Economy

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The US midterm elections will bring another round of intense polarization and policy uncertainty this year, though the overall stock market today appears well prepared for the most likely result: a GOP victory in House and Senate. Yet our quantitative Senate election model is “too close to call.” It expects Democrats to retain 50 seats in the Senate and hence the thinnest possible majority. We doubt it, subjectively, but the important point is that the Senate will be stymied either way. Indeed, the only way investors could truly be surprised would be if Democrats made a comeback and retained control of both chambers, but this outcome is very unlikely.  Voters make up their minds early in the year during midterm elections, so Democrats may not benefit from any softening of inflation later this year. Still, gridlock ensures that domestic policy uncertainty will rise as well as foreign policy uncertainty. The  dollar will be resilient, favoring a tactically defensive positioning. Quant Model For US Senate Election Bottom Line: While we expect Republicans to win both the House and the Senate in 2022, our quant model says the Senate is too close to call. Value has bottomed on a structural time frame but the coming months will be challenging and we recommend growth stocks tactically. Feature This report updates our quantitative models for the 2022 Senate and 2024 presidential elections (Chart of the Week). As always, we use the quantitative modeling as a complement to our qualitative analysis. Formal modeling helps to question our assumptions and views. It is not a substitute for empirical analysis and good judgment, whether in economics or politics. Our qualitative analysis utilizes the geopolitical method, a method based on realist political theory, in which we analyze the concrete checks and balances (constraints) that prevent policymakers from achieving their objectives. We then assign scenario probabilities and compare with BCA Research macro and market views to identify investment risks and opportunities. Advantage Republicans In Midterm Elections Our base case for the midterm election is a Republican victory in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This outlook is consensus in online betting odds (Chart 1). However, the consensus may be underestimating the Democrats in the Senate election. The Senate is still in play and that is where investors should focus this year. However, the only true risk to expectations would be Democrats keeping the House and Senate. Every other scenario involves different shades of gridlock. Democrats can only hold onto both chambers if a shock event occurs that massively upsets expectations. Such a shock would have to be devastating for the Republicans, as it would go against long-established political cycles and current trends. The implication would be a rare chance to pass major legislation on partisan lines: corporate tax hikes and social programs cut out of the current “Build Back Better” planning. Online betters currently give this Democratic scenario a 10% probability: it is essentially a “black swan” and would be inflationary on the margin. Chart 1Midterm Election Odds Favor Republicans Other scenarios are more or less disinflationary as Republicans in the opposition will attempt to rein in government spending: If Republicans win both chambers, then they will have an impetus to pass legislation and it is more likely that they will do so, as President Biden could find common ground (a la Bill Clinton after 1994). But if Republicans win only the House, then they will only be capable of obstruction and brinksmanship, a la the “Tea Party” Republicans of 2010-16. This scenario would be disinflationary and would heighten political risks such as the risk of a national debt default over a refusal to raise the debt ceiling in 2023. Bottom Line: The only midterm election outcome that could surprise US markets in a major way in 2022 would be a Democratic victory in both houses of Congress. But the consensus is right to put the odds of that at 10%. Otherwise the midterm scenarios are just different shades of gridlock, albeit with higher policy uncertainty under a split Congress. Republicans Highly Likely To Take The House We have not yet unveiled our House Election model but here we can make some preliminary predictions. The opposition party has gained seats in the House in 90% of the midterm elections since 1862 (incumbent party gained seats four out of 40 times). Exceptions are rare (e.g. 1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002) and not applicable to the 2022 context so far.1 About 47 seats in the House are thought to be competitive this year, compared to around 75 in 2018, 81 in 2010, and 38 in 2002. Of the 47 competitive seats, 30 are especially competitive, with 18 Democratic and 12 Republican. Four Democratic seats are wide open to competition, i.e. lacking an incumbent, the same as four Republican seats. However, more Democrats (29) are stepping down than Republicans (13), a sign that Democratic incumbents recognize cyclical patterns turning against them.2 President Biden has a net negative approval rating (53% disapprove while 42% approve), similar to President Trump in 2018, when Republicans lost 42 seats in the House. Presidential approval has a significant correlation with House losses for the president’s party since the end of World War II. This is especially true when taking the average of presidential approval and his party’s support in the generic congressional ballot. By this measure Democrats are lined up to lose 40 House seats, whereas they only need to lose a net of five to lose control. The nation’s woes are unlikely to improve significantly in time for the election: Inflation is surging and real wages are collapsing (Chart 2). Even if economists observe inflation rolling over before the election, voter inflation expectations will lag, and will be brought into the ballot box. Americans are the unhappiest they have been since the 1970s, as a consequence of the pandemic, the economy, toxic society and politics, and other factors (Chart 3). Chart 2Consumers Facing Rising Prices Amid Declining Incomes Chart 3Unhappiness Reaches New High A rebound in consumer confidence is not enough to save Biden’s party from losses at the ballot box, as President Obama learned in 2010 and 2014 (Chart 4). Similarly a big drop in confidence can hurt the president in the midterms even if confidence recovers in time for the vote, as happened to Republicans in 2018. Biden has another foreign policy crisis on his hands (Russia), after losing trust on his handling of Afghanistan, and may have more crises to deal with by November (Iran, Latin America). If a crisis hits the oil price, as with Russia or Iran, then prices at the pump will go higher, as we discussed in “Biden’s External Risks.” As for the immigration surge, while it will not concern the business community during a time of labor shortage and inflation, it will concern voters, especially in border states like Arizona (Chart 5). The current surge is historic and may come back to haunt the Democrats. Chart 4Lackluster Consumer Confidence Won't Help Democrats Chart 5Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Republicans will benefit slightly from the post-2020 congressional redistricting. Democrats will probably not make substantial gains as a result of Republican infighting in the primaries, though it could make a big difference in the Senate. We will revisit the latter two issues in future reports (redistricting and Republican primaries) but they only matter if Democrats make a significant comeback in opinion. Otherwise the general swing of public opinion will swamp these marginal effects in the House elections. Worst of all for Democrats, evidence shows that voters tend to make up their minds early in the year. That is when the correlation is strongest between the generic congressional opinion poll and the vote share of elections, though for Democrats in particular late-year polling is equally significant (Chart 6). Chart 6AMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 6BMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year What could lift the Democrats’ odds? The following factors: The relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic will wane. The economy, while slowing, will continue expanding and unemployment will be very low (Chart 7). Democrats are still somewhat likely to pass a reconciliation bill with the most popular parts of their “Build Back Better” agenda. Democrats will use social “wedge issues” to mobilize their political base. A racialized battle over the Supreme Court nomination and any conservative Supreme Court ruling on abortion may mobilize African Americans and women. It is possible, not likely, that a foreign policy crisis could generate a lasting patriotic backlash against foreign insults, as we discussed last week. This dynamic is relevant given our Geopolitical Strategy’s 75% odds of new Russian military action in Ukraine. A lot can change in nine months during rapidly changing and highly polarized contests in which every marginal vote matters. Bottom Line: While Republicans are highly likely to retake control of the House, the Senate is still in competition. Chart 7Economy Will Slow, Unemployment To Remain Low The Senate Leans GOP But Still In Play The Senate is more competitive than the House in this year’s election, as 20 Republican seats are up for grabs versus only 14 Democratic seats. About nine of these seats are truly competitive, compared to 13 in 2018, 11 in 2010, and 15 in 2002.3 Only one Democrat is stepping down, in the very blue state of Vermont, whereas five Republicans are stepping down, three of which from competitive states. Hence Democrats have a better chance of picking up Republican seats in North Carolina and Pennsylvania than otherwise. However, even here, Democrats only have a one-seat margin of safety. A net loss of a single seat will yield control of the chamber. Our quantitative model relies on the following six variables: State-level economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in state’s previous Senate race (i.e. 2020) The incumbent president’s net average approval rating Average net support rate of incumbent party in generic congressional ballot A dummy variable for the generic ballot, for statistical purposes A “time for change” penalty for any party that has controlled the Senate for six or more years The model’s results are shown in Chart 8. Currently the model says the status quo will hold, with a 50/50 split in the Senate. Democrats lose Georgia but gain Pennsylvania and hence the balance of power stays the same, as Vice President Kamala Harris casts any tie-breaking vote. Chart 8Senate Quant Election Model Points To Even Split Specifically the model says: Arizona is a toss-up but leans Democratic, with 55% odds. Pennsylvania is a toss-up but switches to the Democrats with 54% odds. North Carolina is a toss-up but leans Republican with 47% odds. Georgia switches to the Republican side and is no longer viewed as a toss-up at 43% odds. Looking at the change in these election probabilities since November 2020, North Carolina has seen the biggest drop for the Democrats, followed by Arizona (Chart 9). Democratic odds are worsening in four states, while Republican odds are worsening in three states. Since North Carolina and Pennsylvania are losing their Republican incumbents, this change in odds is a problem for the GOP. By contrast, Democrats are running incumbents in the four states where they are vulnerable. The problem for Democrats, again, is that voters make up their minds early. The closest correlation between the generic party polling and the incumbent party’s performance in the Senate in a midterm election occurs in February at 94% (Chart 10). Chart 9Senate Model: Change In Predicted Probability Senate elections, like all American elections, are increasingly nationalized.4 This is evident in the 75% correlation we find between the generic polls and the performance of the incumbent party in the Senate (Chart 10 again). So, for example, while one might view Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona as likely to win given the incumbent advantage and the fact that he is a former astronaut and US Navy captain, and he may indeed win, nevertheless a national wave of anti-incumbent feeling could overwhelm his re-election bid. Still, state effects could matter. To examine these from a macro perspective we look at each state’s Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment) compared to the national average in Chart 11. Here are the notable takeaways: Chart 10Midterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 11AState Level Miseries Point To Risks For Democrats In GA And AZ… Chart 11B… And To Republicans In PA And WI Misery in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania is higher than average and rising – negative news for Democrat Kelly, Democrat Raphael Warnock, and the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate in Pennsylvania. Misery in Florida is also slightly above the national average and rising, though Senator Marco Rubio is likely secure. Wisconsin misery is lower than national average and rising (possibly hurting Republican incumbent Senator Ron Johnson). North Carolina misery is lower than national average and falling (helping the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate). In other words, Misery Indexes support our model’s findings, yet suggest that Democrats face a headwind in Arizona – where our model is also flagging an important risk for Democrats. In sum, our model’s direction of change suggests Democrats will lose another seat and thus the Senate. Going forward, the key moving parts are the economy and the president’s and his party’s approval ratings. There is a chance that these variables will bottom early in the year and improve later, which underscores that the Senate will remain competitive. What investors can be certain about is that Democrats are extremely unlikely to make significant seat gains in the Senate. So even if they retain control, it will be with the thinnest of possible majorities, and hence the Senate will only be capable of passing bipartisan Republican-authored House bills – or vetoing Republican House bills to save the president from having to veto them. It is also certain that Republicans will fall far short of the 67 votes they would need to remove Biden from office, if House Republicans find or invent a reason to impeach him. Bottom Line: The Senate outcome is too close to call but subjectively we doubt Democrats will pull it off given the negative macro trends cited above. Our Senate election model gives 51% odds that Democrats will retain a de facto majority with 50 seats. 2024 Presidential Vote: Odds Favor Democrats For Now The US presidential election is 34 months away. Investors need to be prepared for any outcome, including another contested election. But it is important to have a base case – especially because a Republican (or Democratic) victory in both House and Senate in 2022 would open up the prospect of single-party control in 2025, which has much bigger policy implications than various shades of gridlock. As a rule of thumb, investors should think of presidential elections as a referendum on the incumbent party, not the president’s person, for the prior four years of material performance. Thus Democrats are currently favored to keep the White House. Voters will feel better than they did in 2020, which suffered a triple crisis of pandemic, recession, and unrest. Significant changes must occur to alter this trajectory – such as a recession, Biden’s stepping down, or a humiliating foreign policy defeat.5 Our quantitative model supports this view: it currently gives a 55.2% chance of Democratic victory in the Electoral College (Chart 12). Chart 12US Election 2024: Quant Model Tips Dems Our model relies on the following four variables: State economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in the previous election A penalty for parties that have held the White House for two terms (not applicable in 2024) The president’s approval rating (level) Interestingly our model produces 308 electoral votes for Biden, compared to his actual 306 in 2020, except that some states trade places: Democrats win Florida while Republicans take back Arizona and Georgia. Specifically the model says: North Carolina is a toss-up state but leans Republican. Wisconsin is a toss-up state but just slightly leans Democratic. Florida and Pennsylvania have moved above toss-up range into the Democratic camp. Arizona and Georgia have slipped beneath the toss-up range into the Republican camp. Looking at the change in each state’s odds of voting for the incumbent, Democrats’ chances are falling in eight states while Republicans chances are falling in three states (Chart 13). Wisconsin and Arizona are seeing the most substantial drops, followed by Pennsylvania. Thus the current direction of change is negative for Democrats as one would expect. Biden’s thin margin of victory in 2020 and weak approval ratings make him vulnerable, so the economic performance will largely determine the model’s results going forward. If Biden avoids a recession, that may be enough to retain the White House according to the model. Florida is an interesting case. The model gives a 59% chance it will go to the Democrats. We are suspicious of this outcome but it suggests investors should not take a Republican victory there for granted. Consider: Chart 13Presidential Model: Change In Predicted Probability While we gave President Trump 45% odds of winning in 2020, we predicted he would win Florida due to the state’s partisan leaning.6 That leaning has probably not changed much, although Governor Ron DeSantis’s latest approval rating is only at 45%. However, the six-month change in Florida’s coincident economic indicator has fallen 0.6% since November 2020 and the Misery Index is rising above the national average, as noted above. If Biden loses Florida but the rest of our model is correct, Democrats will retain the White House with 279 electoral college votes. That would leave Wisconsin as the decisive battleground. Yet Wisconsin is very tenuously in their camp today, so any change in the model that gives Florida back to the Republicans would likely give them Wisconsin as well … The result of Biden losing Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (among other combinations) would be a 269-269 tie in the electoral college, in which each state’s delegation to the House of Representatives would have a single vote. A Republican win in the House in 2022 would thus result in a Republican White House in another explosive contested election. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, 2024 is more than two years away. Bottom Line: Our presidential model gives a 55% chance that Democrats will retain the White House in 2024. Subjectively we agree. A Democratic defeat in 2022 will not rule out a Democratic victory in 2024, especially if Biden is alive and kicking, given the incumbent advantage. But economic factors will largely determine how the model evolves over the next 34 months. Our model also suggests the Electoral College math will be close and that another contested election is possible. Investment Takeaways Based on the current stock market correction, financial markets have priced a fair amount of policy uncertainty already. And this report suggests the midterms merely offer different shades of gridlock. However, Biden’s external risks – namely conflict with Russia – could cause further risk-off moves. And uncertainty will increase as midterms get closer. US policy uncertainty is falling relative to the rest of the world (Chart 14). This is positive for King Dollar, at least over a tactical time frame. The Fed’s interest rate liftoff is also positive for the dollar. Chart 14Lower US Uncertainty In The Near Future Supports The DXY Hence on a short-term basis, the stock-to-bond ratio can fall further and cyclicals can fall further relative to defensives. Tactically we recommend going long growth versus value stocks (Chart 15). Value has surged in the New Year and the dollar and rate hikes will counteract that, as well as any global energy shock that kills demand. Chart 15Tactically Go Long Growth Versus Value However, this is a tactical call. Otherwise, we remain in line with the BCA House View, which favors stocks over bonds and a weaker dollar over the next 12 months.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Brookings Institution, “Losses by the President’s Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2014,” Vital Statistics on Congress, February 8, 2021, www.brookings.edu. 2     For the number of competitive seats, see Cook Political Report, cookpolitical.com, and Fair Vote, fairvote.org.  3    See footnotes 1 and 2 above. In addition see the Green Papers, “General Election 2002 – Contests to Watch,” October 25, 2002, thegreenpapers.com, and Ken Rudin, “2010 Senate Ratings: 11 Seats Seen As Tossups; GOP With At Least 3 Pickups,” NPR, July 9, 2010, npr.org. 4    See Joel Sievert and Seth C. McKee, “Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections,” American Politics Research 47:5 (2019), pp. 1036-1054. 5    Our qualitative presidential election framework relies heavily on the work of Professor Allan Lichtman, American University. See our updated Lichtman-style checklist in BCA US Political Strategy, “Biden Is Underwater But His Legislation Will Float,” September 8, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 6    See BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Upgrading Trump’s Odds of Re-Election,” October 26, 2020, bcaresearch.com. See also my interview on Bloomberg’s The Tape Podcast, “Full Blue Sweep Will Push Biden To Left,” July 13, 2020, Bloomberg.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

Special Report

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Asian Inflation Has Diverged From US Inflation has been largely subdued in emerging Asia and will remain so for now. This argues for the outperformance of emerging Asian local bonds versus their EM peers, as well as DM/US bonds.   The most important macro driver of Asian domestic bond yields is inflation. Rising inflation usually also hurts local currencies – creating a toxic cocktail for bonds’ total returns in US dollar terms. Diverging currency dynamics in emerging Asia is what will determine the relative performances of individual bond markets. Chinese, Indian, and Malaysian currencies have a better outlook than currencies in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. Book profits on the short Korean won position: this trade has generated a 5.2% gain since its initiation on March 25, 2021. Recommendation   Initiation Date Return to Date Short KRW / Long USD 2021-03-25 5.2% Bottom Line: Regional fixed income managers should overweight China, Korea, India and Malaysia, and underweight Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines within an emerging Asian bond portfolio. In an overall EM domestic bond portfolio however, Thailand and the Philippines should be accorded a neutral allocation, given their better inflation outlook compared to their peers in EMEA and Latin America. Feature US Treasury yields will likely go up further. If history is any guide, EM Asian bond yields should also rise in tandem (Chart 1). The basis is that business cycles in Asia and the US usually move together. Yet, in this cycle, inflation in emerging Asia has diverged considerably from that of the US. US core consumer price inflation has surged while in Asia, core inflation remains largely contained (Chart 2). How should bond investors position themselves in Asian domestic bond markets? Chart 1Asian Bond Yields Usually Move In Line With US Treasury Yields... Chart 2...But Diverging Inflation Means Asian Bonds Will Outperform US Bonds Chart 3Relative Domestic Bond Performances In Asian Markets In this report, we will discuss some of the common factors that drive Emerging Asian bond markets. We will also highlight each individual market’s idiosyncrasies to explain our recommended allocation across local currency bond markets in emerging Asia for the coming year.     Our recommended allocation is as follows: China, Korea, India and Malaysia merit an overweight stance in an emerging Asia domestic bond portfolio, while Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines warrant an underweight allocation (Chart 3). That said, given a much more benign inflation outlook in Asia than elsewhere in EM, we recommend that Thailand and the Philippines be accorded a neutral allocation in an overall EM domestic bond portfolio. The Two Drivers For international investors in local bonds, total returns are predicated on two main drivers: (1) the direction and magnitude of change in bond yields; and (2) currency performance. In all Asian countries, the most potent macro factor that drives local bond yields is the country’s inflation. Rising inflation is usually a harbinger of higher bond yields (and hence, worsening bond performance); and falling inflation is an indicator of lower yields (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 4Inflation Is The Most Important Macro Driver … Chart 5… Of Bond Yields In Emerging Asia What’s more, rising inflation in a country is also often associated with a depreciating currency. Currencies in countries with higher/rising inflation in general do worse than in countries with lower/falling inflation. This aspect is especially important when doing a cross-country comparison. The fact that higher inflation negatively impacts both the drivers of bond performance – it pushes up yields and weakens the currency – can indeed be seen happening in Asian financial markets. Rising inflation leads to poor performance of domestic bonds’ total return in dollar terms; and falling inflation leads to a better performance. The upshot is that the potential inflation trajectory is key to any country’s domestic bond performance in both absolute and relative terms. Inflation In Asia Is Benign Most of the Asian countries have their core and trimmed mean consumer price inflation running at or well below their central banks’ targets (Charts 6 and 7). Their inflation outlook also remains largely benign.1 As such, bond yields in these countries are unlikely to rise materially in the near future. Chart 6Inflation Is Running At Or Below … Chart 7… Central Banks’ Target in Asia Notably, even the recent surge in US yields did not spook Asian bond yields. The yield differentials between individual Asian domestic and US yields have remained flattish in the past few months. All this implies that Asian domestic bonds, in general, would likely fare better relative to the rest of the EM and the US – where inflation is high and well above their central banks’ targets. Currency Is A Key Differentiator Given inflation, and therefore the bond yield trajectories among Asian economies are unlikely to deviate significantly from one another, the key differentiator of their bond market performance (on a total return basis) will be their exchange rates. In fact, Asian currencies do vary considerably in their outlooks as their fundamentals differ.  For instance, in China and Korea, higher bond yields are usually associated with an appreciating currency (Chart 8, top and middle panels). The key driver of bond yields in these economies is the business cycle. Accelerating growth often pushes up both the currency as well as interest rates. The opposite is also true: decelerating growth usually leads to a weaker currency and falling bond yields.  The consequence is that in these countries, bond performance is tempered by two opposing forces. For example, the effect of falling yields (which is a positive for total return) is often mitigated by the effect of a falling currency (which is a negative for total return), or the other way around. In contrast to China and Korea, ASEAN countries usually experience rising bond yields accompanied by a depreciating currency (Chart 9). A crucial reason for this is significantly higher foreign ownership of their domestic bonds. In periods of stress, when foreigners exit their bond holdings, this leads to both higher yields and a falling currency. During risk-on periods, foreigners’ purchases do the opposite. Chart 8Higher Bond Yields Coincide With A Stronger Currency In China And Korea Chart 9Higher Bond Yields Coincide With A Weaker Currency In ASEAN In this context, foreign ownership of domestic bonds in ASEAN countries has fallen in the past few years, but remains non-trivial: 19% in Indonesia, 24.2% in Malaysia, 19.9% in the Philippines, and 11.3% in Thailand. Hence, the currency view on ASEAN countries is crucial to get the outlook right for their domestic bond performance. Incidentally, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have a weak currency outlook, while Malaysia’s is neutral. We discuss the individual currency outlooks in more detail in the respective country sections below. But in summary, this warrants a more positive stance on Malaysian domestic bonds compared to Indonesian, Thai and Filipino bonds. Finally, in case of India, bond yields and the rupee have little correlation (Chart 8, bottom panel). The main reasons for that are near absence of foreign investors in Indian government bond markets, and large captive domestic bond investors (its commercial banks). Yet, unlike China and Korea, India also has higher inflation and a persistent current account deficit. All these make the correlation of bond yields with the exchange rate different in India from both ASEAN as well as China and Korea. In the sections below, we discuss each country’s currency and overall bond outlook in more detail. We also explain the reasons behind our relative bond strategy. China: Overweight Chart 10Chinese Bond Yields Will Likely Fall More China’s economy will remain weak in the coming months. The hit to the economy from slowing property construction is material. Besides, COVID-induced rotational lockdowns are hurting consumption, income and investment in the service sector. The latest round of stimulus has so far not been sufficient to produce an immediate recovery. We expect growth to revive only in H2 2022. For now, the PBOC will reduce its policy rate further. This and the fact that the yield curve is positively slopped heralds more downside in Chinese government bond yields (Chart 10). Concerning the exchange rate, the ongoing US dollar rally could eventually cause a short period of yuan weakness. However, the latter will be small and short lived. In brief, Chinese domestic bonds will outperform both their Asian and EM peers in the coming months. Korea: Overweight The following factors argue for overweighting Korean bonds within both emerging Asian and EM domestic bond portfolios: Chart 11Korea Has No Genuine Inflation The Korean won has already depreciated quite a bit against the US dollar. While further downside is possible in the very near term, the medium-term outlook is positive. Even though headline and core inflation have exceeded the central bank’s target of 2%, trimmed mean consumer price inflation has not yet exceeded 2% (Chart 4, middle panel) and services CPI, excluding housing, seems to have rolled over. Importantly, no wage inflation spiral is evident. Unit labor costs have been falling in both the manufacturing and service sectors (Chart 11). Hence, there is little pressure for companies to hike prices. India: Overweight Indian bonds should continue to outperform other EM domestic bonds (Chart 3, middle panel). The combination of prudent fiscal policy, a benign inflation outlook and a cheap currency makes Indian bonds attractive to foreign investors. Even though yields will go up somewhat given a recovering economy, the rise will be capped as the inflation outlook remains benign. The reason for a soft inflation outlook is wages and expectations thereof are quite low (Chart 12). Global commodity prices will also likely soften in the months ahead. That will ease price pressures in India. The Indian rupee is cheap – it is now trading 12% below its fair value versus the US dollar (Chart 13). The rupee will likely be one of the best performers among EM currencies in the year ahead. Chart 12Low Urban And Rural Wages Will Keep A Lid on Indian Inflation Chart 13Indian Rupee Is Cheap   The spread of India’s 10-year bonds over that of GBI-EM Broad index is 190 basis points. The currency performance will likely offset any possible capital loss owing to rising yields, while a positive carry will boost total returns. Stay overweight. Indonesia: Underweight Indonesian relative bond yields versus both EM and the US have already fallen massively and at multi-year lows (Chart 14). The currently low yield differential between Indonesia and the aggregate EM local bonds as well as US Treasury yields is a negative for Indonesia’s relative performance going forward. Chart 15 shows that the rupiah is also vulnerable over the next several months as the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has fallen to its previous lows while the rupiah has not yet depreciated. We believe raw material prices will correct in the coming months, weighing on the rupiah. Hence, the country’s local bonds’ relative performance is facing a currency headwind too. Chart 14Indonesian Relative Bond Yields Are Quite Low Chart 15Indonesian Rupiah Is Vulnerable   Notably, a weaker currency by itself could cause bond yields to rise – because that may prompt foreign bond holders to exit this market. For now, investors would do well to underweight this domestic bond market in an emerging Asian or global EM portfolio. Malaysia: Overweight Chart 16Malaysian Yield Curve Is Too Steep Given The Deflationary Macro Backdrop Malaysian domestic bonds will likely fare well as the nation’s economy is still working through credit excesses of the previous decade. Domestic demand weakness has been exacerbated by a constrained fiscal policy. All of this has paved the way for a strong disinflationary backdrop.   The job market has not recovered either: the unemployment rate is hovering at a high level. That in turn has put downward pressures on wages. Average manufacturing wages are weak. Dwindling wages have contributed to depressed household incomes, leading to weak consumption and falling house prices (Chart 16). Considering the economic backdrop, Malaysia’s yield curve is far too steep (Chart 16, bottom panel). Odds are that the curve will flatten going forward – yields at the long end of the curve are likely heading lower. At a minimum, they will rise less than most other EM countries. Notably, the ringgit is quite cheap, and is unlikely to depreciate much versus the US dollar. Hence, it will outperform many other Asian/EM currencies. That calls for an overweight position in Malaysian local bonds within an Asian/EM universe.  Thailand: Underweight To Neutral Given the high correlation between Thai bond yields and the baht (rising yields coincide with a weakening currency), the total return of Thai bonds in USD terms is highly dependent on the baht’s performance. (Chart 17). The baht outlook remains weak, as the two main drivers of the currency, exports and tourism revenues, remain sluggish and absent, respectively. As such, absolute return investors in Thai domestic bonds should continue to avoid this market. Asset allocators should underweight Thai domestic bonds in an emerging Asia basket. In an overall EM domestic bond portfolio, however, Thai bonds warrant a neutral allocation. That’s because Thailand has been a defensive bond market due to its traditionally strong current account, very low inflation, and lower holding of bonds by foreigners (now at 11.3% of total). In periods of stress, the baht usually falls less than most other EM currencies; and often Thai bond yields fall more (or rise less) than overall GBI-EM yields (Chart 18, top panel). Chart 18Thai Bonds' Relative Performance Can Get Better During Periods Of Risk-Off Chart 17Thai Domestic Bonds' Absolute Performance Is Highly Contingent On The Baht   The net result is that Thai bonds outperform their overall EM brethren in common currency terms during risk-off periods. This is what happened during the EM slowdown of 2014-15, and again during the pandemic scare in early 2020 (Chart 18, bottom panel). Given we are entering a period of volatility in risk assets, it makes sense to have a neutral positioning on Thai bonds in an EM domestic bond portfolio. The Philippines: Underweight To Neutral The Philippines also merits an underweight allocation in an emerging Asian domestic bond portfolio, but a neutral stance within EM. This is because of this market’s dependence on the appetite of foreign debt investors for Philippine debt securities. This appetite depends on how much extra yield the country offers over US Treasuries. Chart 19 shows that whenever the yield differential between the Philippines’ local bonds and US Treasuries widens to 400 basis points or more, the Philippines typically witnesses net debt portfolio inflows over the following year. On the other end, when the yield differential narrows to around 300 basis points or less, foreign fixed income inflows typically stop, and often turn into outflows during the following year. This is what is happening now. Chart 19Narrow Yield Differential With US Treasuries Is Hurting Philippines' Portfolio Inflows Chart 20Philippines Peso Is At Risk As The Current Account Has Slid Back Into Deficit Going forward, rising US yields would mean that the Philippines’ bond spreads over US Treasuries will continue to stay less than 300 basis points. Consequently, reduced foreign debt inflows will weigh on the peso. Notably, the Philippines’ current account balance has also slid back to deficit, which makes the peso more vulnerable (Chart 20). On a positive note, contained inflation means little upward pressure on bond yields. Further, there might be a lower need of new bond issuances this year as a substantial amount of proceeds from past bond issuances are lying unspent with the central bank. This would help put a cap on bond yields.  Investment Conclusions Emerging Asian local bonds will outperform their counterparts in Latin America and EMEA in common currency terms for now. In the medium and long run, emerging Asian bonds will outperform US/DM bonds on a total return basis in common currency terms. We will discuss rationale for the latter in our future reports. Considering both the overarching macro backdrop as well as their individual situations, it makes sense to overweight China, Korea, India and Malaysia in an emerging Asian domestic bonds portfolio. Whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines warrant an underweight allocation. Yet, in an overall EM domestic bond portfolio, we recommend a neutral allocation for Thailand and the Philippines. The reason is they have a much better inflation outlook compared to economies in EMEA and Latin America. Chart 21Book Profit On Our Recommended Short Korean Won Trade Notably, among the Asian currencies, we have a positive bias on the Chinese yuan and the Indian rupee. On the contrary, we have been shorting the Korean won, the Thai baht, the Philippine peso and the Indonesian rupiah vis-à-vis the US dollar. That said, this week we recommend taking profits on the short Korean won position: this trade has generated a 5.2% gain since its initiation on March 25, 2021 (Chart 21). Our view on the won has played out well. While the exchange rate might continue depreciating in the near run, the risk/reward of staying short is not very attractive now. Finally, we recommend continuing to receive 10-year swap rates in China and Malaysia. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     For a detailed discussion on each country’s inflation dynamics, please click on our reports on China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines.

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Dear Clients, On behalf of the China Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a very happy, healthy, and prosperous Chinese New Year of the Tiger! Gong Xi Fa Chai, Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Executive Summary Chinese Investable Value Stocks Earnings Growth Will Likely Stabilize By Mid-2022 Chinese investable stocks passively outperformed their global counterparts in the first month of the year. However, we do not think January’s outperformance in the aggregate MSCI China Index will be sustained beyond the next six months. On a cyclical basis, when global stocks recover, growth stocks will likely underperform value stocks. The tech-heavy MSCI China Index is therefore less attractive to investors than other EM and developed market (DM) equities that are more value centric. Chinese investable ex-tech stocks are cheaply valued versus their global peers. Even if the earnings recovery in 2H22 are modest, Chinese investable value stocks are still attractive on a risk-reward basis. For investors that look to increase exposure to China on a cyclical basis, we recommend long Chinese investable value stocks while minimizing exposure to the tech sector. CYCLICAL RECOMMENDATIONS (6 - 18 MONTHS) INITIATION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Long MSCI China Value Index /Short MSCI China Growth Index 02-02-22     Bottom Line: We expect the tech sector’s passive outperformance in January to be short lived. Value stocks in Chinese investable equities, on the other hand, offer a better risk-reward profile relative to their TMT peers and for investors with a 6- to 12-month investment horizon. Feature Chart 1Chinese Investable Stocks Passively Outperformed In January This Year Chinese investable stocks dropped by 5% in January from December last year, giving up a 3% gain in the first three weeks (Chart 1). Still, the MSCI China Index outperformed global stocks by 2%. Some media reports stated that global investors have been drawn to Chinese offshore equities for their relatively cheap valuations and China’s easier monetary policy compared with other major economies . In our January 19 report we recommended investors tactically (0 to 6 months) upgrade the MSCI China Index to overweight within a global equity portfolio, based on the notion that the MSCI China Index would passively outperform since it would fall less than global equities. We maintain this view but do not expect the outperformance in aggregate Chinese investable stocks to endure on a cyclical basis. Our judgment is that while both China’s investable TMT (technology, media, and telecommunications) and ex-TMT stocks have been deeply discounted versus global stocks, beyond the next six months the investable TMT stocks will likely be a drag on the aggregate MSCI China Index. Thus, for investors looking for trades to increase their cyclical exposure to Chinese stocks, we recommend minimize their exposure to the tech sector. Meanwhile, we continue to favor onshore stocks versus their offshore counterparts, despite cheaper relative valuations in offshore stocks. We will discuss our view of the onshore market in next week’s report. A Valuation Catch-Up A valuation catch-up, as opposed to an improvement in China’s economic fundamentals, appears to be driving the passive outperformance in Chinese investable stocks. Our assessment is based on the following observations: Chart 2Chinese Stocks Normally Fall In Risk-Off Environment The beta of Chinese investable stocks has been steadily increasing over the past few years, versus both EM and global stocks. The high beta and pro-risk nature of Chinese investable stocks suggest their prices should fall in a risk-off market. Generally investors would not favor Chinese stocks during global market selloffs. Chart 2 shows that both EM and global stock benchmarks have fallen below their 200-day moving averages. Therefore, investors have been buying Chinese stocks against a risk-off market backdrop because Chinese stocks offer better risk-reward profile either due to their favorable valuations or higher earnings growth. It is simplistic to assume that investors favor Chinese investable stocks because of the country’s easier monetary policy versus the rest of the world. Chinese A-share stocks, which valuations are neutral, have been selling off more than the offshore stocks (Chart 3). Chinese onshore tech company stocks also suffered large losses in January, similar to their US peers (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Therefore, the divergence in the relative performance between the Chinese onshore and offshore markets suggests that discounted valuations in offshore Chinese stocks rather than economic fundamentals have driven the relative gains in the investable bourse. The mirror image in regional equity performance this year compared with last year also suggests that factors other than monetary policy explain equity dynamics (Chart 4). While the tech-heavy US bourse was the worst performer among major indices, markets that generated the greatest returns in 2021 have suffered the biggest losses so far in 2022. This phenomenon suggests that investors may be locking in last year’s gains, which is accentuating the underperformance of 2021’s winners and the outperformance of last year’s losers. Chart 42022 Is A Mirror Image Of 2021 Chart 3Chinese Onshore Stocks Followed The Global Market Downtrend   Bottom Line: Chinese investable stocks ended January with a much smaller loss than their global peers. The relative outperformance in the MSCI China Index has been mainly driven by its cheaper valuations relative to its global peers. Complacency Risk And Chinese Investable Stocks We see the recent global stock market selloff as a sharp reduction in complacency in the market, particularly in the high-flying tech sector (Chart 5). The correction in global tech stock prices will likely continue for a few months while the market digests a sudden rise in bond yields. As such, the prices in Chinese offshore tech companies will also fall in absolute terms but can still passively outperform their global counterparts, given their deeply discounted relative valuations. Nonetheless, several factors make us cautious about the exposure of China's outsized tech sector beyond the next six months. Hence, our overweight stance on Chinese investable stocks (in relative terms) is limited to the short term (i.e. in the next 0 to 6 months). The growth rates of the 12-month trailing and forward earnings for global tech stocks are both above the 85th percentiles (Chart 6). This indicates that a substantial amount of profit growth has already been priced into global tech stocks, raising the risk of earnings disappointment in the next 6 to 12 months. By contrast, China's TMT-stock 12-month trailing and forward earnings have fallen to below the 25th percentiles (Chart 6, bottom panel). This suggests that the global exuberance in tech earnings is less priced in among Chinese TMT stocks. Chart 5A Sharp Complacency Reduction In The Tech Sector Chart 6Global Tech Earnings Growth Remains Significantly Stretched However, as noted in our previous reports, Chinese growth/tech companies’ price discount relative to their earnings reflects structural risks that investors are pricing in. These structural headwinds may not intensify in the near term but are not going away either. The regulatory backdrop has not improved enough to justify a sustained faster multiple expansion in China’s internet giants. Beijing continues to rein in its internet behemoths and tighten regulations related to data. It is not yet clear what impact some of the new regulations announced last year will have on the tech sector’s business models. At the very least, antitrust regulations will chip away at the competitive advantage of these tech titans. Furthermore, China's investable TMT sector appears to be a domestic consumer play and thus, likely to weaken in the coming 6 to 12 months given the poor outlook for consumption (Chart 7). Even though China has stepped up its policy support for the aggregate economy, its stringent measures to counter the domestic COVID situation will significantly weigh on its service sector and consumption. The downbeat prospect on China's housing market will also curb consumption growth based on the expectations for employment and income dynamics (Chart 8). Chart 7Outlook For Chinese Internet Sales Remains Downbeat Chart 8Housing Market Slump A Significant Drag On Household Consumption Chart 9Rising Rates Are A Tailwind For Value Stocks Lastly, we expect the pace of increases in bond yields to slow and global equities to trend higher beyond the next couple months. In this case, we are not convinced that Chinese investable stocks will continue to outperform their global peers. The reason for our skepticism is that in a climate of rising interest rates, growth stocks tend to underperform value ones (Chart 9). Given that China's TMT sector’s weight (43%) is considerably higher than the global benchmark (30%), Chinese investable stocks will underperform once valuations in China’s TMT stocks catch up to be in line with those of the global tech sector. Bottom Line: From a valuation perspective, Chinese investable stocks currently look reasonable. In the next a few months when global tech stocks continue to sell off, Chinese offshore tech companies and stocks in general will likely passively outperform their global peers. However, from a risk-reward standpoint and beyond the next six months, the MSCI China Index is at a disadvantage due to a high concentration of stocks in the tech sector. Investment Conclusions On a cyclical basis, Chinese investable stocks will not be immune from global market selloffs due to the offshore market’s high volatility and positive correlation with global stocks. In addition, the MSCI China Index will likely underperform global equities in an up market because of a higher-than-average stake in tech stocks. As such, in a global portfolio we continue to favor onshore stocks over the investable bourse, despite cheaper relative valuations in offshore market equities. Next week’s report will discuss our views on the onshore market. Meanwhile, given the risks facing stocks in China’s tech sector, we propose a new trade recommendation for investors with a cyclical time horizon: long MSCI China Value Index /Short MSCI China Growth Index. The trade will increase cyclical exposure to Chinese offshore stocks, while minimizing stake in the offshore tech sector. The MSCI's China growth index is almost entirely made up of TMT equities, meaning that a relative value play will effectively mimic an ex-TMT position. Extremely cheap valuations in Chinese ex-TMT equities versus global stocks indicate that investors have already priced in a degree of weakness in China's economy (Chart 10). We remain alert to the possibility of a more pronounced near-term slowdown in the business cycle, but we expect China’s economy to regain its footing and stabilize by mid-2022. Our model shows that earnings will decelerate sharply in 1H22 (Chart 11). However, even if the upcoming stimulus and earnings recovery in 2H22 are modest, Chinese value stocks are still attractive on a risk-reward basis given the sizeable valuation discount levied on China relative to global stocks. Chart 10Chinese Investable Value Stocks Are Trading At A Huge Discount Versus Global Chart 11Chinese Investable Value Stocks Earnings Growth Will Likely Stabilize By Mid-2022   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Cyclical UST Curve Flattening, But With Unusually Low Rate Expectations The US Treasury curve is unusually flat given high US inflation and with the Fed not having begun to raise interest rates. The dichotomy between deeply negative real interest rates and a flattening yield curve is not only evident in the US, but in other major developed countries like Germany and the UK. A low term premium on longer-term US Treasury yields is one factor keeping the curve so flat, but the term premium will likely rise as the Fed begins to hike rates. An overly flat US Treasury curve more likely reflects a belief that the neutral real fed funds rate (r-star) is actually negative. This is consistent with markets pricing in a very low peak in the funds rate for the upcoming tightening cycle, despite the current high inflation and tight labor market. Bottom Line: The Fed will hike by less than the market expects in 2022 and longer-term Treasury yields remain too low versus even a moderate 2-2.5% peak in the fed funds rate. Stay in US curve steepeners, as the Treasury curve is already too flat and will not flatten as much as discounted in forward rates this year. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting essentially confirmed that the Fed will begin lifting rates in March and deliver multiple rate hikes this year. This was considered a hawkish surprise as the Fed signaled imminently tighter monetary policy even with the elevated financial market volatility seen so far in 2022. Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the US economy was in a stronger position compared to the 2016-18 tightening cycle, justifying a faster pace of hikes – and an accelerated pace of QE tapering – this time around. Markets have responded to the increasingly hawkish guidance of the Fed by pushing up rate expectations for 2022, continuing a path dating back to last September’s FOMC meeting when the Fed first signaled that QE tapering was imminent (Chart 1). There are now 163bps of Fed rate hikes by year-end discounted in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. Some Wall Street investment banks are calling for the Fed to hike as much as 6 or 7 times in 2022. We see this as much too aggressive. Chart 1Fed Hawkishness Pushing Up Rate Expectations For 2022/23 - But Not Beyond That Our base case scenario calls for the Fed to lift rates “only” 3-4 times this year. The persistently high inflation that is troubling the Fed is likely to peak in the first half of 2022, taking some heat off the FOMC to move as aggressively as discounted in markets this year. Although inflation will remain high enough, and the labor market tight enough, to keep the Fed on a tightening path into 2023. The US Treasury Curve Looks Too Flat What is unique about the upcoming Fed tightening cycle is that it is starting with such a flat US Treasury curve. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year yield now sits at 61bps, the lowest level since October 2020. This dynamic is not unique to the US, as yield curves are quite flat in other major countries where policy rates are near 0% and inflation remains relatively high, like the UK and Germany (Chart 2). In the US, the modest slope of the Treasury curve is notably unusual given a growth and inflation backdrop that would be more consistent with much higher bond yields: The US unemployment rate fell to 3.9% in December, well within the range of full employment estimates from FOMC members (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 2Bond Bearish Yield Curve Flattening In The US & UK US labor costs are accelerating; the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index for Private Industry Workers rose to a 38-year high of 5.0% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2021 (middle panel) Chart 3Challenges To The Fed's Inflation Fighting Credibility​​​​​​ Higher inflation is becoming more embedded in medium term consumer inflation expectations measures like the University of Michigan 5-10 year ahead series that climbed to 3.1% last month (bottom panel). Importantly, market-based measures of inflation expectations have pulled back, even with little sign of inflation pressures easing. The 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward has fallen 35bps from the October 2021 peak of 2.41%. The bulk of that decline occurred in January of this year, alongside a rising trend in real TIPS yields as markets began pricing in a faster pace of Fed rate hikes. TIPS breakevens can often be something of a “vote of confidence” by the markets in the appropriateness of the Fed’s policy stance; rising when policy appears overly stimulative and vice versa. Thus, the decline in the TIPS 5-year/5-year forward breakeven, which climbed steadily higher since the Fed introduced massive monetary easing in March 2020 in response to the pandemic, can be interpreted as a sign that markets agree with the Fed’s recent hawkish turn. However, while the move in TIPS breakevens is sensible, the flatness of the Treasury curve appears unusual. In Chart 4, where we look at the previous times since 1975 that the 2-year/10-year US Treasury spread flattened to 70bps (just above the current level). In past cycles, the Treasury curve would be flattening into such a level after the Fed had already hiked rates a few times, which is obviously not the case today. Also, US unemployment was typically approaching, or falling through, the full employment NAIRU when the 2/10 Treasury curve fell to 70bps, suggesting diminished spare economic capacity and rising inflation pressures – similar to the current backdrop. Chart 4The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Chart 5UST Curve Too Flat Relative To Inflation Pressures In those past cycles, the funds rate was rising at a faster pace than that of core inflation, suggesting that the Fed was pushing up real interest rates. The backdrop looks very different today, with US realized inflation soaring and the real funds rate now deeply negative. In the top panel of Chart 5, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” chart of the 2/10 Treasury curve versus an average of the previous five instances where the curve flattened to 70bps. The green line is the median outcome of all the cycles, while the shaded region represents the range of all the outcomes. In the other panels of the chart, we show US economic variables (the Conference Board leading economic index and the ISM Manufacturing index) and US inflation variables (the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index and the US Congressional Budget Office estimate of the US output gap). The panels are all lined up so that the vertical line in the middle of the chart represents the date that the 2/10 curve falls to 70bps. The conclusion from Chart 5 is that the US economic variables shown are currently at the high end of the range of past curve flattening episodes, but the inflation variables are well above the high end of the historical range. In other words, the current modest slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is in line with US growth momentum but is too flat relative to US inflation trends. So Why Isn’t The US Treasury Curve Steeper? There are a few possible reasons why the US curve is as flat as it is before the Fed has even begun tightening amid above-trend US growth and very high US inflation: Fears of a deeper financial market selloff The Fed believes strongly in the role of financial conditions in transmitting its monetary policy into the US economy. That often means that, during tightening cycles, the Fed hikes rates “until something breaks” in the financial markets, like a major equity market downturn or a big widening in corporate credit spreads. Such moves act as a brake on US growth through negative wealth effects for investors and by raising the cost of capital for businesses – reducing the need for additional Fed tightening. If bond investors thought that a major market selloff was likely before the Fed could successfully lift rates back to neutral (or even restrictive) levels during a tightening cycle, then they would discount a lower peak level of the funds rate. This would also lower the expected peak level of longer-term Treasury yields, resulting in a flatter Treasury yield curve. Given the current elevated valuations on so many asset classes – like equities, corporate credit and housing – it is likely that the relatively flat Treasury curve incorporates some believe that the Fed will have difficulty delivering a lot of rate hikes in this cycle. However, it should be noted that the US financial conditions remain quite accommodative, even after the recent equity market turbulence (Chart 6), and represent no impediment to US growth that reduces how much tightening the Fed will need to do. Longer-term bond term premia are too low A relatively flat yield curve could reflect a lack of a term premium on longer-maturity bonds. That is certainly the case when looking at the slope of the 2/10 government yield curve in the US, as well as in the UK and Germany (Chart 7).1 Chart 6US Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To US Growth​​​​​​ Chart 7Flatter Yield Curves? Or Just Lower Bond Term Premia?​​​​​ The term premium is the defined as the extra yield that investors require to commit to own a longer-maturity bond instead of the compounded yield from a series of shorter-maturity bonds. The latter can also be expressed as the “expected path of short-term interest rates”, which is often proxied by an average expected path of the monetary policy rate over the life of the longer-maturity bond. So the term premium on a 10-year US Treasury yield is the difference between the actual 10-year Treasury yield and the expected (or average) path of the fed funds rate over the next ten years. The term premium can also be thought of as a risk premium to holding longer-term bonds. On that basis, the term premium should correlate to measures of bond risk, like bond price volatility or inflation volatility. That is definitely true in the US, where the 10-year Treasury term premium shows a strong correlation to the MOVE index of Treasury market option-implied volatility or a longer-term standard deviation of headline CPI inflation (Chart 8). Estimated term premia can also rise during periods of slowing economic growth momentum, but that is typically due to a rapid decline in the expected path of interest rates rather than a rise in bond risk premia (in this case, this is probably more accurately described as a rise in bond uncertainty). Currently, a low term premium on US Treasury yields is justified by the relatively low level of bond volatility and solid US growth momentum. However, the term premium looks far too low compared to the more volatile US inflation seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the Fed set to respond to that higher inflation with rate hikes, rising real interest rate expectations could also give a lift to the Treasury term premium. Our favorite proxy for the market expectation of the peak/terminal real short-term interest rate for the major developed market economies is the 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate minus the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate. That “real” 5-year/5-year forward rate measure is typically well correlated to our estimates of the 10-year term premium in the US, Germany and the UK (Chart 9). This correlation likely reflects the level of certainty bond investors have over the likely future path of real interest rates. When there is more uncertainty about how high rates will eventually go to in a tightening cycle, a higher term premium is required. The opposite is true during periods of very low and stable interest rates. Chart 8Drivers Of US Term Premia Pointing Upward​​​​​​ Chart 9Bond Term Premia Positively Correlated To Real Rate Expectations​​​​​​ Chart 10Global Yield Curves Are Too Flat Versus Real Policy Rates Currently, the estimated 10-year US term premium is increasing alongside a rising market-implied path for the real fed funds rate. We anticipate these trends will continue as the Fed lift rates over the next couple of years, boosting longer-term Treasury yields and potentially putting some steepening pressure on the US Treasury curve (or at least limiting the degree of flattening as the Fed tightens). Markets believe that the neutral real rate (r*) is negative Historically, yield curve slopes for government bonds were well correlated to the level of real interest rates, measured as the central bank policy rate minus headline inflation. That relationship has broken down in the US, with the Treasury curve flattening in the face of soaring US inflation and an unchanged fed funds rate (Chart 10). Similar dynamics can also be seen in the German and UK yield curves. The most plausible reason for such a dramatic shift in the relationship between curve slopes and real policy rates is that bond investors now believe that the neutral real interest rate, a.k.a. “r-star”, is negative … and perhaps deeply so. The New York Fed has produced estimates of the US r-star dating back to the 1960s. The gap between the real fed funds rate and that r-star estimate has typically been fairly well correlated to the slope of the Treasury curve (Chart 11). When the real fed funds rate is below r-star, indicating that the policy is accommodative, the Treasury curve is usually steepening, and vice versa. Under this framework, the recent flattening trend of the Treasury curve would indicate that policy is actually getting tighter, despite the falling, and deeply negative, real fed funds rate of -5.4% (deflated by core inflation). Chart 11UST Curve Slope Is Positively Correlated To The 'Real Policy Gap' The last known estimate of r-star from the New York Fed was 0%, but no update has been provided for almost two years. Blame the pandemic for that. The sharp lockdown-fueled collapse in US GDP growth in 2020, and the rapid recovery in growth as the economy reopened, made it impossible to estimate the the “neutral” level of real interest rates given such massive swings in demand that were not related to monetary policy. One way to try and “back out” the implicit pricing of r-star currently embedded in US Treasury yields is to estimate a model linking the gap between the real fed funds rate and r-star to the slope of the Treasury curve. We did just that, with the results presented in Chart 12. This model estimates the “Real Policy Gap”, or r-star minus the real fed funds rate, as a function of the 2/10 Treasury curve slope. In other words, the model shows the Real Policy Gap that is consistent with the current slope of the curve. Chart 12Current UST Yield Curve Makes Slope Sense ... If The Fed Followed The Taylor Rule With 7% Inflation The model estimates that the current 2/10 curve slope is consistent with a Real Policy Gap of 96bps. With US core CPI inflation currently at 5%, and assuming r-star is still 0% as per the last New York Fed estimate, the fed funds rate would have to rise to 4% to justify the current slope of the 2/10 curve. While that may sound like an implausibly large increase in the funds rate, similar results are produced using straightforward Taylor Rules.2 We can also use our Real Policy Gap model to infer the level of inflation that is consistent with a Gap of 96bps, for various combinations of the funds rate and r-star. Those are shown in Table 1. Assuming the funds rate rises in line with current market expectations to 1.7% and r-star remains close to 0%, the current slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve suggests a fall in US inflation to just around 3% - still above the Fed’s inflation target - from the current 5%. Table 1The UST Curve Slope Has Already Discounted A Big Drop In US Inflation We see this as the most plausible reason for the relatively flat level of the 2/10 US Treasury curve. Markets expect somewhat lower US inflation and a moderate rise in the funds rate over the next couple of years, making the real funds rate less negative but not pushing it above a negative r-star expectation. This would suggest upside risk for US Treasury yields, and potential bearish steepening pressure, as markets come to realize that the neutral real fed funds rate is actually positive, not negative. Fight The Forwards, Stay In US Treasury Curve Steepeners While it may sound counter-intuitive with the Fed set to begin a rate hiking cycle, we continue to see better value in tactically positioning in US Treasury curve steepening trades. Specifically, we are keeping our recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay on page 19, where we are long a 2-year Treasury bullet versus a duration-neutral barbell of cash (a 3-month US Treasury bill) and a 10-year Treasury bond. The trade is currently underwater, but we see good reasons to expect the performance to rebound over the next few months. The front end of the curve now discounts more hikes than we expect will unfold in 2022, which should limit further increases in the 2-year Treasury yield. At the same time, the 10-year yield looks too low relative to the expected cyclical peak for the fed funds rate (Chart 13). One way we can assess this is by comparing 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rates to survey estimates of the longer run, or terminal, fed funds rate. The median FOMC forecast (or “dot”) for the terminal funds rate is 2.5%, the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 2%. This sets a range of estimates of the longer-run terminal rate of 2-2.5%, in line with the current expectations of the BCA Research bond services. The current 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rate is 2.0%, at the low end of that range. We see those forwards rising to the upper part of that 2-2.5% range by the end of 2022, which will push the 10-year Treasury yield toward our year-end target of 2.25%. Chart 13The 5-Year/5-Year UST Forward Rate Is Too Low​​​​​​ Chart 14Stay In UST Curve Steepeners, Even With Fed Liftoff Imminent​​​​​​ Some of our colleagues within the BCA family see the longer-term neutral funds rate as considerably higher than survey estimates, perhaps as high as 3-4%. We are sympathetic to that view, but it will take signs of US economic resiliency in the face of rate hikes before bond investors – and more importantly, the Fed – arrive at that conclusion. This would make steepening trades more attractive on a strategic, or medium-term, basis as the market realizes that the Fed is further behind the policy curve (i.e. the funds rate even further below a higher terminal rate) than previously envisioned. For now, we do not see the US Treasury curve flattening at the pace discounted in the Treasury forward curve over the next 3-6 months (Chart 14, top panel). However, this will be more of a carry trade by betting against the forwards over time. A bearish steepening of the Treasury curve with a swift upward move in the 10-year Treasury yield is less likely with bond investor/trader positioning already quite short (bottom two panels).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1      The term premium estimates shown here are derived from our own in-house framework. For those familiar with the various term premium estimates on the 10-year US Treasury yield produced by the Fed, our estimates are currently in line with those produced by the ACM model and the Kim & Wright model. 2     A fun US Taylor Rule calculator, which can be used to generate Taylor Rules under a variety of assumptions, is available on the Atlanta Fed’s website here. 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* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades