. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on            LinkedIn & Twitter   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores      

Next week, on September 7-8, is the BCA New York Conference, the first in-person version since 2019. I look forward to seeing many of you there, and if you haven’t already booked your place, you still can! (a virtual version is also available). As such, the next Counterpoint report will come out on September 15. Executive Summary The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well. If it continues to hold, these are the major investment implications: Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential correction that lifts the yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals. Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023. Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85, though our central case is $55 in 2023.  If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Bottom Line: The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well, and should continue to do so. Feature History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets is 1981-82, a rhyming which we first highlighted four months ago in Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, and then developed in More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead. In those reports, we presented three compelling reasons why 2022-23 rhymes with 1981-82: 1981-82 is the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets. First, the simultaneous sell-off in stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold in the second quarter of 2022 is uniquely linked with an identical ‘everything sell-off’ in the second quarter of 1981. It is extremely rare for stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold to sell off together. Such a simultaneous sell-off has happened in just these 2 calendar quarters out of the last 200. Meaning a ‘1-in-a-100’ event conjoins 2022 with 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... Chart I-2...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 Second, the Jay Powell Fed equals the Paul Volcker Fed. Now just as then, the world’s central banks are obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation. And now, just as then, the central banks are desperate to repair their badly battered credibility in managing inflation. Third, the Russia/Ukraine war that started in February 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war that started in September 1980. Now, just as then, a war between two commodity producing neighbours has unleashed a supply shock which is adding to the inflation paranoia. To repeat, it is a 1-in-a-100 event for all financial assets to sell off together. This is because it requires an extremely rare star alignment. Inflation fears first morph to stagflation fears and then to recession fears. Leaving investors with nowhere to hide, as no mainstream asset performs well in inflation, stagflation, and recession. So, the once-in-a-generation star alignment conjoining 2022 with 1981 is as follows: Inflation paranoia is worsened by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, forcing reputationally damaged central banks to become trigger-happy in their battle against inflation, dragging the world economy into a coordinated recession. September 2022 Equals August 1981 If 2022-23 = 1981-82, then where exactly are we in the analogous episode? There are two potential synchronization points. One potential synchronization is that the Russia/Ukraine war which started on February 24, 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war which started on September 22, 1980. In which case, September 2022 equals April 1981. But given that inflation is public enemy number one, a better synchronization is the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the US core PCE deflator. Aligning the respective peaks in core PCE inflation, we can say that February 2022 equals January 1981. Meaning that our original report in May 2022 aligned with April 1981, and September 2022 equals August 1981 (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##February 2022 Chart I-4...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##January 1981 In which case, how has the template worked since we introduced it on May 19th? The answer is, very well. The template predicted that the long bond price would track sideways, which it has. The template predicted that the S&P 500 would decline from 4200 to 4000, which it has. The template predicted that the copper price would decline from $9250/MT to $8500/MT. In fact, it has fallen even further to $8200/MT. In the case of oil, the better synchronization is the starts of the respective wars. This template predicted that the Brent crude price would decline sharply from a knee-jerk peak in the $120s, which it has. Not a bad set of predictions! If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Here’s What Happens Next Assuming the template continues to hold, here are the major implications for investors: Bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023. Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential tactical correction that takes its yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023 in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500 in the coming months. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85 (Chart I-9) though our central case is $55 in 2023.  Chart I-9If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price But What If 2022-23 Doesn’t = 1981-82? And yet, and yet…what if the Jay Powell Fed doesn’t equal the Paul Volcker Fed? What if central banks lose their nerve before inflation is slayed? Long bond yields could gap much higher, or at least not come down, causing a completely different set of investment outcomes. In this case, the correct template would not be 1981-82, but the 1970s. If central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. However, there is one huge difference between now and the 1970s, which makes that template highly unlikely. In the 1970s, the global real estate market was worth just one times world GDP, whereas today it has become a monster worth four times world GDP, and whose value is highly sensitive to the long bond yield. In the US, the mortgage rate has surged to well above the rental yield for the first time in 15 years. Simply put, it is now more expensive to buy than to rent a home, causing a disappearance of would be homebuyers, a flood of home-sellers, and an incipient reversal in home prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash Hence, if long bond yields were to gap much higher, or even stay where they are, it would trigger a housing market crash whose massive deflationary impulse would swamp any inflationary impulse. The upshot is that the 2022-23 = 1981-82 template would suffer a hiatus. Ultimately though, it would come good, because a crash in the $400 trillion global housing market would obliterate inflation. In other words, if central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, copper’s tactical rebound is approaching exhaustion. This is confirmed by the 130-day fractal structure of copper versus tin reaching the point of extreme fragility that has consistently marked turning-points in this pair trade (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Hence, this week’s recommendation is to short copper versus tin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.   Chart 1Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 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 The US dollar has become expensive, but it is not unusual for currencies to overshoot or undershoot their fair value. Valuation is not an effective market timing tool. In the US, high interest rates and a strong exchange rate are needed to bring down inflation. The US dollar will remain firm as long as the Fed maintains its credibility in the fight against inflation. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. The PBoC will continue cutting interest rates. Persistent divergence between Chinese and US monetary policies heralds further yuan depreciation against the dollar. For a number of EM countries, exchange rate fluctuations have historically determined trends in their interest rates rather than the other way around (i.e., interest rates dictating EM currency trends). Shrinking global trade will boost the US dollar while EM currencies will depreciate further. The US Dollar Is Expensive But Could Still Overshoot Bottom Line: We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN. Macro forces that are bullish for the US dollar are bearish for global equities and other risk assets. A defensive investment stance is still warranted. Feature The US dollar is now in expensive territory (Chart of the week above) but we maintain our view that the US dollar is poised to overshoot. Chart 1EM Currencies Are Breaking Down BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team has been structurally bullish on the US dollar since 2011, with a brief period during which we sidestepped our positive view from July 9, 2020 until late March 2021 (Chart 1). We then re-instated short positions in select EM currencies versus the US dollar on March 25, 2021. This strategy has paid off. In this report, we discuss reasons why we expect the greenback to continue overshooting in the near run. Currency Valuations In Appendix 1 we present our valuation models for various currencies using the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on unit labor costs. In our opinion, the REER based on unit labor costs is the most accurate measure of exchange rate valuation. The basis is that it takes into account both wages and productivity. Labor costs are the largest cost component for many companies, and unit labor costs are critical to competitiveness. Hence, this measure is superior to the ones based on CPI and PPI. Table 1Currency Valuation Ranking Using Real Effective Exchange Rate Based on Unit Labor Costs* The underlying data for the REER based on unit labor costs are from the IMF and OECD. Unfortunately, the IMF and OECD do not provide REER based on unit labor costs for many emerging economies. Appendix 1 contains valuation indicators for those EM exchange rates (MXN, CLP, COP, KRW, SING, PLN, HUF and CZK) for which IMF or OECD data is available. Charts 15-17 in the appendix show that the US dollar is currently more than one standard deviation above its fair value. Meanwhile, the euro and yen are extremely cheap – each standing at more than one standard deviation below their respective fair value.   Table 1 shows the valuation ranking of various currencies using REER based on unit labor costs. For mainstream EM currencies, excluding China, Russia, Korea and Taiwan, we have built valuation aggregates using an average REER based on CPI and PPI measures. Chart 2 presents an equal-weighted aggregate REER based on CPI and PPI for 15 EM currencies. This indicator does not suggest that mainstream EM currencies are cheap. Finally, the same indicator − REER based on CPI and PPI – for the Chinese yuan reveals that the currency is modestly cheap (0.8 standard deviation below its mean) (Chart 3). Chart 2Mainstream EM Currencies Are Not Cheap Chart 3The RMB Is Modestly Cheap But Might Undershoot   While we acknowledge that the US dollar is expensive, we continue to expect the greenback to overshoot over the coming months. First, valuations matter only at extremes. Most currencies (other than the yen and the euro) are not cheap. For example, Charts 21-24 (in the Appendix) demonstrate that commodity currencies including AUD, NZD, and NOK are on the expensive side, while the Canadian dollar is fairly valued. Second, our macro themes – a hawkish Fed and contracting global trade (discussed below) − call for a stronger greenback. Finally, our Foreign Exchange Strategy team has shown that momentum indicators work well for currency trading in the short term. Bottom Line: The US dollar has become expensive, but it is not unusual for currencies to overshoot or undershoot their fair value. Valuation is not an effective market timing tool. Presently, the US dollar's momentum is strong and it will likely continue supporting the currency's upward trajectory. Monetary Policy Divergence Chart 4US Core Inflation Is Well Above 2% The US economy is relatively less exposed to headwinds from rising interest rates than the rest of the world. This dynamic favors the US dollar against other currencies. US: We view US inflation as genuine and entrenched. The average of seven measures of underlying inflation remains very elevated at 5.5% (Chart 4). In the US, high interest rates and a strong exchange rate are needed to bring down inflation. As long as the Fed remains committed to bringing down inflation, the US dollar will be firm. The US dollar will plummet if the Fed turns dovish prematurely. The basis is that US inflation expectations will spike and real interest rates will tumble, which will weigh on the dollar. Although the Fed might eventually pivot earlier than needed, this policy shift is not imminent. China: In contrast with the US, China’s inflation is too low: core and services CPI inflation have rolled over and are below 1% (Chart 5). The mainland economy is extremely weak, and the property market is struggling. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. The PBoC will continue cutting interest rates. Persistent divergence between Chinese and US monetary policies heralds further yuan weakness against the dollar (Chart 6). Chart 5China's Inflation Is Too Low And Falling Chart 6The CNY Will Depreciate Versus The USD     A weakening RMB versus the US dollar is typically associated with declining commodity prices (Chart 7). Falling commodity prices will weigh on commodity currencies. The yuan depreciation will also continue reinforcing the downtrend in emerging Asian currencies. Mainstream EM: For many emerging markets, interest rates do not explain fluctuations in their currencies. In developing countries that run current account deficits and/or rely on foreign capital, interest rates rise when their exchange rates plummet (Chart 8). Chart 7CNY Depreciation = Lower Commodity Prices Chart 8Interest Rates Do Not Drive EM FX   On the flip side, appreciating EM currencies unleash disinflationary pressures in their domestic economies, giving room for central banks to cut rates. Therefore, for EM economies that are dependent on global capital, it is exchange rates that have historically dictated interest rate dynamics, rather than the other way around. Continental Europe: The European economy is hamstrung by extremely high energy prices and rising interest rates. Importantly, wages in Europe are not rising as fast as they are in the US. Household real disposable income is falling faster in Europe than it is in the US. Plus, the continental European economy is more exposed than the US to global trade − which is about to contract (more on this below). Thus, the European economy has a reduced capacity to absorb higher borrowing costs vis-a-vis the US. Consequently, the real interest rate differential will continue moving in favor of the US, supporting the greenback versus the euro. The Anglo-Saxon block: The US economy will prove to be more resilient to higher borrowing costs than many other DM economies such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. As a result, the interest rate differential will move in favor of the US dollar. Chart 9US Households Have Deleveraged In many of these countries, the household debt burden is higher than it is in the US. In fact, US consumer debt and debt servicing have fallen significantly over the past 15 years (Chart 9). Importantly, a considerable portion of outstanding mortgages in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have either a floating rate or a fixed rate for only a few years. As borrowing costs rise, consumer finances in these countries will experience material distress. By comparison, the majority of outstanding US mortgages are fixed for 30 years or so. Hence, rising borrowing costs hurt new American homebuyers but do not impact existing mortgage holders. Bottom Line: On a relative basis, the US is in a better position to absorb higher interest rates than many other economies. As a result, the interest rate differential will move in favor of the US over the rest of the world, hence, supporting the greenback in the near run. Shrinking Global Trade Is Bullish For The US Dollar The US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and it will continue to appreciate as the global manufacturing cycle slows (Chart 10).  The rationale is that manufacturing and exports constitute a smaller share of GDP in the US than in many other major economies. What if Fed over-tightening, causes a recession and pushes down US interest rates considerably? Would the US dollar plunge in this case? We do not believe so. Instead, a recession could be positive for the broad trade-weighted dollar. As US domestic demand and consumption shrink, its imports will also drop. The US dollar often rallies when the nation’s imports are contracting (Chart 11). Chart 10The US Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 11Shrinking US Imports = Rising US Dollar   Dwindling imports mean that the US will be emitting fewer dollars to the rest of the world. Global US dollar liquidity will continue to shrink, and the greenback will rally further, including against EM currencies (Chart 12). Bottom Line: As global trade shrinks, the US dollar will extend its rally. Mainstream EM Currencies In the long run, return on capital – not interest rate differentials – drive mainstream EM currencies. Chart 12 illustrates that EM currencies depreciate when their return on equity differential versus the US is negative and vice versa. In turn, the key driver of return on capital is productivity. Productivity growth has been downshifting across mainstream EMs since 2007 (Chart 13). Chart 12Tightening Global USD Liquidity = A Strong US Dollar Chart 13EM vs. US: Relative Return On Capital And Exchange Rates       Weak productivity growth and lower return on capital (versus the US) explain EM currency and equity underperformance since 2010. We have not yet detected a major change in EM fundamentals. Investment Strategy Chart 14Weak EM Productivity = EM Currency Depreciation The US dollar will overshoot in the near term. We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN. When the dollar appreciates it is neither the time to be long EM risk assets in absolute terms nor to be overweight EM in global equity and fixed-income portfolios. We continue underweighting EM in global equity and credit portfolios. EM local currency bonds offer value, but further currency depreciation and more rate hikes by their central banks are near-term risks to EM domestic bonds. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Appendix   Chart 15The US Dollar Chart 16The Japanese Yen Chart 17The Euro Chart 18The British Pound Chart 19The Swiss Franc Chart 20The Swedish Krona Chart 21The Norwegian Krone Chart 22The Canadian Dollar Chart 23The Australian Dollar Chart 24The New Zealand Dollar Chart 25The Korean Won Chart 26The Singapore Dollar Chart 27The Mexican Peso Chart 28The Chilean Peso Chart 29The Colombian Peso Chart 30The Polish Zloty Chart 31The Hungarian Forint Chart 32The Czech Koruna Footnotes   Strategic Themes (18 Months And Beyond) Equities Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China)​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   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 Cheap But Challenged European equities have bottomed in absolute terms, but they are still underperforming US ones. Eurozone equities are very cheap compared to US ones, but their profitability remains inferior. Five problems continue to hang over the relative performance of European stocks. The first problem is the Chinese and global growth outlook. The second problem is the natural gas crisis. The third problem is Europe’s expanding liquidity risk. The fourth problem is the weak euro. The fifth problem is Europe’s structural profitability weaknesses.     Bottom Line: European stocks may be inexpensive, but too many problems are hanging over their profit outlook. As a result, European shares are unlikely to outperform until natural gas prices peak and the ECB activates the TPI. Until then, continue to underweight European stocks in global equity portfolios.   European assets are on sale. Equities are trading at multigenerational lows against their US counterparts. Meanwhile, the euro is back below parity and embedding a 30% discount to purchasing power parity against the US dollar. These observations suggest that European stocks are very attractive relative to their US counterparts — but are they? Related Report  European Investment StrategyQuestions From The Road On July 4, 2022, we turned positive on European stocks in absolute terms. Nonetheless, we expected US stocks to outperform because of their larger weighting toward defensive and growth names, which derive greater benefit from lower rates, especially when economic activity remains vulnerable. At this point, we maintain this stance. European valuations are appealing, but the entry point is still not right because the global environment continues to be hostile to the relative performance of European equities. Attractive Valuations Anyway you cut it, European stocks are much less expensive than their US counterparts. In theory, these attractive valuations imply higher long-term rates of return in European markets compared to US ones. Chart 1Cheap European Stocks Based on the MSCI indices, the relative forward P/E ratio of Eurozone shares is 25% below that of US stocks, or the deepest discount in more than 20 years (Chart 1, top panel). European shares should naturally sport lower valuations than US ones due to sectoral biases. However, even when we adjust for those sectoral differences, European stocks stand out as exceptionally cheap. A P/E ratio calculated by giving equal weights to all the sectors in both Europe and the US reveals that, outside of the COVID-19 selloff, the European valuation discount has never been lower in the post-dotcom bubble era (Chart 1, bottom panel). Comparing individual sector performances to earnings reinforces that European stocks are uniquely inexpensive compared to US ones. Since 2018, the relative prices of most European sectors compared to their US competitors have underperformed relative earnings (Chart 2). Chart 2ABroad-based Cheapness Chart 2BBroad-based Cheapness The problem with valuations is that they can be misleading. If European earnings continue to underperform US ones, European equities are likely to underperform further. And, whether we adjust or not for sector composition, European earnings remain in a pronounced downtrend compared to US profits, which is driving relative performance (Chart 3). Perhaps there is hope for European earnings, but, in the short term, we doubt it. European earnings expectations have been downgraded already, with 2022 and 2023 earnings excluding the energy sector, already down 10% and 12% respectively since their February peak (Chart 4). However, five problems are likely to lead to a greater downgrade relative to the US in the coming months. They are the following: the Chinese and global growth difficulties, the energy market’s ructions, the European liquidity risk, the weakness in the euro, and Europe’s structural lack of profitability. Chart 3Earnings Are In The Driving Seat Chart 4Downward Revisions Have Begun Bottom Line: Compared to the US, European stocks are very cheap. However, European stocks will only begin to outperform once investors see reasons to upgrade European relative earnings. For now, too many problems continue to place Europe’s profit outlook at a disadvantage. Problem 1: Chinese And Global Growth Chart 5Europe Is More Cyclical than the US The performance of European equities relative to that of US stocks tracks the evolution of the global manufacturing PMI (Chart 5). This makes sense. Europe’s economy and markets are more specialized in the manufacturing sector, whether consumer or capital goods. Consequently, European earnings are also more geared to the fluctuations of global industrial activity and Chinese imports. Today, China remains one of the major risks to European stocks. Despite efforts by Beijing to stabilize growth, the private sector continues to retrench. The zero-tolerance toward COVID creates a powerful brake on animal spirits as lockdowns shift from one city to the next. Most crucially, the real estate sectors’ woes show no end in sight. Floor spaces sold, started, and completed are contracting at double-digit paces and real estate investment is declining at a 12% annual rate (Chart 6 top and second panels). Moreover, the 47% annual contraction in land purchases indicates that the situation will not improve soon. Consequently, consumer loan growth will decelerate further (Chart 6, bottom panel). While authorities are trying to manage the economic slowdown, they are still too concerned with real estate speculation to push as aggressively as the Chinese economy needs. Even the recent 19-point package from the State Council came with a warning that, although “the foundation of economic recovery is not solid,” Beijing will avoid “resorting to massive stimulus or compromising longer-term interests.” In this context, it is likely that China’s marginal propensity to consume will remain weak, that Chinese yields will decline further, and that the CNY will experience additional weaknesses. All these developments are consistent with a deeper underperformance of European equities (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Real Estate Industry Is Sick Chart 7Weak China = Weak Europe Looking at the global economy offers little hope. A weak China weighs on EMs’ growth prospects. Moreover, the strong dollar invites EMs’ central banks to tighten domestic liquidity and financial conditions, which historically results in lower growth. This softer economic activity ultimately hurts European earnings more than US ones and causes Eurozone shares to underperform US ones (Chart 8). Beyond EMs, the leading indicators of global economic activity do not inspire much confidence either. Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s Emerging Market chief strategist, often highlights the downside risk to global exports, which would generate an underperformance of European earnings relative to those of the US. In fact, Taiwanese export orders, which lead global exports, are contracting anew. So is the Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart 9). Ultimately, the tightening in global policy rates is doing what it should do: slowing global growth. Chart 8EM FCIs Matter To Europe's Relative Performance Chart 9Clouds Over The Global Economy Bottom Line: The weakness in Chinese economic activity is not over yet. Global growth will also continue to suffer as global exports are set to weaken considerably in the coming months. Together, these forces will hurt the earnings prospects of Europe compared to the US. Problem 2: The Energy Market Chart 10Pricey Nat Gas And Electricity Let’s be more specific here: natural gas continues to weigh more on Europe’s earnings prospects than those of the US. European natural gas prices have surged, even when compared to US ones. As a result, electricity prices have also increased across the Eurozone’s main economies (Chart 10). This is deeply negative for domestic economic activity and hurts the competitiveness of European businesses. Consequently, as long as natural gas prices climb higher, European profitability will deteriorate relative to that of US firms. Unsurprisingly, investors are deeply aware of these dynamics. The more natural gas prices rise, the greater European equities underperform. In fact, since mid-2021, Dutch natural gas prices have become the single best explanatory variable for the relative performance of European stocks (Chart 11). Natural gas is likely to remain a problem for European equities until the beginning of the winter. We are currently in the peak period of upward pressure on natural gas prices in Europe. Relentless inventory buildup introduced an inelastic buyer to the market, which is propelling natural gas prices to new heights even though consumption is receding (Chart 12, top panel). In response to these efforts, European natural gas inventories have hit 80% of capacity and are set to rise to 90% by November, even though Russian flows have collapsed (Chart 12, bottom two panels). However, in November, natural gas prices are likely to peak. The re-stocking effort will be completed, coal power will fill in many gaps, and selective conservation efforts will allow most industries and heating to function. Chart 11Europe vs US = Nat Gas Chart 12The Worse Is Now Bottom Line: The surge in natural gas prices is the key force currently hurting the relative performance of Eurozone equities. However, this negative dynamic is likely to fade in the winter because the current price jump reflects inventory building. By November, inventories will be at the 90% of capacity targeted by the European Commission and coal power will fill the remaining production gap. Until then, natural gas prices will continue to hurt European profit margins. Problem 3: European Liquidity Risk Chart 13Unhinged Credit Markets European equities are also hurt by an increase in risk premia relative to the US. Italian spreads continue to show upside and European junk spreads are widening compared to US ones (Chart 13). This problem could remain saliant in the coming months. The ECB is tightening policy in an economy already fettered by a severe energy shock. This process increases risk aversion. Moreover, because European inflation is likely to prove more sticky than that of the US this fall, this development will continue to hurt the price of European assets compared to US ones. Chart 14A Key Vulnerability The imbalances in the Euro Area create a further source of liquidity risk. The TARGET2 balances remain extremely large, which indicates that Dutch, Luxembourg, and German savings continue to finance France, Spain, and Italy (Chart 14, top panel). However, the import-boosting impact of high energy costs and the negative effects of weaker global growth on exports are likely to worsen the current account balance of the Eurozone, including that of Germany, which acts as the Eurozone’s banker (Chart 14, bottom panel). The decreasing savings of Germany and the Netherlands in conjunction with the wide difference in neutral rates between Germany and France, Italy and Spain increase the odds that peripheral spreads will widen further in the short term. However, this too is likely to be a temporary risk that ebbs after the winter. First, as we wrote four weeks ago, the differences in neutral rates will force the ECB to activate the TPI before year-end. Second, once energy prices peak, the downward pressure on European gross savings will also ease, which will restore liquidity conditions in European credit markets. Bottom Line: The combination of an ECB tightening policy in a weak economy as well as TARGET2 imbalances and declining savings increase the likelihood of a liquidity shortage in European debt markets. Tremors in the credit market would translate into further underperformance of European equities relative to US ones. Problem 4: The Weak Euro At first glance, the weak euro is positive for European equities since it subsidizes profitability. However, in a context in which costs of production are rising faster in Europe than in the US, this benefit is elusive. The weak euro is not translating into greater pricing power for European firms. The increase in producer prices supercharged by higher natural gas prices (among others) is not met by a commensurate rise in consumer prices. The same is true in the US, but to a much lesser extent; as a result, the ratio of CPI to PPI is declining in Europe relative to the US. Chart 15A Weak Euro Reflects Poor Pricing Power This lack of pricing power is an important driver of the weakness in the euro. EUR/USD closely tracks the evolution of the CPI-to-PPI ratio in Europe relative to the US (Chart 15). This confirms that a weaker euro is not helping the relative performance of European shares because it indicates a problem with the comparative profitability of European businesses. It also implies that the euro will weaken as long as Dutch natural gas prices are rising (Chart 15, bottom panel).  Historically, a weak euro is associated with underperforming European equities. At the most basic level, a depreciating euro arithmetically derails the common-currency performance of European shares. Moreover, because a falling euro is often linked to poor rates of return in the Euro Area, it corresponds to periods when investors prefer foreign shares to European ones. For now, we see a large left tail in short-term distributions of the EUR/USD’s returns, even if the long-term prospects of the euro are brighter. This also signifies that the euro will remain a hurdle for the relative performance of European shares in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: The lack of pricing power of European firms weighs on the profitability of Eurozone businesses compared to that of US ones and on the euro. As long as this problem persists, the euro will suffer, which implies additional weaknesses in the relative performance of European shares. Problem 5: Europe Structurally Poor Profitability Chart 16Europe's Structural Profitability Problem Since 2008, the EPS of the Eurozone MSCI benchmark have collapsed 73% compared to those of the US index. Moreover, this fall has followed a nearly straight line. This poor performance reflects an underlying structural challenge to European profitability. Europe’s low profit growth follows poor returns on assets. At first glance, lower levels of stock repurchases explain some of the underperformance of European earnings. However, the lower propensity of European firms to conduct buybacks mirrors their poor profitability. As Chart 16 highlights, European firms have much lower RoEs, RoAs, profit margins, and asset utilization rates than their US counterparts. The low profitability of European shares is multifaceted. To a large degree, it corresponds to the Eurozone’s anemic growth, whereby nominal as well as real GDP per capita continue to lag those of the US (Chart 17). This weak per-capita GDP is a consequence of the meager underlying productivity of the Euro Area. Many elements cause Europe’s lower productivity growth. The two most obvious culprits are the region’s greater economic fragmentation and its heavier regulatory burden when compared to the US. But also, the return on investment is much lower in Europe (Chart 17, bottom panel). The lower European return on investment is more complex. A key driver is the greater degree of misallocated capital in Europe than in the US. Europe’s capital stocks, especially in the periphery, represents a much greater share of GDP than it does in the US (Chart 18). A larger capital stock increases the odds that some previous capex was misallocated. Moreover, the greater prevalence of small businesses in Europe compared to the US also increases the likelihood of redundant and misallocated capital. Poor capital allocation hurts investment returns and productivity. Chart 17Weak Growth = Weak ROI Chart 18Too Much Capital Another reason for Europe’s poor profitability has nothing to do with productivity and tepid growth. European industries are less concentrated than US ones (Chart 19). Lower concentration means higher competition between businesses, which erodes markups and returns on assets.  Chart 19Smaller Profitability Moats In Europe None of Europe’s structural weaknesses in relation to profitability has been addressed. Consequently, this drag on the relative performance of Euro Area equities remains firmly in place, which warrants a significant discount in European equity valuations relative to US ones. Bottom Line: The last problem for European shares is the structural under profitability of the Eurozone. Because of lower productivity, misallocated capital, and lower industry concentration, European firms offer permanently weaker returns on assets than US businesses. Their disadvantage remains unaddressed, which suggests that structural forces are unlikely to generate a re-rating of European shares any time soon. Investment Implications Conditions are still not supportive for an outperformance of European equities relative to US ones. European stocks may have already bottomed in absolute terms and they are very cheap compared to US shares, but Euro Area earnings are set to underperform further. European stocks cannot beat US stocks until most of the five headwinds impacting Europe come to pass. The deceleration in Chinese and global growth, the surge in Dutch natural gas prices, the growing liquidity risk in the Eurozone, the collapse of EUR/USD, and the structural impediments to European profitability are just too strong collectively to allow Europe’s attractive valuation to crystalize into immediate high returns. Nonetheless, we cannot be dogmatic. Before year-end, we expect three of these variables to become favorable for European stocks. Namely, we anticipate the natural gas crisis to reach its apex around November 2022, the ECB to activate the TPI, which will tackle the budding illiquidity in European credit markets, and the euro to bottom. Hence, we are in the late stage of this year’s underperformance of European equities. An opportunity to upgrade Europe is around the corner – we are just not there yet. Even after all the cyclical and short-term negatives ebb, one key hurdle for European stocks will remain intact: the structural under profitability. This force suggests that periods of outperformance of European stocks are likely to be short-lived and that, as long as the profitability gap remains open, the structural relative bear market in European stocks will persist. Bottom Line: It is still too early to overweight European equities. Euro Area stocks are much cheaper than their US counterparts, but too many headwinds continue to blow that are likely to weigh on relative performance. Only after European natural gas prices peak will Europe enjoy a period of outperformance. This is unlikely to happen until this winter.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary A Beacon Of Hope For AUD Along with the Canadian dollar, the Aussie has been one of the best performing currencies during a broad-based dollar rally. Rising interest rates are part of the story, but there is more to Aussie strength than meets the eye. Aussie’s resilience is a conundrum worth exploring. First, it is a favorite short play for an imploding economic scenario in China, which suggests it should be a lot weaker. Second, the Aussie should be in the bottom quartile of FX returns in a risk-off currency scenario. Aussie strength can be attributed to strong commodity prices that are providing a terms-of trade-tailwind. Moreover, there is marginal evidence that demand for Australian-sourced commodities could be becoming a tad more inelastic. Chinese economic growth continues to disappoint, but upside surprises will be a welcome fillip for the AUD (Feature chart). On a terms-of-trade basis, the Australian dollar is very cheap. Falling commodity prices are a handicap, but the margin of safety on the valuation makes the AUD a safer bet. Go long AUD/USD if it touches 0.665 cents. AUD/NZD bets are also attractive. However, we will stay on the sidelines on AUD/JPY bets. RECOMMENDATIONS INCEPTION LEVEL inception date RETURN LONG AUD/USD 0.665 2022-08-26 - Bottom Line: The Aussie dollar could go on a fire sale in the coming weeks. We would be buyers of AUD/USD at 0.665 cents. Feature The Australian dollar has been relatively resilient amidst broad-based dollar strength. Year-to-date, AUD is down 3.7% versus a 13.0% rally in the DXY (Chart 1). This is a remarkable development since historically, the AUD has been a very pro-cyclical currency, bearing the heavy lifting of any dollar rally. AUD/JPY, a key barometer for a risk-on/risk-off environment is up 13.4% year to date, despite a broad-based selloff in many risk assets. Chart 1The AUD Has Outperformed The Aussie’s resilience is a conundrum worth exploring. First, it is a favorite short play for an imploding economic scenario in China, which suggests it should be a lot weaker. Second, the Aussie should be in the bottom quartile of FX returns in a risk-off currency scenario. In this report, we explore base case scenarios for the Australian dollar, with recommendations for both short-term and longer-term trades, as well as plays at the crosses. Technical Indicators Technical indicators suggest the AUD could be ripe for a rebound. Our intermediate-term indicator bottomed at 5.55 and has usually been associated with non-negligible rallies in the AUD (Chart 2). This indicator is volatile and our expectation is that it could relapse in the near term. However, that will be good news for investors that have a constructive view on AUD prospects. Consistently, speculators are very short the Australian dollar. China’s zero COVID-19 policy, along with property market troubles have made the AUD a favorite short play (Chart 3). Given AUD’s resilience, this suggests that speculators are being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of fundamental currency inflows, through commodity purchases, bond market investors and Aussie equity sector bulls. Chart 2Technicals Point To A Coiled-Spring Rebound In The Coming Months Chart 3Investors Have Been Shorting ##br##AUD Australian Commodity Demand Chart 4A Beacon Of Hope For The AUD Weakness in China is well known and discounted by financial market participants. The latest selloff in the RMB is a case in point. Yet positive economic surprises in China have been improving relative to peers in the developed market (Chart 4). There are two simple reasons for this. First, the Chinese government is easing domestic financial conditions. Contrary to popular belief, lower rates and higher stimulus in China are positive for the AUD since it boosts Australian exports via higher domestic demand (Chart 5). With the Chinese bond market becoming more and more liberalized, it is also becoming a good proxy for monetary conditions in China. As such, lower bond yields in China have tended to lead imports. This is good news for Aussie exports in the coming months. Chart 5AStimulus In China Is Historically Positive For AUD Chart 5BStimulus In China Is Historically Positive For AUD Second, the Australian capital account could also be on the mend as foreigners are more willing to re-rate Aussie shares (Chart 6). The Chinese credit cycle has often led to a re-rating in Aussie shares. Our China and Emerging Market strategists argue that stimulus measures might not be sufficient to turn around Chinese domestic demand. In our view, that is well priced into the Aussie, which could potentially experience another selloff in the coming weeks. However, any upside surprises in Chinese growth will be a welcome fillip for the Australian dollar. Chart 6China And Australia Are Tied To The Hip A Few Moats Around The AUD Infrastructure spending is a huge chunk of Chinese fixed asset investment. So, while the housing downturn will impact commodity demand, infrastructure could provide a welcome offset. This could be a big moat that investors should pay attention to. Infrastructure is 24.5% of fixed asset investment in China and 18.0% of steel demand (Chart 7). Chart 7AStimulus In China Is Historically Positive For AUD Chart 7BStimulus In China Is Historically Positive For AUD On a relative basis, Australian terms-of-trade have outperformed other commodity-producing nations. This is some evidence that the external demand for Aussie commodities could be becoming a tad more inelastic. Among Australia’s exports, liquified natural gas has been increasing both in price and as a share of total volume (Chart 8). This is following a natural tailwind. China has an imperative to become greener, which has led to a rise in the share of renewables and natural gas electricity generation (Chart 9). Australia is in the top three biggest exporters of liquified natural gas in the world and exports world class clean coal that China depends on. The result has been a tremendous gain in terms of trade (Chart 10).  Chart 8Some Aussie Exports Could Be Relatively Demand Inelastic Chart 9A Tailwind For Australia Chart 10Terms Of Trade Are Favorable In Australia Amidst this moat around the AUD is also a valuation cushion. As a result of strong export prices, the Australian dollar is undervalued on a terms of trade basis. While true that the AUD is vulnerable to a correction in commodity prices, the margin of safety on the valuation is sufficient for investors willing to ride out near term volatility (Chart 11). Remarkably, the 10-year government bond yield in Australia is 56.8 basis points above that in the US. This will have two profound opposing effects. First, from an interest rate perspective, it will cushion the drawdown in the Aussie, as interest-rate differentials matter for currency returns (Chart 12). On the other hand, it puts interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing, at risk. Chart 11AUD Is Cheap On A Terms Of Trade Basis Chart 12AUD Is Cheap On A Fundamental Basis The Risks For The AUD The first risk for the AUD is a downturn in commodity prices. Chinese demand is genuinely slowing. This could lead to an undershoot in the AUD, as a terms-of-trade undershoot (Chart 13). That is why our recommended entry point is lower than today’s level at 0.665 cents. Chart 13A Commodity Correction Is A Risk For AUD Chart 14Housing Is A Big Risk For Australia The second consideration is housing prices. Real estate is experiencing a meaningful roll over in Australia. This has been led by Sydney and Melbourne, where prices were clearly overvalued, but the phenomenon is more broad based (Chart 14). Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyTwo Decades After The Creation Of The Euro The impact for financial markets and the AUD is two-fold. First, if the RBA continues to tighten and as this flattens the Aussie yield curve further, it will not be a welcome development for bank net interest margins and profits (Chart 15). Second, the market has already priced in interest rates higher in Australia compared to the US (Chart 16). A slowdown in housing construction activity, that makes the Aussie consumer more cautious could temper the pace of RBA rate hikes and put pressure on the AUD. Chart 15Watch The Relative Performance Of Bank Shares Chart 16The RBA Might Be Relatively Dovish in 2023 A Few Trades Ideas Australia provides a lot of the commodities countries need and want in today’s paradigm. That is bullish. Yet exposure to China is a clear risk that investors need to factor into investment decisions. Our trading strategy is as follows: We would buy AUD/USD at 0.665 cents. In our view, it could undershoot this level but will be an attractive longer-term buy. The risks to the housing market are higher in New Zealand compared to Australia (Chart 17). Terms of trade also likely to favor the Aussie versus the kiwi (Chart 18). As such, bet on long AUD/NZD trades. Chart 17AUD Can Withstand Higher Rates Relative To NZD Chart 18Terms Of Trade Will Drive AUD Higher Relative To NZD AUD/JPY will benefit from a rally in risk assets but is stretched. Thus, from a sentiment perspective, we are only neutral (Chart 19). Economic surprises could also likely underwhelm in Australia relative to the unloved Japanese market (Chart 20). Chart 19AUD/JPY Is Stretched Chart 20AUD/JPY Is Stretched   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Special Report

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com