Economy

Executive Summary Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging, but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Rising US bond yields remain the key risk to US growth stocks in both absolute and relative terms. As US growth stocks drift lower in absolute terms, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range but is unlikely to make new highs. Equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Recommendation   Inception Date Return Underweight EM Relative To DM Stocks (In Common Currency) 2021-03-25 15.8% Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM in a global equity portfolio. Cyclically, continue favoring value versus growth stocks. Feature We expect US bond yields to continue to rise, and global growth stocks to continue to underperform global value stocks in the months ahead. This prompts the question: What does this scenario mean for overall global share prices, EM markets, and EM relative equity performance? Equity Rotation And Overall Market Performance Can the S&P 500 or global equity index advance in absolute terms when US and global growth stocks sell off in absolute terms? Our hunch is as follows: As US growth stocks drift lower, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range, but is unlikely to make new highs. A review of past episodes of sector and style rotation is in order. We recall two episodes of major rotation: 1. The closest historical comparison is in the year 2000. The top panel of Chart 1 illustrates US value stocks were resilient even after the Nasdaq bubble started bursting in March 2000. Besides, the S&P 500 index held up well in the first half of that year even though Nasdaq stocks were plummeting (Chart 1, bottom panel). Nevertheless, despite the rotation, value/old economy stocks failed to break out of their previous highs (Chart 1, top panel). We would expect a similar pattern to emerge in the current cycle as the Nasdaq index wobbles. Despite the Nasdaq selloff, oil prices continued to rise until October 2000, and the US median stock had a bumpy ride but made a new high in early 2002 (Chart 2). Chart 1US Equity Rotation In 2000 Chart 2Rotation In 2000: The Nasdaq, Oil And The Median Stock   Overall, as rising US interest rates weigh on growth stocks, the rest of the market can stay in a trading range. Segments with very good fundamentals and cheap valuations could even make new marginal highs. Nevertheless, given the sheer weight of growth stocks in the broad US equity index, it will be hard for the S&P 500 to make new highs when growth stocks wobble. However, a key difference between now and the 2000-2002 market is that back then, US bond yields were falling. Thus, the bear market in the US equity market in general and Nasdaq stocks in particular, occurred alongside falling US bond yields (Chart 3). Currently, the Fed is in a tightening mode and US bond yields are climbing. A rising discount factor is negative for all stocks (Chart 4): It is more negative for high-multiples stocks and less negative for low multiples companies. Chart 3The Nasdaq Bubble Burst Despite Falling Interest Rates Chart 4Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression   Another interesting observation about the 2000-2002 bear market is that it occurred despite resilient US consumer spending, and a very robust housing market and credit growth (Chart 5, top two panels). Remarkably, corporate profits collapsed by about 60% even though real GDP barely contracted at all (Chart 5, bottom two panel). We do not predict a similar equity bust this time around. Instead, we are highlighting that US equity valuations and corporate profits can shrink even if US consumer spending does not contract. What happens to costs, profit margins, inflation and interest rates are as important as the consumer spending outlook. To sum up, when the Nasdaq’s bubble began bursting in March of 2000, investors rotated into old economy stocks and the S&P 500 held up well until July of that year. From July onward, the selloff broadened, and the overall US equity indexes entered a bear market. The latter lasted until March 2003. 2. Another episode of extended market rotation occurred in the lead up to and during the 2008 bear market. The US financial/credit crisis in 2007-08 commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart 6). Despite these developments, commodity prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008 when they finally collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5US Profits Recession In 2001 Occurred Despite No Economic Recession Chart 6Domino Effect In 2007-08 Clearly, what was initially a rotation out of US cyclicals and financials into commodities and EM eventually proved to be nothing more than part of a domino effect. Again, we are not making the case that the US economy and financial markets are headed into a financial crisis. Our point here is that rotations do occur and can last for a while. Yet, a sustainable bull market in aggregate equity indexes does not emerge until there is a broad-based selloff during which the majority of sectors and bourses drop in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Rotation episodes can last several months. Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Equity Leadership Changes Occur Around Major Selloffs Having examined these rotation episodes, we can now take a step back and see the big picture: equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Chart 7 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM, and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a substantial drawdown in global share prices. Chart 7EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart 8). Chart 8Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, secular trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations A word on commodity prices is warranted. We are surprised that industrial metal prices have so far held up well and oil prices have been surging despite China’s slowdown. The culprits behind the rally in resource prices are strong DM demand for commodities and investor purchases of commodities as an inflation hedge. Therefore, it might take investor concerns about US demand and/or a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Rising US interest rates and a continued US dollar rally will eventually lead to a meaningful drawdown in commodity prices. Yet, the precise timing of this shift is uncertain. Critically, among financial markets, oil prices are often the last to fall and/or rally. Hence, investors should not use oil as a leading indicator for other markets. As to share prices of commodity producers, global materials have rolled over at their previous high (Chart 10, top panel), while energy stocks have surged through multiple technical resistances. However, they now face another technical hurdle (Chart 10, bottom panel). If oil share prices decisively break above this long-term moving average, it would likely signal that they have entered a multi-year bull market. Chart 10Global Energy Stocks And Materials: A Long-Term Profile Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or major corrections. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Investment Considerations Chart 11EM And US Stocks Relative To The Global Benchmark: No Change In Trend We will contemplate upgrading EM if a broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 50% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500 if the selloff is led by growth stocks, as occurred during the carnage in global stocks in January this year or in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart 11, top panel). Yet, the EM overall equity index will underperform Europe and Japan in such a broad-based drawdown. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. For now, we remain positive on the dollar for the next several months and are hence underweight EM stocks and credit markets versus their DM peers. As to US stocks, the jury is still out on whether their secular outperformance is over. Notably, US share prices relative to the global equity index have rebounded from their 200-day moving average (Chart 11, bottom panel). When such a technical pattern occurs, odds are high that US stocks will make new highs in relative terms. US equities outperforming the rest of the world is not consistent with growth stocks underperforming value ones. Hence, a potential US outperformance represents a risk to our core view that growth stocks will continue underperforming value stocks. How do we reconcile these inconsistencies? It might be that US growth stocks’ recent rebound persists for the next several weeks and they outperform value stocks during this window. In such a case, our equity leadership rotation theme will be delayed. Yet, in this scenario EM stocks will continue underperforming DM ones. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Executive Summary A Floor In Biden’s Approval? Biden’s approval rating is forming a bottom. Democrats will pivot away from Covid-19 to boost the economy and consumer sentiment. While Democrats face a dismal midterm election, Republican infighting could conceivably cost the GOP control of the Senate. Policy uncertainty will rise as the election approaches. Republican infighting is unlikely to affect the outcome in the House of Representatives, although Republicans could lose three-to-nine seats that they might otherwise hold if the party establishment fails to coordinate effectively with former President Trump as we expect. Our tactical trades hinge on Biden’s near-term external risks: the risk of an energy shock that weighs on Treasury yields and pushes up the dollar. Defensives like health care should benefit. Our cyclical recommendations continue to favor cyclical equities such as small cap energy stocks.     Bottom Line: Investors should be tactically prepared for geopolitical risks to push up the dollar and push down Treasury yields in the short run, contrary to the cyclical BCA House View. Feature Has Biden’s Approval Hit The Floor? Probably. President Biden’s net approval rating is still under water at -9%, only slightly better than President Trump’s at this stage in the approach to the 2018 midterm elections. Biden’s handling of the economy receives a lower approval rating, which is dangerous for his party because the economy is likely to be the most important issue in the midterm election, given that the Covid-19 pandemic is waning. If Biden follows the path of his predecessors then his approval rating will trend upward as the midterm approaches. That will not prevent a Republican victory in the House but it could affect the Senate and the size of the Republican majority (Chart of the Week). The latest jobs report saw 467, 000 new jobs created. The labor participation rate grew from 81.9% to 82%, while women’s participation rose from 56.5% to 56.8%. The unemployment rate ticked up from 3.9% to 4%, with the broader U6 measure rising from 7.2% to 7.9%, but the reason was that more workers joined the workforce, which is a good thing for the economy (Chart 1). The Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus is having little impact so the labor market is continuing to heal, a positive for the Biden administration, which is otherwise struggling. Chart 1A Solid Jobs Report American sentiment about the economy will hinge on inflation. If inflation abates along with the virus then the Democratic Party will be able to pare some losses in the midterms. At the moment the polarization of economic sentiment – divergence based on partisan affiliation – is declining, but for reasons that will give the administration a headache. Democratic sentiment is falling while Republican sentiment is improving (Chart 2). If inflation stays high, Republican sentiment will tick back down and  the public will be increasingly united in a negative view of the president’s economic management. If inflation peaks and rolls over, Democratic sentiment will recover as the election approaches and Republican sentiment will at least not get much worse. Chart 2Economic Sentiment Polarization In Decline For this reason Biden and the Democrats are rapidly pivoting away from Covid-19 and social restrictions and trying to create the “return to normalcy” that failed last year. While they were in the opposition they had an interest in hyping the virus but now they are the incumbents and it is important to show that the pandemic is in the rear-view mirror. With 64% of Americans now vaccinated, and 40% having received booster shots, government social restrictions are likely to become less stringent (Chart 3). The latest data from the service sector will motivate this policy pivot away from the virus. The manufacturing sector improved again last month but the non-manufacturing sector was less upbeat in January. Services activity declined by a whopping 12% in January. It is still above its November 2020 level, when Biden got elected, but only by around 2.2%. The non-manufacturing employment index declined by 4.3% and only stands 0.8% above its November 2020 level. The ratio of new orders to inventories declined by 0.6% in January (Chart 4). Chart 3Democrats To Pivot Away From Covid-19These statistics suggest that the non-manufacturing sector slowed down sharply in January, probably due to omicron and post-Christmas belt tightening. But employers did not let go of a lot of workers, as seen by the discrepancies between business activity and employment. The mostly positive jobs report reinforces this point. The weakness is seen as temporary and employers expect higher demand in coming months. Now that consumer durable spending is running out of steam (at least, excluding cars), consumers are likely to switch to consuming services, as long as services are open for them to consume. There is little reason to think restrictions will stay tight, given the political points cited above. Even in Europe the Covid “hawks” are loosening controls. Chart 4Democrats Want To Boost Service Sector All that being said, the Biden administration has limited ability to control inflation that emanates from foreign supply shocks (e.g. Asia, Russia, Iran). Also voter perceptions of inflation will lag, even if inflation starts to abate. Crime and immigration will also weigh on the administration this fall. And the political clockwork favoring the opposition in midterm elections is remorseless. Bottom Line: Biden and the Democrats are likely to shift policy focus away from emphasis on the pandemic, which weighs on the service sector and employment, and instead pursue other policy options in preparation for the midterm election. The outlook is not positive but if Biden’s approval rating bottoms then Democrats’ chances of performing better in the midterm elections will rise and policy uncertainty will also rise. Will GOP Infighting Affect The Midterms? Maybe In The Senate Former President Trump clashed with former Vice President Mike Pence and others in the Republican Party over whether Pence had the right “to change the Presidential Election results” in 2020 by refusing to validate electoral college votes from states in which electoral fraud was alleged. Pence called the idea “un-American” and reiterated his position that the vice president has no “unilateral authority” to discard a state’s electoral votes while certifying the electoral count.1 Trump lashed out because moderate Republicans are flirting with Democrats over how to pass a bipartisan revision to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which left a number of ambiguities in the US electoral process, including about the vice president’s role in election certification. It is conceivable that the law will be revised in time for the 2024 election but odds are against a quick solution: the original law took 10 years to pass. Throughout the 2022-24 election cycle, Trump will continue to clash with his party, which raises the single greatest risk to Republicans: that they will be too divided to capitalize fully on the Democrats’ weaknesses. We do not expect Trump to coordinate effectively with Republicans. His interest in revolutionizing the political establishment and winning a second term in 2024 diverges from the interest of the traditional Republicans, who want to preserve the political establishment with themselves on top, and want a fresh face to contend for eight years in the White House in 2024. However, Trump controls a plurality of the party’s grassroots voters (about 54%2 according to opinion polls) so that the Republican Party cannot afford to spurn him. If Trump were willing to cooperate with party leaders, then he would have cooperated when it mattered most: ahead of the Georgia special elections on January 5, 2020. If he had recognized the constitutional supremacy of the electoral college vote, he might have saved Republican control of the Senate. He did not, so the burden of proof falls on those who say that Trump can coordinate effectively with the Republican Party at critical junctures. Most likely the party will continue to play both sides, keeping Trump in the party but seeking a post-Trump future. Trump will continue to pursue the Republican nomination in 2024 and the party will have to acquiesce to him as long as he retains the support of a majority of the party’s grassroots. Trump’s conflict with the party will flare up in the primary elections this spring because Trump will endorse his own favorite candidates regardless of whether the Republican establishment agrees and views them as the most likely to win. Any success of Trump-backed populists in the primaries may become a liability for Republicans in the general election if the seat is competitive and the Democrats put up a moderate candidate. This point is primarily relevant in the Senate: Five Senate Republicans are stepping down, leaving an open competition in Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (Table 1). The last three of these (NC, OH, PA) are competitive seats, especially if the Republican candidate is weak and Biden’s approval revives by the time of the vote. Trump has only made an endorsement in North Carolina, where his candidate is far from assured to win. Given that control of the Senate could hang on a single seat, it is at least possible that Trump’s split with the GOP could affect the Senate balance of power in 2023-24. Table 1Senate Incumbents Not Seeking Re-Election, 2022 Trump will also have an impact on the House of Representatives but he is less likely to affect the outcome of the midterm there, given that Republicans are likely to win 40 seats when they only need five to take control. There are a lot more Democrats retiring from the House than Republicans in this cycle, a positive indication for Republicans (Chart 5). In total there are 48 competitive seats (13 Republican-leaning, 22 Democrat-leaning, and 13 toss-up).3 Of these 48 competitive seats, 12 seats are “open” (no incumbent), divided evenly among Republicans and Democrats. In most of these competitive seats, but especially in Democrat-leaning seats and toss-up seats, a Trump-backed Republican will have a harder time winning than a traditional Republican.  All ten Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump after the January 6 rebellion are vulnerable to Trump challengers (Table 2). Three are already retiring. Given that Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney won her seat by a 44% margin, and yet is polling poorly relative to her Trump-backed challenger, it is fair to say that all seven of the remaining Republican impeachers are vulnerable to a Trumpist challenge. Of these, the general election could be competitive in five seats, i.e. those held by John Katko (R, NY-24), David Valadao (R, CA-21), Peter Meijer (R, MI-3), Fred Upton (R, MI-6), and Jaime Herrera Beutler (R, WA-3). However, given that the national tide does not favor the Democrats, five seats is the maximum that Democrats could poach from this group of lawmakers due to Republican infighting (three is a more likely number).   Chart 5House Members Not Seeking Re-Election, 2022 Table 2House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach President Trump More broadly there are 21 moderate Republicans in the House whose seats could be vulnerable to intra-party struggle (Table 3): So far President Trump has only endorsed candidates in seats which Republicans are highly likely to win anyway: namely Beth Van Duyne (R, TX-24), Mario Diaz-Balart (R, FL-25), and Carlos Gimenez (R, FL-26). But as the primary heats up, Trump’s endorsements could cause more tension with the Republican Party machinery.  The following six moderate Republicans’ seats could be at risk: Maria Elvira Salazar (R, FL-27), Rodney Davis (R, IL-13), Jeff Van Drew (R, NJ-2), Andrew Garbarino (R, NY-2), Mike Turner (R, OH-10), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R, PA-1). Of these, Fitzpatrick and Garbarino do not face any challengers yet, and only Davis faces a Trump-backed challenger. So six is the maximum Democrats could steal while one-to-three vulnerable seats is more likely. Table 3Republican Moderates Vulnerable To Populist Challengers Summing up, the Republican Party could fail to retain three-to-nine Republican seats that they might otherwise win in this cycle. Previously we put the number at five-to-nine seats.   These numbers do not include any Democratic-leaning seats that Republicans could fail to poach if they choose a populist candidate who is not competitive in a “purple” state or district. In conclusion, Republican infighting will not prevent Republicans from retaking the House of Representatives this fall. Cyclical factors in favor of Republicans will overwhelm their internal differences. But infighting could leave them with a smaller majority than consensus expects. In 2024 Republican internal divisions will become much more important than in 2022. A competitive Republican primary election for president will reduce Republican odds in the general election. If President Trump fails to win the nomination, he could defect and form his party. If he wins the nomination, Liz Cheney or another traditional Republican could defect and run as a third party, acting as a spoiler. Given the tight margins of victory in presidential elections, even a splinter group could steal enough votes to determine the outcome. The midterms will shed light on the depth of GOP divisions but in general these divisions reinforce our view that while Democrats will perform poorly in the midterms, they are still favored to retain the White House in 2024. Bottom Line: While the odds are stacked against Democrats in the midterms, Republican infighting could affect several Senate seats and will subtract anywhere from three-to-nine seats from expected seat gains in the House. While control of the House will not be affected, it is conceivable that control of the Senate could hang in the balance. Policy uncertainty will rise if Republican infighting makes Senate races more competitive later this year. Housekeeping To conclude we offer a few remarks on our outstanding investment recommendations: Cyclically Long Energy Small Caps: US energy production is rising in keeping with global oil and commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate crude sells for $89 per barrel on the spot market, inventories are drawing, OPEC 2.0 is intact, and there are plenty of supply risks on the horizon. American natural gas exports are picking up but not enough to meet demand if conflict in Ukraine causes a European shortage, while US oil exports are falling (Chart 6). Chart 6US Energy Production Picking Up Evidence from initial unemployment claims in O&G-dependent states like North Dakota and Wyoming suggests that shale producers need more time to ramp up production (Chart 7), as highlighted by our Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan.  Small cap energy stocks have not benefited much from the sharp spike in energy prices this year. We see this as an opportunity, given that US small caps are insulated from geopolitical troubles and will become key players if shortages occur (Chart 8). The risk comes if the supply response overwhelms the supply disruptions, as occurred in 2014 – but oil companies were in a much better position to surge production at that time. The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran also appeared more durable at that time than it will this year if it is rejoined, and there is no guarantee it will be rejoined. Cyclically Long Infrastructure Stocks: Infrastructure stocks peaked along with the equity market and in the wake of the Biden administration’s $550 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is now being implemented. Indicators of infrastructure construction peaked in late 2020 and early 2021 and are slipping of late. But as long as the economy does not relapse into recession they should stabilize, especially as the virus wanes and global demand recovers (Chart 9). Cyclically Long Cyber-Security Stocks: Global threats, proxied by the Canadian dollar’s exchange rate with the Russian ruble, suggest that cyber security stocks will rebound after getting caught up in the current tech selloff (Chart 10). Tech stocks are also likely to bounce if inflation expectations peak as the Federal Reserve kicks into action.     Chart 7It Takes Time To Boost Shale Output Chart 8US Small Caps Yet To Benefit From Oil Price Chart 9Buy The Dip In Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Cyber Stocks A 'Buy' In Tech Selloff Investment Takeaways Chart 11A Floor In Biden’s Approval? US financial markets do not care about the midterm elections in the near term but that will change as policy uncertainty will rise over the course of the year. A bottom in Biden’s approval rating (Chart 11) and Republican primary election infighting both suggest that the Democratic Party’s odds in the midterms will improve going forward, raising policy uncertainty, especially over the Senate. Midterm uncertainty typically works in favor of the US dollar, Treasuries, defensive equity sectors, and growth stocks. As such it poses a risk to current market trends. The recent selloff in Big Tech confirms what we have argued since we launched the US Political Strategy: the tech sector faces a slow boil from inflation and rising interest, which are more immediate threats than government regulation. Having said that, we favor growth versus value on a tactical basis as we expect the dollar to rise and Treasury yields to fall on the back of geopolitical risks in the near term (Chart 12).  Chart 12A Tactical Bounce For Tech Stocks?   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See Vice President Michael R. Pence’s letter, dated January 6, 2021, available at “Read Pence’s full letter saying he can’t claim ‘unilateral authority’ to reject electoral votes,” PBS, pbs.org. See also Mychael Schnell, “Trump says he wanted Pence to overturn election, eyes effort to reform law,” January 31, 2022, and Brett Samuels, “Pence breaks with Trump: ‘I had no right to overturn the election,’” February 4, 2022, thehill.com. 2     Please see “Over half of Americans believe the country's economy is headed in the wrong direction,” Ipsos, December 29, 2021, Ipsos.com 3    See Cook Political Report, “2022 House Race Ratings,” February 8, 2022, cookpolitical.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Executive Summary The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era Recent price action in developed market government bond markets confirms a backdrop that has been in place for the past several years - movements in US Treasuries define the trend in global yields, but Europe sets the effective floor. Higher core European bond yields are also pushing up non-European yields, in the context of the current global monetary policy tightening cycle. The hawkish market pricing for the ECB this year has gone a bit too far, as the start of European rate hikes this year is more likely in Q4 than in the summer – and only after ECB asset purchases begin to formally wind down. In the UK, the Bank of England appears to be trying to front load policy tightening, both rate hikes and balance sheet runoff, in response to overshooting UK inflation. A shorter, sharper policy tightening cycle means that the UK Gilt curve will continue to bear-flatten.  Bottom Line: Within the “Big 3” developed market central banks, the Fed and Bank of England are more likely to deliver discounted rate hikes than the ECB over the next 6-12 months. Remain underweight US Treasuries and UK Gilts versus German Bunds in global bond portfolios. Feature Chart 1A Global Repricing Of Interest Rate Expectations Persistent elevated inflation readings are forcing policymakers to move up the timetable of expected cyclical interest rate increases, but without signaling any change to longer-term interest rate expectations. The result has been an upward move in bond yields led by a repricing of shorter-term yields, leading to bearish yield curve flattening pressure across the developed markets (Chart 1). As the global bond bear market has intensified and broadened across countries and fixed income sectors, the amount of bonds worldwide with negative yields has been slashed by $9 trillion since December (Chart 2). Some notable examples: the 10-year German Bund yield is now up to +0.26%, the 30-year US real TIPS yield is now at +0.04% and even the 5-year Japanese government bond yield climbed to +0.02% for the first time since 2016. Last week, bond markets had to digest both a 25bp Bank of England (BoE) rate hike - that was almost a 50bp move - and a huge upside surprise in the January US employment report. However, it was the more hawkish-than-expected messaging from the European Central Bank (ECB) that really rattled fixed income markets. At the February monetary policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde opened the door to potential ECB rate hikes this year, a notable change from the previous forward guidance that rates would stay unchanged in 2022. This not only triggered a major decline in European government bond prices, but also notable jumps in bond volatility for both longer-term and, especially, shorter-term yields. Implied volatilities for swaptions on 2-year European swap rates now sit at the highest levels since the depths of the European Debt Crisis in 2011 (Chart 3). Chart 2The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era​​​​​ Chart 3The Front-Ends Of Yield Curves Awaken​​​​​​ Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are now discounting multiple rate hikes from the Fed (+127bps), BoE (+125bps) and ECB (+46bps) this year. Tighter monetary policy is the inevitable consequence of the current combination of steady above-trend growth, tight labor markets and very high inflation in those countries. This mix will continue to put upward pressure on global bond yields through a blend of steady inflation expectations and higher real yields as pandemic era monetary stimulus is removed – a process that is already underway in the US and Europe (Chart 4). Our Central Bank Monitors – designed to measure the cyclical pressure to change monetary policy – are all indicating the need for tightening in the US, UK and euro area. However, the risk is that tightening perceived to be too aggressive or too rapid will be received poorly by financial markets that have grown accustomed to easy money policies during the pandemic. Given the current starting point of high equity valuations and relatively tight corporate credit spreads in the US, financial conditions are no impediment to additional Fed rate hikes in 2022 (Chart 5). The same cannot be said in the UK, where the steady appreciation of the trade-weighted pound is tightening financial conditions, on the margin. In the euro area, financial conditions remain relatively stimulative, as the euro is undervalued on a trade-weighted basis. Chart 4A Recipe For Even Higher Bond Yields Given high realized inflation, financial stability concerns are playing a secondary role in the policy deliberations of central banks facing an inflation-fighting credibility crisis. In the absence of a big fall in inflation, it will take much larger selloffs in equity and corporate credit markets than what has occurred so far in 2022 before policymakers would step back from interest rate increases over the next year. Chart 5Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To Rate Hikes​​​​​​ The ECB Will Lag The Fed On Rate Hikes Chart 6Faster Growth & Slower Inflation Expected In 2022 One of our highest conviction bond market views to begin 2022 called for US Treasuries to underperform German Bunds. Our view was based on the likelihood that the Fed would lift the fed funds rate multiple times this year and the ECB was likely to hold off on rate hikes until the first half of 2023 at the earliest. Last week’s shift in the ECB’s tone does not change that relative call. The Fed is still under far greater pressure to hike rates than the ECB, even if there is now a greater chance that the ECB could begin to tighten by the end of 2022. From an economic growth perspective, both central banks have good reasons to consider withdrawing monetary accommodation. The economic expectations in both the US and euro area have started to recover, according to the ZEW survey of financial market professionals, with a bigger bounce seen in the latter since the trough of last October (Chart 6). The fading Omicron wave is likely playing a large role in lifting economic expectations, as the variant has proven to be less lethal than previous waves of the virus. The ZEW survey also asks respondents about their views on future inflation and interest rate changes. The ZEW Inflation Expectations index has fallen back to pre-pandemic lows in both the US and euro area, indicating that a majority expect lower inflation in the US and Europe over the next year. Both the Fed and ECB also expect inflation to fall from current elevated levels this year. However, there is still a much stronger case for tightening in the US given the tight labor market that is pushing up wages. Last week’s January US payrolls data was a shocker, with employment rising +476,000 on the month when some forecasters were calling for an outright contraction in jobs due to the impact of the Omicron variant. Wage growth accelerated smartly, with average hourly earnings up 0.7% on the month and 5.7% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). This continues the trend of wage acceleration seen in other data series like the Employment Cost Index, confirming that the US labor market is tight enough to elicit a strong policy response from the Fed. In the euro area, the recent economic data has been a bit more mixed. The Markit manufacturing PMI rose to a five-month high of 59.0 in January, beating expectations. However, the services PMI fell to a nine-month low of 51.2 as renewed COVID lockdowns weighed on consumer confidence and spending (Chart 8). With Omicron numbers now slowing, some recovery in consumer spending is likely over the next few months as euro area governments reduce restrictions. However, the manufacturing recovery will struggle to gain significant upside momentum without stronger demand for European exports – an outcome that is not currently heralded by an upturn in reliable indicators like the global leading economic indicator or the China credit impulse (Chart 9). Chart 7Persistent US Labor Market Strength​​​​​​ Chart 8A Mixed Picture On European Growth​​​​​​ Even within the euro area inflation data, there are mixed trends that make it less clear that a major tightening cycle is necessary. Headline euro area HICP inflation hit a 37-year high of 5.1% in January, which was heavily influenced by a 28.6% rise in the energy component of the index (Chart 10). Goods price inflation reached 6.8%, its highest level since 1991, fueled by global supply chain disruptions and greater consumer demand for goods versus services during the pandemic. For the latter, services inflation reached a much more subdued 2.4% in January, in line with core HICP inflation of 2.3%. We expect goods price inflation to slow substantially, on a global basis and not just in Europe, as supply chain disruptions ease over the course of 2022 and consumers shift spending back towards services from durable goods as economies reopen post-Omicron. Chart 9A Gloomy Picture For European Exports​​​​​ Chart 10European Inflation Surge Focused On Energy & Goods​​​​​ Surging oil and natural gas prices will keep the energy component elevated over the next few months, particularly if geopolitical tensions over Ukraine result in Russia withholding natural gas supplies to Europe. Yet it is not clear how much of this will pass through to core inflation, which actually decelerated in January from the 2.6% pace seen in December 2021 despite surging energy prices. What does a typical ECB liftoff look like? Should the ECB focus more on the headline or core inflation numbers when deciding if rate hikes are necessary later this year? The answer may lie more in the breadth across countries, rather than depth across sectors, of euro area inflation pressures. In the relatively short history of the ECB, dating back to the inception of the euro in 1998, there have been only three monetary tightening episodes that involved interest rate increases: 1999-00, 2006-08 and 2011. In Chart 11, we show the percentage share of individual euro area countries that have accelerating growth momentum (measured as a leading economic indicator above the level of a year earlier), and with headline/core inflation above the ECB’s 2% target. In all three of those past ECB tightening episodes, essentially all euro area countries had to see strong growth or inflation at or above the ECB target before the ECB would hike rates. Chart 11The Growth & Inflation Conditions For An ECB Rate Hike Are In Place Chart 12Watch European Wages To Determine The ECB's Next Move(s) A similar story can be told looking at the state of the euro area labor market. The 1999-00 and 2006-08 tightening cycles occurred when nearly all euro area countries had an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU (Chart 12). Only in 2011, which was widely regarded as a major policy error, did the ECB hike rates without widespread labor market strength across the euro area. Right now, the breadth of the growth and inflation data across the euro area would indicate that the ECB will soon begin to tighten policy, if history is any guide. The one missing piece of the puzzle is faster wage growth. Euro area wage growth is severely lagging compared to other developed economies. For the last known data point in Q3/2021, wages were only growing at a 1.5% year-over-year rate. Wage growth has very likely accelerated since then, with the overall euro area unemployment rate now down to an all-time low of 7.0%, well below the OECD NAIRU estimate of 7.7%. The ECB will need to see confirmation of that faster wage growth in the data, however, before embarking on a path of rate hikes. Since last week’s ECB meeting, numerous ECB officials – including President Lagarde - have stated that asset purchases must stop before rate hikes can begin. While the ECB’s pandemic emergency bond buying program is set to end next month, the existing Asset Purchase Program is set to continue with no expiry date. If the ECB officials are to be taken at their word, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where asset purchases would be fully wound down (i.e. net purchases of zero, with buying only to replace maturing bonds held by the ECB) before the July liftoff date now priced into the Euro OIS curve. Such a rapid removal of the ECB bid would be very disruptive to the riskier parts of European fixed income markets, like Italian and Greek sovereign debt, that have benefited from heavy ECB buying under the pandemic bond buying program. European bond strategy implications While an ECB rate hike in 2022 is now a more probable scenario, it is not yet a done deal. The European growth picture remains mixed, and inflation readings outside of supply-constrained energy and durable goods – including wages - are far less threatening than headline inflation. At the moment, underlying inflation pressures are far more intense in the US. Durable goods inflation in the US reached 16.8% on a year-over-year basis last month, but climbed to “only” 3.8% in Europe (Chart 13). The Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean CPI index accelerated to 4.8% in January, compared to 3.0% for the euro area trimmed mean CPI inflation gauge constructed by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy. Chart 13Stay Positioned For A Wider UST-Bund Spread The Fed has a lot more work ahead of it in terms of tightening monetary policy to rein in inflation pressures (and inflation expectations) than the ECB. This will lead to a faster pace of rate hikes in the US than in Europe and renewed widening of the US Treasury-German Bund yield spread. Financial conditions in Europe will also play a role in limiting when, and how much, the ECB can eventually tighten monetary policy. Yields and spreads on the riskier parts of the European fixed income markets like Italian government bonds have already widened substantially in response to the more hawkish guidance from the ECB (Chart 14). The euro has also stabilized after the steady depreciation seen since the May 2021 peak. Markets are obviously pricing in an end to ECB asset purchases – the precursor to rate hikes – which would force the private sector to absorb a greater share of Italian bond issuance than has been the case over the past few years. It will likely take higher yields to entice those buyers compared to the price-insensitive ECB that has been buying Italian debt as a monetary policy tool. The speed of the adjustment in Italian bond yields has no doubt alerted the ECB Governing Council to the financial stability risks of moving too fast on tightening monetary conditions. We must acknowledge that most the recent trends in the Treasury-Bund spread (narrower) and Italian bond yields/spreads (higher) go against our current strategic recommendations to overweight European fixed income. Markets have moved to price in a far more aggressive move from the ECB than we had envisioned for 2022. However, as highlighted above, it is not clear that the ECB needs to dial back monetary accommodation as rapidly as markets now expect. Thus, we are sticking with our strategic recommendations to overweight euro area government bonds, both in the core and periphery, in global bond portfolios. At the same time, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated European portfolios, even with the 10-year German Bund yield having already reached our end-2022 yield target of 0.25% (Chart 15). European bond yields will remain under upward pressure until euro area inflation finally peaks and the ECB will be under less pressure to tighten. Chart 14ECB Facing An "Italy-vs-Inflation" Tradeoff​​​​​ Chart 15Too Much, Too Soon Priced Into Bund Yields​​​​​ Bottom Line: Markets are overestimating how quickly the ECB can begin to tighten European monetary policy. An initial rate hike can occur in Q4 of this year, at the earliest, which is later than the current mid-summer liftoff date discounted in interest rate forwards. Ride out the current European rates volatility and stay overweight European government debt versus the US. UK Update: The BoE Wants To Tighten Fast At last week's policy meeting, the BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted 5-4 to raise Bank Rate by 25bps to 0.5%. That close vote is less dovish than it appears, though, as the four “dissenting” MPC members wanted to raise rates by 50bps instead! This was a hawkish surprise that resulted in bearish flattening of the UK Gilt yield curve. Chart 16UK Gilts: Volatile, But Underperforming We have maintained a below-benchmark strategic recommendation on Gilts since August of last year. The relative performance of Gilts versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury benchmark index has seen tremendous volatility since then, particular after the BoE delayed the expected initial rate hike last November (Chart 16) Gilts began to underperform again after the BoE hiked in December and have continued to be one of the worst performing G10 bond markets, validating our bearish call. After last week’s BoE hike, we still see value in betting on additional Gilt underperformance, as markets may still be underestimating how high the BoE will have to raise rates in the current tightening cycle. In the new set of economic projections from the BoE’s Monetary Policy Report published last week, the central bank raised its expectation for the April peak in UK inflation to 7.25% (Chart 17). This compares to the latest inflation rate of 5.4%. Higher energy and goods prices account for three-quarters of that expected inflation increase, according to the BoE. UK inflation is projected to fall rapidly from that April peak, in response to an expected deceleration of energy and goods prices and slower UK economic growth. However, the Monetary Policy Report also highlighted that domestic UK cost pressures are intensifying in response to a very tight UK labor market. The BoE’s Agents’ survey of UK businesses reported that UK firms continue to have difficulty filling job openings, while also having success in passing on rising labor costs into selling prices. Thus, the UK labor market is now the critical variable to watch to determine how many more rate hikes the BoE will need to deliver in the current cycle. On that note, the BoE expects UK wage growth to accelerate to just under 5% over the next year, which is well above the central bank’s estimate of “underlying” pre-pandemic wage growth around 3.5%. Inflation expectations in the UK remain elevated. The YouGov/Citigroup survey shows that UK consumers expect inflation to be 4.8% on year from now and 3.8% 5-10 years ahead (Chart 18, top panel). Market-based inflation expectations have been more volatile of late but CPI swaps are pricing in inflation of 5.0% in two years and 4.2% in ten years.1 Thus, by any measure – realized inflation, expected inflation or wage growth – UK inflation is too high, which justifies tighter monetary policy. The UK OIS curve now discounts a peak in Bank Rate of 1.85% in April 2023, but this is immediately followed by rate cuts that take Bank Rate to 1.5% by the end of 2024. That path over the next year is a bit more hawkish than the results from the BoE’s new Market Participants Survey of bond investors, which showed an expected peak in Bank Rate of 1.5% sometime in the latter half of 2023. In both cases, Bank Rate is expected to settle below the BoE’s 2% inflation target, or below current inflation expectations. Suggesting an implied belief that the BoE will not be able to raise real interest rates into positive territory. In terms of forward guidance, several BoE officials have noted that they expect that only a few more hikes will be needed to help bring UK inflation back down to the 2% target. Yet the OIS curve is pricing in a “policy error” scenario where the BoE pushes up rates too rapidly and is then forced to cut rates soon afterward. We see both the BoE guidance and the OIS pricing as far too cautious on the eventual peak in Bank Rate, which leads us to maintain our underweight recommendation on UK Gilt exposure, both in terms of duration and country allocation in global bond portfolios. Chart 17BoE Sees A Short, Sharp Shock From Inflation & Rates We have also been recommending a Gilt curve steepening trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 20 since last October. This trade went long a 10-year Gilt bullet versus a barbell combination of a 7-year and 30-year Gilt. Chart 18Stay Underweight UK Gilts​​​​​ Our view at the time of trade inception was that a Gilt steepener would benefit from a scenario where the market would be forced to reassess how high rates would go in the next BoE tightening cycle. However, the BoE now appears to be “front loading” the tightening cycle by moving rates sooner and more aggressively, as evidenced by the near 50bp rate hike last week, while also moving to an accelerated runoff of bonds accumulated during quantitative easing operations. The Gilt yield curve has flattened considerably in response to increasing BoE hawkishness, with the yield spread between the 10-year and 2-yield Gilt now down to a mere +17bps. While we still see the potential for the longer-end of the Gilt curve to rise in response to an eventual repricing of terminal rate expectations that appear too low, the BoE’s acceleration of its hiking timetable will make it difficult for the curve to bearishly steepen in the near term. Thus, we are closing out our tactical Gilt curve steepener at a small gain of +23bps.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      UK CPI swaps, and inflation breakevens on index-linked Gilts, reference the UK Retail Price Index (RPI) which typically runs higher than the UK Consumer Price Index (CPI). This imparts an upward bias to UK inflation expectations when compared to CPI swaps and breakevens in other countries. Currently, RPI inflation is running at 7.5% compared to CPI inflation of 5.4%. 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 Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades