Fixed Income

Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming   Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). Goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall   On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP   Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters   The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets   Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021   II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The Indian rupee is about 7% cheaper than its fair value versus the US dollar. Expanding capital expenditures will boost India’s productivity and raise returns on capital. That will attract higher capital inflows, propelling the rupee. India also has a better inflation outlook compared to the US because of the government’s prudent fiscal policy and muted wage pressures. Foreign bond investors should stay overweight India in an EM local currency bond portfolio. Equity investors should upgrade India from neutral to overweight in view of receding pandemic-related disruptions. Feature The outlook for the Indian rupee over the medium term (six months to three years) is positive. In this report we will identify the two primary drivers of the rupee/US dollar exchange rate over this time horizon. The first is the relative purchasing power in the two economies. The second is return on capital; more specifically, relative return on capital in the two countries. Both indicate that the rupee will likely benefit from a tailwind over the next few years. The robust currency outlook also supports our bullish view on Indian local currency bonds versus their EM peers and US Treasuries. In this report, we will explain how this context, and the Indian market’s own idiosyncrasies, warrants favoring Indian bonds in a global fixed-income portfolio. Finally, we are upgrading Indian stocks back to overweight in an EM equity portfolio. Relative Purchasing Power Chart 1The Indian Rupee Is Below Its Fair Value The concept of “purchasing power parity (PPP)” theorizes that the currency of an economy with higher inflation will adjust lower (i.e., depreciate) relative to the currency of an economy that has lower inflation. The upshot is that the relative inflation dynamics of the two countries could provide insight into their exchange rate outlook.   The top panel of Chart 1 shows that the rupee is currently cheap when measured against what would be its “fair value”. The latter has been derived from a regression analysis between the manufacturers’ relative producer prices of the two countries and the exchange rate. Notably, a deviation from the fair value has also been a good predictor of where the nominal exchange rate will head in the years to come. Whenever the rupee appeared cheap relative to its fair value, it tended to appreciate over the next few years. The opposite has also been true. The current deviation from the fair value implies that the rupee could appreciate by 7% in the coming years (Chart 1, bottom panel). A deeper look into the inflation dynamics reveals that almost all significant directional moves in the rupee-dollar exchange rate over the past 25 years can be explained by movements in the relative inflation differential between the two economies. The rupee typically depreciates versus the dollar when Indian inflation is rising relative to that of the US; and appreciates when the relative inflation is falling. The only times they briefly diverged were during or in the immediate aftermath of a crisis, such as the global financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they were quick to return to their long-term correlations. Relative Inflation Outlook Going forward, the relative inflation outlook favors the rupee. This is because the fiscal and monetary policies in India will likely be tighter in India than in the US for the foreseeable future. Incidentally, India’s core inflation has fallen significantly relative to that of the US in the past decade (Chart 2). India’s inflation is driven mainly by two factors. The first is food prices; more specifically, the “minimum support price” that the Indian government pays to the farmers to procure food grains. Since the government is by far the single largest purchaser, the price it pays usually sets the floor in the market. The ebbs and flows of this procurement price have had a telling impact on the country’s inflation over the past few decades (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 2India's Inflation Has Fallen Significantly In The Past Decade Chart 3Notwithstanding The Temporary Pandemic-Era Surge In Fiscal Spending …   In recent years, however, the authorities have been careful and did not hike the procurement prices over much. That has helped to keep headline CPI in check. Further, the government legislated new farm laws last year, which will usher in private capital in the agriculture sector. This will help improve farm productivity and keep food prices under control1 in the future.  Chart 4...Fiscal Policy Has Been Very Prudent Since The GFC The other driver of Indian inflation is fiscal expenditure. The rise and fall in government spending leads core inflation by about a year (Chart 3, bottom panel). Notably, even though fiscal spending has swelled over the past year to provide relief to a pandemic-stricken economy, this one-off surge is offset by collapse in output and demand. Besides, the odds are high that the government will revert to a tighter stance as soon as the pandemic is brought under control. Indeed, such a fiscal splurge represents a departure rather than a fixture in India’s fiscal policy. Ever since the global financial crisis, successive Indian governments adopted a rather prudent fiscal stance. Chart 4 shows that fiscal spending steadily declined from 17% of GDP in 2009 to 12% by 2019. The conservative stance was implemented by both the previous UPA government and the current NDA government which came to power in 2014. Such a stance not only helped to substantially reduce the country’s fiscal and primary deficits but was also instrumental to the steady decline in inflationary pressures. The wage pressures in the economy are also rather muted. In rural areas, both farm and non-farm wages have been growing at a slow pace and have often remained below consumer inflation for the past six years (Chart 5, top panel). A similar picture is seen in the central banks’ (RBI) industrial outlook surveys. The assessment for salary and remuneration shows a subdued outlook; in fact, the indicator is below zero (Chart 5, bottom panel). This implies that wage pressures in the industrial sector have also been very low since 2017. Going forward, as tens of millions of young people continue to join the work force every year, the broader picture is unlikely to change. Overall, subdued wage pressures will also keep a tab on general inflation in the economy. Relative Return On Capital The other important driver of the rupee versus the dollar over the medium term is the direction of Indian companies’ return on capital relative to those of the US. When the return on capital rises, especially relative to that of the US, foreign capital flows into India in search of higher profits. Those capital inflows help boost the rupee. Chart 6 shows that over the past 25 years the rupee strengthened versus the dollar during those periods when return on assets of Indian non-financial corporates rose. The rupee depreciated when this ratio dropped. Chart 5Inflation Outlook Remains Sanguine As Wage Pressures Are Muted Chart 6Rupee Strengthens When Relative Return On Capital In India Rises...   The same holds true when Indian firms’ return on assets are compared relative to those of the US. All major moves in rupee strength and weakness largely coincided with the relative rise and fall in return on assets (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 7...As Foreign Capital Inflows Into India Boosts The Rupee Thus, relative profitability clearly has a major influence on the exchange rate. And as alluded to earlier, the link is via capital inflows. The ebbs and flows of capital into India have a very explicit impact on the rupee (Chart 7). Going forward, a pertinent question is in which way will India’s return on capital be headed. Our bias is that, beyond the pandemic-related disruptions, it is heading higher over the medium term. We have the following observations: A sustainable rise in return on capital is highly contingent on productivity gains. And the latter depends on capital investment in new plants, machinery, technology, as well as on infrastructure. Thus, a meaningful and sustained rise in capital expenditures could be a harbinger of higher returns in the future. Firms, on their part, would engage in new capital expenditures once they are sanguine of future demand as well as profits. Notably, both gross and net profits of India’s non-financial sector have rebounded rather strongly. Capital expenditure has recovered in tandem (Chart 8). The latter indicates that companies do not consider profit recovery a fluke and are confident demand will remain upbeat. Corroborating the above, imports of capital goods have skyrocketed. This is also a precursor to higher capex down the road (Chart 9). Chart 8Rebounding Profits Have Encouraged Firms To Resume Capex... Chart 9...As Evidenced In Accelerating Capital Goods Imports Chart 10Capital Goods Imports Have Been Rising For The Past Several Years Markedly, India’s import profile has been encouraging in recent years. The share of capital goods in total imports and non-oil imports have been rising (Chart 10). This indicates that firms have not been averse to capital expenditure. This also shows that unlike in some other EM countries, imported consumer goods did not overwhelm India’s capital goods imports. The last time India saw a surge in capital goods imports was in the 2000s, a period when the country’s capex and profits also surged. That period coincided with a multi-year bull run in the rupee and stocks. The early 2010s, on the other hand, saw a deceleration in capex and capital goods imports – and was followed by a period of sub-par return on capital. Now, the tides are turning again. Finally, the quality of capital inflows has also improved over the past decade. India has been receiving ever higher amounts of FDI compared to portfolio inflows (Chart 11). The former is a much more efficient form of capital and are also more likely to boost capital expenditures enhancing productivity in the economy. Incidentally, India’s real gross fixed capital formation has hovered between 30% and 35% of GDP since 2008 – easily the highest rate globally, save China (Chart 12). Hence, if a new capex cycle ensues, which seems likely, it will happen over and above the base built over the past decades. That should help drive labor productivity and profits up by a notch. Chart 11...Along With Steady Growth In FDI Chart 12A New Capex Cycle On Top Of The Previous Base Will Boost Productivity   All in all, odds are that Indian productivity will improve going forward, which in turn will boost firms’ profitability metrics. That should help propel the rupee. Bond Bullish The combination of a stable currency, prudent fiscal policy, and a benign inflation outlook make Indian bonds highly desirable to foreign investors. Notably, thanks to some systemic factors, Indian bonds are not as sensitive to bouts of fiscal profligacy and/or inflation in India: Over the past 20 years or so, ten-year bond yields hovered in a rather narrow band of 6%- 9%. A crucial reason for that stability is very limited foreign holdings: only about 2% of Indian government bonds are held by foreign investors. This has reduced yield volatility substantially. In many EM countries, where foreign holdings are much higher, a negative growth shock usually leads to both rising bond yields and a depreciating currency – which perpetuate each other – as foreign investors head for the exit. In the case of India, a negative shock is tempered by falling bond yields, as domestic investors switch from riskier assets to government bonds. Not only are the foreign holdings in India too small to push up yields but the falling yields also encourage them to stay invested. That explains why bond yields in India fell during each of the crises: in 2008-09, 2014-15 and more recently in 2020. A second reason is the existence of captive domestic bond investors: commercial banks. As per the Reserve Bank of India mandate, all banks in India are obligated to hold a certain percentage (currently 18%) of their total deposits in government securities (called Statutory Liquidity Ratio, or SLR). These mandatory holdings have also helped reduce yield volatility. The impact of the above factors can often be seen at play. For one, a surge in India’s fiscal expenditure does not necessarily cause a spike in bond yields. This is because, devoid of any fear of dumping by foreign bond holders, India can and does ramp up government spending when growth is very weak. Those are the times when domestic investors shed riskier assets and move to the safety of government bonds. Hence, we see accelerating fiscal spending coinciding with low and falling bond yields, unlike in many other EM countries (Chart 13, top panel).   For a similar reason, a surge in India’s fiscal deficit does not necessarily cause a spike in bond yields either. If anything, widening budget deficits usually coincide with falling bond yields; and shrinking deficits with rising bond yields (Chart 13, bottom panel).  The explanation for this apparent anomaly is as follows: periods of stronger growth bring in more fiscal revenues and thus reduce the deficit. But strong growth and rising inflationary pressures also lead to higher interest rate expectations reflected in higher bond yields. The opposite happens when growth slows. Even though fiscal deficit goes up as revenues drop, decelerating inflationary pressures pave the way for lower bond yields. A pertinent question here is, given the idiosyncrasies of Indian bond markets, what then drives Indian bond yields? The simple answer is the business cycle. This is why rising bond yields coincide with stronger bank credit growth and falling yields with weaker credit growth (Chart 14). Chart 13A Surge In Fiscal Spending Or Deficits Doesn't Mean A Spike In Bond Yields Chart 14The Business Cycle Is The Ultimate Driver Of Indian Bond Yields   What is also notable is that the impact of any spike in consumer and/or producer price inflation on bond yields is not very pronounced (Chart 14, bottom panel). A crucial reason for that is again the SLR. Because of it, regardless of commercial banks’ own inflation expectations, they cannot dump government bonds. That puts a cap on bond yields even when inflation is rising. Besides, a rise in inflation usually coincides with accelerating bank credit and bank deposits. The latter causes higher demand for government bonds from banks (to maintain SLR). That in turn helps keep the bond yield lower than it otherwise would be. Chart 15The Spike In Public Debt Is Temporary, And Bond Investors Are Not Worried Bottom Line: The absence of foreign investors, the presence of large captive domestic investors and a long-held orthodox fiscal stance have turned the Indian bond market into a different ball game than many other EM local currency bond markets. One takeaway from this idiosyncrasy is that the current steep, but temporary, fiscal deficit should not be a matter of concern for bond investors. For a similar reason, the recent rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio should have little impact on bond yields (Chart 15). Finally, a moderate rise in inflation is also unlikely to cause Indian bond yields to soar. Investment Conclusions The medium-term outlook for the Indian rupee is positive. It is also quite competitive, especially when compared to the currencies of India’s major competitors vying for multinationals to establish their manufacturing capacity (Chart 16). This means the rupee has some room for nominal appreciation without hurting its competitiveness. Chart 16The Indian Rupee is Quite Competitive This emphasizes our view that investors should continue to overweight India in an EM fixed-income portfolio. While strong growth and higher US bond yields can drive up Indian government bond yields, the former will also push up the rupee – as detailed in a previous section. The currency returns will offset any possible capital loss owing to rising yields, while a positive carry will boost total returns. Notably, because of the latter, a similar rise in yields (say, 100 basis points) in India and US bonds will have a much less negative impact on total return terms for Indian bonds than in the case of US Treasurys.  The long end of the Indian yield curve offers value: the 10-year bond yield is 200 basis points above the policy rate. The spread of India’s 5-year bond over that of the US is an impressive 550 basis points (Chart 17, top panel). Given the sanguine rupee outlook, odds are that Indian government bonds will continue to outpace US treasuries in total return terms – even when Indian growth accelerates and inflation rises modestly (Chart 18). Chart 17Indian Bonds Offer Value Relative To US And EM Counterparts Chart 18Higher Carry And A Stronger Currency Will Lead To Total Return OutperformanceWhen compared to the same-duration JP Morgan GBI-EM bond index, India offers a spread of 100 basis points. India has steadily outperformed that index in US dollar total return terms over the past several years (Chart 17, bottom panel). That is unlikely to change in future, thanks to the high carry and a relatively more stable currency. As such, investors should stay on with our recommendation of overweighting India in an EM local currency bond portfolio (Chart 18). Chart 19Go Overweight Indian Stocks In An EM Equity Portfolio Several factors that make the outlook for the rupee positive also argue for a positive outlook for Indian stocks. Like most other EM currencies, the rupee is pro-cyclical, and it tends to move with Indian share prices. Notably, Indian stocks have broken out of their previous highs (Chart 19). On a separate note, as the number of daily COVID-19 cases in the country have subsided, so have the chances of debilitating lockdowns. As such, economic activity is slated to gather steam. We had tactically downgraded India from overweight to neutral in an EM equity portfolio on April 22 in view of skyrocketing COVID-19 cases and deaths back then. Even though the pandemic situation had deteriorated considerably after our downgrade, share prices have staged a nice rebound to our surprise. It’s time to upgrade this bourse back to overweight (Chart 19, bottom panel). Investors should also stick with our sectoral recommendation of long Indian Banks and short EM banks. As we elaborated in our report on Indian banks, a recovery in the business and capex cycles would be very positive for Indian private sector banks (that make up 90% of the MSCI India Banks index) – given that they have aggressively cleansed their balance sheets of NPLs and have thereby already taken the hit in their earnings. Fixed-income investors should close the trade of receiving 10-year swap rates in India. We had recommended it along with other EM local rates back in April 2020 as a play on lower interest rates in EM. India’s 10-year swap rates have risen by 166 basis points since then. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 For more details see our report India’s Reform Drive: How Momentous (Part 1) dated 19 November 2020.

Highlights Fed: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. Duration: The drop in long-dated yields following last week’s FOMC meeting is overdone. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target band. We expect they will quickly move back into that range but doubt they will move above 2.5%. Maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Yield Curve: We are now close enough to Fed liftoff that investors should shift out of curve steepeners and into curve flatteners. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Chart 1Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise The Fed caused quite a stir in bond markets last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield did a roundtrip from 1.50% before Wednesday’s FOMC meeting up to a peak of 1.58% and then back down to 1.44% by Friday’s close. This, however, wasn’t the most significant bond market move. Shorter-dated Treasury yields increased sharply after the FOMC statement was released and have remained high, resulting in a huge flattening of the curve (Chart 1). Real yields, at both the long and short ends of the curve, also jumped on Wednesday and have not fallen back down. This led to a significant drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. In fact, both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range (Chart 1, bottom panel). What’s really interesting is that this massive re-shaping of both the real and nominal yield curves was prompted by an FOMC meeting where the Fed didn’t make any significant policy announcements and, at least from our perspective, didn’t alter its forward guidance on interest rates or asset purchases in any meaningful way. In this report we will try to disentangle the seeming contradiction between the Fed’s actions and the market’s reaction. The first section looks at what the Fed actually announced at last week’s meeting and considers what that means for the future course of monetary policy. The second section looks at the market’s reaction in more detail to see if it presents any investment opportunities. What The Fed Said Considering the sum total of last week’s Fed communications – the FOMC Statement, the Summary of Economic Projections and Jay Powell’s press conference – we arrive at four takeaways: 1. The Dots Moved In The Fed’s interest rate forecasts shifted noticeably higher compared to where they were in March, a change that likely catalyzed the dramatic move in bond markets. Thirteen out of 18 FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). At the March FOMC meeting only seven participants forecasted rate hikes in 2023 (Chart 2B). On top of that, seven FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2022, this is up from four in March. Finally, the median participant’s interest rate forecast went from calling for no rate hikes through the end of 2023 to two. Cahrt 2AMarket And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Chart 2BMarket And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC MeetingRate expectations embedded in the overnight index swap (OIS) market also moved up last week. The OIS curve is now priced for Fed liftoff in December 2022 and for a total of 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). Prior to the FOMC meeting, the OIS curve was priced for Fed liftoff in April 2023 and for a total of 78 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2B). It’s important to note that this change in the Fed’s interest rate forecasts occurred without the Fed changing its forward guidance about when it will be appropriate to lift rates. The Fed continues to communicate that it has a three-pronged test for liftoff: 12-month PCE inflation must be above 2% The labor market must be at “maximum employment” The committee must expect that inflation will remain above 2% for some time We asserted back in March that investors should focus on this verbal forward guidance from the Fed and not the dot plot, noting that the Fed’s interest rate forecasts were inconsistent with its own verbal forward guidance.1 The reason for the inconsistency is that Fed participants were trying to err on the side of signaling dovishness to the market. In his March press conference Chair Powell said that the Fed wants to see “actual progress” towards its economic objectives not “forecast[ed] progress”. This bias likely led FOMC participants to place their dots too low, ignoring the strong likelihood that the economy would make rapid progress toward its employment and inflation goals in the coming months. After last week, the Fed’s dots are now more consistent with a reasonable timeline for achieving its policy goals, but our advice remains the same. Investors should ignore the dot plot and focus instead on what the Fed is telling us about when it will lift rates. On that note, we have repeatedly made the case that the three items on the Fed’s liftoff checklist will be met in time for rate hikes to begin next year.2 2. Upside Risks To Inflation Chart 3Upside Risks To Inflation The second change the Fed made last week was in how it characterized the risks surrounding inflation. The official FOMC Statement continues to describe the recent increase in inflation as “transitory”, but the Summary of Economic Projections revealed a huge increase in the number of participants who view the risks surrounding their inflation forecasts as tilted to the upside (Chart 3). This shouldn’t be too surprising. Inflation has been incredibly strong in recent months with 12-month core CPI and 12-month core PCE rising to 3.80% and 3.06%, respectively. Importantly, however, a change in risk assessment doesn’t portend a change in policy. The Fed’s median forecast sees core PCE inflation falling from 3.4% this year to 2.1% in 2022, and we also agree that inflation has peaked.3 That said, it is interesting to consider how the Fed might respond if consumer prices continue to accelerate. On that question, Chair Powell said last week that the Fed would “be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy” if it “saw signs that the path of inflation or longer-term inflation expectations were moving materially and persistently beyond levels consistent with [its] goal.” Our sense is that the Fed would be prepared to bring forward the tapering of its asset purchases in response to stronger-than-expected inflation, but it is extremely unlikely that it would lift rates before its three liftoff criteria are met. In fact, given the Phillips Curve lens through which the Fed views inflation, it is much more likely that any increase in inflation that isn’t matched by a tight labor market will continue to be written off as “transitory”. 3. Tapering Discussions Have Begun Third, Jay Powell revealed in his post-meeting press conference that the Fed has begun discussions about when to start tapering its asset purchases. The Fed’s test for when to start tapering is “substantial further progress” toward its policy goals. This test is much vaguer than the criteria for liftoff, and this gives the Fed more flexibility on when it could announce tapering. For what it’s worth, Powell also said that “the standard of ‘substantial further progress’ is still a ways off.” We don’t view this revelation about tapering discussions as that significant for markets. For one thing, there is already a strong consensus among market participants that tapering will begin in Q1 2022 (Tables 1A & 1B). Given that the Fed has promised to “provide advance notice before announcing any decision to make changes to our purchases”, starting discussions this summer seems consistent with market expectations, as well as our own.4 Table 1ASurvey Of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline Table 1BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline It’s also important to note that any announcement of asset purchase tapering wouldn’t tell us much about when the Fed’s three liftoff criteria are likely to be met. In other words, a tapering announcement doesn’t tell us anything about when rate hikes are likely to occur. This means that any tapering announcement will have much less of an impact on financial markets than the 2013 taper tantrum, for example. In 2013, markets interpreted the tapering announcement as a signal that rate hikes were coming sooner than expected. The Fed’s explicit interest rate guidance will prevent that outcome this time around. 4. Operational Tweaks Finally, the Fed raised the interest rate it pays on excess reserves (IOER) from 0.10% to 0.15% and the interest rate on its overnight reverse repo facility (ON RRP) from 0% to 0.05% (Chart 4). We discussed the possibility that the Fed might make these changes in last week’s report.5 In recent months, a surplus of cash in overnight markets caused benchmark interest rates to fall toward the lower-end of the Fed’s 0% - 0.25% target range. Critically for the Fed, the ON RRP facility functioned properly as a firm floor on interest rates. It saw its usage surge (Chart 4, bottom panel) but it prevented interest rates from falling below 0%. The IOER and ON RRP rate increases are probably not necessary if the Fed’s goal is to simply keep overnight interest rates within its target band, but the increases will help push rates up toward the middle of the target range. They may also lead to some decline in ON RRP usage, though that has not occurred just yet. In any event, the surplus of cash in money markets that is applying downward pressure to overnight interest rates will evaporate within the next few months. The Treasury Department expects to hit a cash balance of $450 billion by the end of July and, as long as Congress passes legislation to increase the debt limit this summer, the Treasury’s cash balance will probably not get much below $450 billion (Chart 5). A tapering of the Fed’s asset purchases starting late this year or early next year would also remove surplus cash from money markets.     Chart 4IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes Chart 5The Cash Surplus In Money Markets Bottom Line: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. How The Market Reacted As noted at the outset of this report, the bond market didn’t have the same sanguine reaction to the Fed’s communications as we did. It reacted as though the Fed had delivered a massive hawkish surprise. The major bond market moves were as follows: Short-maturity nominal Treasury yields jumped following the FOMC meeting on Wednesday, and those short-dated yields remained at their new higher levels through Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). Table 2AChange In Nominal Yields Following June FOMC Meeting Table 2BChange In Real Yields Following June FOMC Meeting Table 2CChange In TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rates Following June FOMC Meeting The 10-year nominal Treasury yield also increased following the Fed meeting, but then gave back all of that increase and then some on Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). The result is a significant flattening of the nominal Treasury curve, consistent with the market discounting a more hawkish path for monetary policy. Looking at real yields, we see significant increases following Wednesday’s Fed meeting for all maturities (Table 2B). Then, with the exception of the 30-year yield, real yields did not fall back down later in the week. Finally, we see large declines in the cost of inflation compensation at both the short and long ends of the curve (Table 2C). Once again, this is consistent with the market pricing-in a more hawkish Fed that will be less tolerant of an inflation overshoot. In light of these significant yield moves, we consider the investment implications for the level of bond yields, the performance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and the slope of the nominal Treasury curve. The Level Of Yields Chart 65y5y Yield Has Upside There were two major developments last week that influence our view on the level of Treasury yields. First, the market is now priced for a more reasonable December 2022 liftoff date and 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. Second, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield fell sharply. It currently sits at 2.06%, just 6 bps above the median estimate of the long-run neutral fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and 25 bps below the same measure from the Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 6). On the one hand, the market-implied path for overnight interest rates looks more in line with reality, though we still see scope for it to move higher. On the other hand, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now looks too low compared to consensus estimates of the long-run neutral interest rate. We are inclined to think that the market-implied path for rates will either stay where it is or move higher and that the drop in the 5-year/5-year forward yield is overdone. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries As shown in Chart 1, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen back to levels below the Fed’s desired target range. We don’t think TIPS breakeven inflation rates will stay below target for long. The principal goal of the Fed’s new Average Inflation Targeting strategy is to ensure that long-term inflation expectations are well-anchored near target levels. Recent market action seems to imply that the Fed will overtighten and miss its inflation objective from below, but that is highly unlikely. We recently downgraded our recommended TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral because breakevens were threatening to break above the top-end of the Fed’s target band.6 We maintain our neutral 6-12 month allocation, but we do see long-maturity TIPS breakevens moving back into the 2.3% to 2.5% target band relatively quickly. Nimble investors may wish to buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a short-term trade. Nominal Treasury Curve Slope Chart 7A Transition To Curve Flattening We see the potential for some of last week’s dramatic curve flattening to reverse in the near-term. It was, after all, a drop in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that was responsible for the curve flattening on Thursday and Friday and, as was already discussed, this drop in the cost of inflation compensation will likely prove fleeting. However, if we look out on a longer 6-12 month time horizon, it is much more likely that the curve will continue to flatten rather than steepen. If we assume that the first rate hike occurs in December 2022, it means that we are roughly 18 months away from the start of a rate hike cycle. In past cycles, 18 months prior to liftoff was pretty close to the inflection point between curve steepening and flattening, whether we look at the 2/10, 5/30 or even 2/5 slope (Chart 7). For this reason, we think it makes more sense to enter curve flatteners at this stage of the cycle than steepeners, even though flatteners tend to have negative carry. We therefore exit our prior curve position – long 5-year bullet / short duration-matched 2/30 barbell – a trade that was designed to be a positive carry hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration allocation.7 In its place, we recommend that investors enter a 2/10 curve flattener. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year note and going long a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade offers a negative yield pick-up of 16 bps, but the 2/10 barbell does look somewhat cheap relative to the 5-year on our model (Chart 8). Chart 8Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet We expect to hold this trade for some time, profiting from a bear-flattening of the 2/10 yield curve as we move closer and closer to eventual Fed liftoff.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Fed Won’t Catch Inflation Fever”, dated May 4, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, Next week, instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report from BCA Research’s MacroQuant tactical global asset allocation team. Titled “MacroQuant: A Quantitative Solution For Forecasting Macro-Driven Financial Trends,” this white paper will discuss the purpose, coverage, and methodology of the MacroQuant model. I hope you will find the report insightful. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets for the rest of 2021 and beyond. We will also be holding a webcast on Thursday, July 8 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) to discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Although the Fed delivered a hawkish surprise on Wednesday, monetary policy is likely to remain highly accommodative for the foreseeable future. We continue to see high US inflation as a long-term risk rather than a short-term problem. Outside of a few industries, wage inflation remains well contained. In those industries suffering from labor shortages, the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits, increased immigration, and the opening up of schools should replenish labor supply. Bottlenecks in the global supply chain are starting to ease. Many key input prices have already rolled over, suggesting that producer price inflation has peaked and is heading down. A slowdown in Chinese credit growth could weigh on metals prices during the summer months, which would further temper inflationary pressures. We are downgrading our view on US TIPS from overweight to neutral. Owning bank shares is a cheaper inflation hedge. Look Who’s Talking The Fed jolted markets on Wednesday after the FOMC signaled it may raise rates twice in 2023. Back in March, the Fed projected no hikes until 2024 (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Forecasts Converge Toward Market Expectations Seven of 18 committee members expected lift-off as early as 2022, up from four in March. Only five participants expected the Fed to start raising rates in 2024 or later, down from 11 previously. The Fed acknowledged recent upward inflation surprises by lifting its forecast of core PCE inflation to 3.4% for 2021 compared with the March projection of 2.4%. These forecast revisions bring the Fed closer to market expectations, although the latter are proving to be a moving target. Going into the FOMC meeting, the OIS curve was pricing in 85 bps of rate tightening by the end of 2023. At present, the market is pricing in about 105 bps of tightening. At his press conference, Chair Powell acknowledged that FOMC members had discussed scaling back asset purchases. “You can think of this meeting as the ‘talking about talking about’ meeting,” he said. A rate hike in 2023 would imply the start of tapering early next year. The key question for investors is whether this week’s FOMC meeting marks the first of many hawkish surprises from the Fed. We do not think it does. As Chair Powell himself noted, the dot-plot is “not a great forecaster of future rate moves,” before adding that “Lift-off is well into the future.” Ultimately, a major monetary tightening cycle would require that inflation remain stubbornly high. As we discuss below, while there are good reasons to think that the US economy will eventually overheat, the current bout of inflation is indeed likely to be “transitory.” This implies that bond yields are unlikely to rise into restrictive territory anytime soon, which should provide continued support to stocks. Inflation: A Long-Term Risk Rather Than A Short-Term Problem Chart 2Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago There are plenty of reasons to worry that US inflation will eventually move persistently higher. As we discussed in a recent report, many of the structural factors that have suppressed inflation over the past 40 years are reversing direction: Globalization is in retreat: The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 2). Looking out, the ratio could even decline as more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over unruly global supply chains. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. As a group, baby boomers control more than half of US wealth (Chart 3). They will continue to run down their wealth once they retire. However, since they will no longer be working, they will no longer contribute to national output. Continued spending against a backdrop of diminished production could be inflationary. Chart 3Baby Boomers Have Accumulated A Lot Of Wealth Despite a pandemic-induced bounce, underlying productivity growth remains disappointing (Chart 4). Slow productivity growth could cause aggregate supply to fall short of aggregate demand. Social stability is in peril, as exemplified by the recent dramatic increase in the US homicide rate. In the past, social instability and higher inflation have gone hand in hand (Chart 5). Chart 4Trend Productivity Growth Has Been Disappointing Chart 5Historically, Social Unrest And Higher Inflation Move In Lock-Step Perhaps most importantly, policymakers are aiming to run the economy hot. A tight labor market will lift wage growth (Chart 6). Not only could higher wage growth push up inflation through the usual “cost-push” channel, but by boosting labor’s share of income, a tight labor market could spur aggregate demand. Despite these structural inflationary forces, history suggests that it will take a while – perhaps another two-to-four years – for the US economy to overheat to the point that persistently higher inflation becomes a serious risk. Consider the case of the 1960s. While the labor market reached its full employment level in 1962, it was not until 1966 – when the unemployment rate was a full two percentage points below NAIRU – that inflation finally took off (Chart 7). Chart 6A Tight Labor Market Eventually Bolsters Wages Chart 7Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s In May, 4.4% fewer Americans were employed than in January 2020 (Chart 8). The employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers stood at 77.1%, 3.4 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level (Chart 9). Chart 8US Employment Still More Than 4% Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Chart 9Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels A Labor Market Puzzle Admittedly, if one were to ask most companies if they were finding it easy to hire suitable workers, one would hear a resounding “no.” According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), 48% of firms reported difficulty in filling vacant positions in May, the highest share in the 46-year history of the survey (Chart 10). Chart 10US Labor Market Shortages (I) Chart 11US Labor Market Shortages (II)   Nationwide, the job openings rate reached a record high of 6% in April, up from 4.5% in January 2020. The share of workers quitting their jobs voluntarily – a measure of worker confidence – also hit a record of 2.7% (Chart 11). How can we reconcile the apparent tightness in the labor market with the fact that employment is still well below where it was at the outset of the pandemic? Four explanations stand out. First, unemployment benefits remain extremely generous. For most low-wage workers, benefits exceed the pay they received while employed. It is not surprising that labor shortages have been most pronounced in sectors such as leisure and hospitality where average wages are relatively low (Chart 12). The good news for struggling firms is that the disincentive to working will largely evaporate by September when enhanced unemployment benefits expire. Chart 12Labor Scarcity Prevalent In Low-Wage Sectors Chart 13School Closures Have Curbed Labor Supply Second, lingering fears of the virus and ongoing school closures continue to depress labor force participation. Chart 13 shows that participation rates have recovered less for mothers with young children than for other demographic groups. This problem will also fade away by the fall when schools reopen. Third, the number of foreign workers coming to the US fell dramatically during the pandemic. State Department data show that visas dropped by 88% in the nine months between April and December of last year compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 14). President Biden revoked President Trump’s visa ban in February, which should pave the way for renewed migration to the US. Chart 14US Migrant Worker Supply Is Depressed Chart 15The Pandemic Accelerated Early Retirement   Fourth, about 1.5 million more workers retired during the pandemic than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 15). Most of these workers were near retirement age anyway. Thus, there will likely be a decline in new retirements over the next couple of years before the baby boomer exodus described earlier in this report resumes in earnest. Other Input Prices Set To Ease Just as labor shortages in a number of industries will ease later this year, some of the bottlenecks gripping the global supply chain should also diminish. The prices of various key inputs – ranging from lumber, steel, soybeans, corn, to DRAM prices – have rolled over (Chart 16). This suggests that producer price inflation for manufactured goods, which hit a multi-decade high of 13.5% in May – has peaked and is heading lower. Chart 16Input Prices Have Rolled Over The jump in prices largely reflected one-off pandemic effects. For example, rental car companies, desperate to raise cash at the start of the pandemic, liquidated part of their fleets. Now that the US economy is reopening, they have found themselves short of vehicles. With fewer rental vehicles hitting the used car market, households flush with cash, and new vehicle production constrained by the global semiconductor shortage, both new and used car prices have soared. Vehicle prices have essentially moved sideways since the mid-1990s (Chart 17). Thus, it is doubtful that the recent surge in prices represents a structural break. More likely, prices will come down as supply increases. According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, auto production schedules already imply an almost complete return to January output levels in June. Chart 17Vehicle Prices Have Essentially Moved Sideways Since The Mid-1990s Chart 18Rebounding Pandemic-Affected Services Prices Are Pushing Up Overall CPI As Chart 18 shows, more than half of the increase in consumer prices in April and May can be explained by higher vehicle prices, along with a rebound in pandemic-affected service prices (airfares, hotels, and event admissions). Outside those sectors, the level of the CPI remains below its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 19). Chart 19Unwinding Of "Base Effects"   Chart 20"Supercore" Inflation Measures Remain Well Contained More refined measures of underlying inflation such as the trimmed-mean CPI, median CPI, and sticky price CPI are all running well below their official core CPI counterpart (Chart 20). While certain components of the CPI basket, such as residential rental payments, are likely to exhibit higher inflation in the months ahead, others such as vehicle and food prices will see lower inflation, and perhaps even outright deflation. Slower Chinese Credit Growth Should Temper Commodity Inflation Chart 21Chinese Credit Growth And Metal Prices Move Together Chinese credit growth and base metals prices are strongly correlated (Chart 21). We do not expect the Chinese authorities to embark on a new deleveraging campaign. Credit growth has already fallen back to 11%, which is close to the prior bottom reached in late-2018. Nevertheless, to the extent that changes in Chinese credit growth affect commodity prices with a lag of about six months, metals prices could struggle to maintain altitude over the summer months. China’s plan to release metal reserves into the market could further dampen prices. We remain short the global copper ETF (COPX) relative to the global energy ETF (IXC) in our trade recommendations. The trade is up 18.4% since we initiated on May 27, 2021. We will close this trade if it reaches our profit target of 30%. Bank Shares Are A Better Hedge Against Inflation Than TIPS We have been overweight TIPS in our view matrix. However, with 5-year/5-year forward breakevens trading near pre-pandemic levels, any near-term upside for inflation expectations is limited (Chart 22). As such, we are downgrading TIPS from overweight to neutral in our fixed-income recommendations. Investors looking to hedge inflation risk should consider bank shares. Our baseline view is that the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to about 1.9% by the end of the year. If inflation fails to come down as fast as we anticipate, bond yields would increase even more than that. Chart 23 shows that banks almost always outperform the S&P 500 when bond yields are rising. Chart 22Limited Near-Term Upside For Inflation Expectations Chart 23Bank Shares Thrive in A Rising Yield Environment   Banks are also cheap. US banks trade at 12.2-times forward earnings compared with 21.9-times for the S&P 500. Non-US banks trade at 10-times forward earnings compared to 16.4-times for the MSCI ACW ex-US index. Finally, we like gold as a long-term inflation hedge. We would go long gold in our structural trade recommendations if the price were to fall to $1700/ounce. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Feature This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions in developed market countries. The surging Monitors are all sending a similar message: tighter global monetary policy is necessary because of above-trend economic growth, intensifying inflation pressur­­es and booming financial markets (Charts 1A & 1B). Chart 1ATightening Pressures … Chart 1B… Everywhere The Monitors are pointing to a continuation of the cyclical rise in global bond yields seen since mid-2020, justifying our recommended below-benchmark stance on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The driver of the next leg upward in yields, however, is shifting from growth and inflation expectations to monetary policy expectations. The Fed is starting to slowly prepare markets for the next US tightening cycle, which is already putting flattening pressure on the US Treasury curve and creating more two-way risk for the US dollar over the next 6-12 months. The timing and pace of rate hikes discounted by markets varies across countries, however, creating interesting opportunities for currency pairs, via changing interest rate differentials, away from the US dollar crosses. An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data which have historically been correlated to changes in monetary policy. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure similar things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. We have constructed Monitors for ten developed market countries: the US, the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. A rising trend for each Monitor indicates growing pressures for central banks to tighten policy, and vice versa. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators (equity prices, corporate credit spreads, etc). The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates. Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar. We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Chart 2AThe Surging CB Monitors …. Chart 2B… Suggest More Upside For Bond Yields In each edition of the Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a “non-standard” chart that shows an interesting correlation between the Monitors and a financial market variable. In this latest report, we show how the relationship between the Monitors and our 24-Month Discounters, which measure that amount of rate hikes/cuts discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves over the next two years. We have also added a new Appendix Table that shows the so-called “liftoff dates” (the date when a first full rate hike is discounted in OIS curves), the cumulative amount of rate hikes expected to the end of 2024, and the valuation of each country’s currency on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. We’ve ranked the countries in the table by liftoff dates, thus providing a handy reference to see how markets are judging the order with which central banks will begin the next monetary policy tightening cycle. Fed Monitor: A Clear Signal Our Fed Monitor has been climbing steadily, uninterrupted, for 13 consecutive months, driven by the combination of strong US growth, sharply higher inflation and booming financial markets (Chart 3A). The message from the highly elevated level of the indicator is clear – the Fed should begin the process of unwinding the massive monetary policy accomodation put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this week’s FOMC meeting, the Fed delivered a mildly hawkish surprise by pulling forward the projected timing of “liftoff” (the first fed funds rate hike) from 2024 to 2023. The timing and pace of future Fed tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment”. We see that happening by the end of 2022, which is a bit ahead of the Fed’s own projections for the unemployment rate. The US OIS curve now discounts liftoff near the end of 2022 (see Appendix Table 1), which is now more in line with our own view that the Fed will begin tapering next January and begin rate hikes in December 20221. US economic growth momentum has likely peaked in Q2, but will remain solid in the latter half of 2021. Most of the nation has lifted the remaining pandemic restrictions on activity after a succesful vaccination program, and fiscal policy is still providing a boost to growth. The Fed’s updated economic projections call for real GDP growth to reach 7% this year, 3.4% in 2022 and 2.4% in 2023. The Fed’s assumption is trend GDP growth is still only 1.8%, thus the central bank now expects three consecutive years of above-trend growth. Unsurprisingly, the Fed is forecasting headline PCE inflation to stay above the Fed’s 2% target for all three years (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor Chart 3BIs This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the growth component, although the inflation and financial components have also risen significantly (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor has typically been negatively correlated to the momentum of the US dollar, which has always been more of a counter-cyclical currency that weakens in good economic times. A more hawkish path for US interest rates could eventually give a sustainable lift to the greenback, but for now, the currency will be caught in a tug of war between shifting Fed expectations and robust global growth over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3CBooming Growth Supporting USD Weakness We continue to recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios, with markets still pricing in a pace of Fed tightening that appears too conservative (Chart 3D). Chart 3DNot Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced The Fed’s mildly hawkish surprise this week generated a signficant flattening of the US Treasury curve, with the spread between 5-year and 30-year US yields narrowing by a whopping 20bps. We are closing our two recommeded yield curve trades in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy tactical trade portfolio, which were positioned more to earn near-term carry in a stable curve environment that has now changed with the Fed injecting volatility back into the bond market. BoE Monitor: More Hawkish Surprises Coming Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has spiked higher, fueled by a rapid recovery of UK growth alongside a pickup in inflation pressures (Chart 4A). The BoE has already responded by slowing the pace of its asset purchases in May, and we expect more tapering announcements over the next 6-12 months. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 4B). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUpside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? The recent decision by the UK government to delay “Freedom Day”, when all remaining COVID-19 restrictions would be lifted, into July because of the spread of the Delta virus variant represents a potential near-term setback to UK growth momentum. The bigger picture, however, still points to an economy benefitting far more from the earlier success of the vaccination program. Consumer confidence remains resilient, while business confidence – and investment intentions – has taken a notable turn higher as well. The housing market has also started to heat up, with house price inflation accelerating. The backdrop still remains one of above-potential UK growth over the next 12-24 months. Within the BoE Monitor sub-components, the economic and financial elements stand out as having the biggest moves over the past year (Chart 4C). Momentum in the British pound is positively correlated to our BoE Monitor. As the central bank moves incrementally moves towards more tapering and eventual rate hikes, the currency, which remains moderately undervalued on a PPP basis (see Appendix Table 1), should be well supported. Chart 4CAll BoE Monitor Components Are Rising The UK OIS curve currently discounts BoE liftoff in May 2023, with 57bps of cumulative rate hikes expected by the end of 2024. We see risks of the central bank moving sooner than the market on liftoff, with a rate hike in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2022 more likely. The Gilt market is vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE with so few rate hikes discounted (Chart 4D). For now, we are maintaining a neutral stance on UK Gilts, given the BoE’s history of talking hawkishly but failing to deliver, but we do have them on “downgrade watch.” Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Growth? Yes. Inflation? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has moved sharply higher as more of the euro area has emerged from pandemic restrictions (Chart 5A). Yet the central bank is not sending any of the kinds of moderately hawkish signals coming from the Fed and other central banks. The ECB is still a long way from such a move. While growth has clearly recovered strongly, the overall euro area unemployment rate remains high at 8% and wage growth remains anemic in most countries. There is the potential for upside growth surprises coming from fiscal policy, with the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funds set to be disributed by the EU later this year. Yet even with this fiscal boost, most of the euro area is likely to remain far enough away from full employment allowing the ECB to stay dovish for longer. While headine euro area inflation reached the ECB’s 2% target in May, core inflaton remained subdued at a mere 0.9% (Chart 5B). Market based measures of inflation expectations are also well below the ECB target, with the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate only at 1.6%. Such “boring” inflation readings – even after a surge in commodity price fueled inflation in many other countries – proves that there remains ample spare capacity in the euro area economy and labor markets. The ECB is under no pressure to turn less dovish anytime soon. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BStill Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe The lack of an immediate inflation threat can also be seen in the sub-components of our ECB Monitor, where the inflation elements have clearly lagged the growth upturn (Chart 5C). From a currency perspective, a growth fueled surge in the ECB Monitor is usually enough to provide a boost to the euro. Yet, without an inflation trigger, the likelihood of the ECB dialing back bond purchases, let alone raising interest rates, is low. This suggests any rally in the euro from current levels will be a slow adjustment towards fair value. Chart 5CInflation Components Lagging Currently, the European OIS curve is discounting an initial ECB rate hike in October 2023, with only 27bps of rate hikes expected by the end of 2024 - one of the most dovish pricings in the G10 (see Appendix Table 1). Even though our ECB Monitor suggests that European bond markets should be pricing in more rate hikes (Chart 5D), that is unlikely to happen with the ECB messaging a dovish stance and with the central bank set to release a review of its inflation strategy later this year. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on European government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Chart 5DMarkets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message BoJ Monitor: Deflation Is Still A Threat Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has recovered from deeply depressed pandemic lows to just above the zero line (Chart 6A). This is welcome news for the BoJ, that kept interest rates and asset purchases unchanged at yesterday's meeting, but recognized the need for additional stimulus via "green" loans.The reading from the central bank monitor is also consistent with a Japanese economy that requires more accommodative monetary policy vis-à-vis the rest of the G10. The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new COVID-19 cases remains at the highest level per capita in developed Asia. Meanwhile, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the developed world and a third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector. This pins the Japanese recovery well behind that of other G10 countries. The IMF expects the output gap in Japan to close sometime in 2023, but it is worth noting that there are few signs of inflationary pressures that would signal such an outcome. Both core and headline Japanese prices are deflating in a world where the risks are tilted towards an inflation overshoot (Chart 6B). The unemployment rate has rolled over, but still remains a ways from pre-pandemic lows. Savings in Japan are also surging, short-circuiting the sort of positive feedback loop that will generate genuine inflation. Chart 6AThe BoJ Monitor Chart 6BDeflation Is Still A Threat In Japan The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor suggest that the growth component has seen steady improvement over the last few months, while the financial component has rolled over (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the underperformance of Japanese equities in recent months, after a spectacular rally late last year. However, weakness in the yen has also allowed financial conditions to remain relatively easy. The yen is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. When the central bank monitor is improving (both in Japan and globally), traders tend to use the yen to fund carry trades elsewhere, which weakens the currency. When risk aversion sets in, these trades are unwound, and the yen rallies. This year, the yen has weakened in sympathy with improving global growth, suggesting this playbook remains very much relevant. Chart 6CModest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components The strength of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should rise towards the upper bound of the -25bps to +25bps band. However, the BoJ will stand firm in maintaining easy monetary policy, as expected by market participants (Chart 6D). This policy-induced stability makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising, a key reason for our overweight stance on JGBs. Chart 6DNo Change In Policy Expected BoC Monitor: Strong Growth = Early Tightening Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has shown an impressive rebound and currently displays the highest figure among our Central Bank Monitors (Chart 7A). With a growing number of central banks contemplating a less dovish turn, Canada will be in the group of developed countries that hikes policy rates first. The Canadian economy started the year gaining significant positive momentum, with Q1 GDP growing by +5.6% (annualized quarter-on-quarter rate of change). The Q2 picture is a bit more mixed because of another wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. However, thanks to the rapid improvement in the pace of vaccinations after a botched initial rollout, Canadian household consumption and confidence have notably accelerated. Business confidence and investment intentions have also picked up solidly according the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey. The job market also gained significant momentum, and as the lockdown measures gradually ease, workers who have been laid off during the pandemic will return to work. Therefore, the improvement in labor market will continue. A rapidly closing output gap means that the current surge in inflation may endure after the base effect comparisons to 2020 fade (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Looking at the components of our BoC Monitor, all three factors have clearly rebounded but the growth factor has shown the most impressive move (Chart 7C). Amid the broad economic factors that have improved, booming house prices – a primary cause for the BoC’s decision to taper its asset purchases back in April - have caused the growth factor to rebound quickly. Chart 7CA Positive Story For The CAD The Canadian OIS curve is pricing in BoC liftoff in August 2022 (Appendix Table 1), with a sooner liftoff only expected in Norway and New Zealand. We see risks that the BoC moves much sooner than that next year. A quicker liftoff which will put additional upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, both against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis, particularly if Canadian export demand remains solid and oil prices continue to climb, as our commodity strategists expect. Our PPP model suggests that the Loonie is close to fair value, so valuation is not yet an impediment to additional strength in the Canadian dollar. Looking at the longer-term horizon, the OIS curve is discounting four BoC rate hikes within the next 24 months, and it is not clear that will be enough to cool off the red-hot Canadian housing market – currently the biggest threat to inflation stability in Canada (Chart 7D). Given that relatively hawkish view, the more optimistic growth outlook, and the high-beta status of Canadian government bonds, we continue to recommend an underweight position on Canadian government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio. Chart 7DCanadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced RBA Monitor: Waiting For Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has continued its strong rebound since the trough in 2020 and is now at all-time highs, suggesting heightened pressure on the RBA to tighten policy (Chart 8A). This rebound comes amid dovish messaging from an RBA that is waiting on signs of an inflation turnaround. The RBA’s patience makes sense when you consider measures of slack in the economy, such as output and unemployment gaps (Chart 8B). While the IMF does expect the output gap to tighten up significantly in 2021, it does not expect it to be closed even by 2022. Looking to capacity in the labor market, the unemployment rate has just returned to pre-COVID levels. However, the labor market will need to run “hot” for a sustained period of time to push up wage inflation, which remains deep in the doldrums according to the RBA’s wage price index. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMuted Inflationary Pressures Down Under A look at the components of our RBA Monitor explains the RBA’s dovishness in the face of the tightening pressure indicated by the “headline” figure (Chart 8C). The rebound in the Monitor can be attributed almost entirely to the growth and financial components, which are driven in turn by improving confidence and an expanding RBA balance sheet. However, the inflation component, which has barely budged off its 2020 low, best captures the metrics that the RBA is watching. Importantly, the RBA will need to see sustainable domestically-generated inflation before it can begin to tolerate a stronger AUD which would otherwise imperil tradable goods inflation. With the AUD only slightly expensive on our PPP models, the RBA does not have much of a “valuation cushion” to play with in terms of delivering a hawkish surprise (Appendix Table 1). ​​​​​​ Chart 8CGrowth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Chart 8D shows that market pricing for hikes over the next two years has remained mostly flat in 2021 in the face of persistently dovish messaging from the RBA. Our view, as expressed in a recent update of our “RBA checklist”2, is that fundamental factors will force the RBA to remain dovish, making Australian government debt an attractive overweight within global government bond portfolios. Chart 8DMarkets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia RBNZ Monitor: Heating Up Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has rebounded to levels last seen in 2017, largely on the back of improving growth (Chart 9A). Success at containing the virus has allowed the New Zealand economy to beat growth expectations for Q1/2021, effectively pulling forward future policy tightening. Measures of capacity utilization in New Zealand will likely respond accordingly to improved growth prospects, with the output gap likely to close even faster than projected by the IMF (Chart 9B). Measures of core and headline inflation remain within the RBNZ’s 1-3% target range, with the Bank expecting headline inflation to shoot up to 2.6% in Q2/2021 before settling around the midpoint of the range. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BThe New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack Looking at the individual components of our RBNZ Monitor, the rebound in the overall indicator is clearly a growth story (Chart 9C). This component of our Monitor also captures the effect of accelerating house prices, which have become a direct concern for RBNZ policy. According to the bank’s own projections, house prices will post a whopping 29% growth rate in the second quarter. With issues of housing affordability at the forefront, and political pressure mounting, the RBNZ will likely be forced to turn less dovish soon, even if it comes with unwanted strength in the NZD. However, the currency is among the most expensive on our PPP models (Appendix Table 1), which means that a reversion to fair value could counteract upward pressure from a hawkish RBNZ. Chart 9CThe RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices Historically, our RBNZ Monitor has correlated well with market pricing embedded in the OIS curve (Chart 9D). In 2021, however, market expectations have far outstripped the signal from our central bank monitor, meaning that markets believe the RBNZ is more focused on growth factors rather than the overall picture, a view that we largely agree with. Chart 9DMarkets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Even after the Fed’s hawkish surprise at this week’s meeting, we still believe that the RBNZ will be among the first to taper its balance sheet and move towards normalizing policy. Stay underweight New Zealand sovereign debt. Riksbank Monitor: Watch For An Upside Surprise Our Riksbank Monitor has posted a strong rebound, reaching all-time highs (Chart 10A). This rebound has come on the back of a robust economic recovery. Meanwhile, monetary policy has been accommodative with the Riksbank holding the repo rate at 0% while expanding the size of its balance sheet. Capacity utilization, which in Sweden did not fall nearly as much as in other developed economies, is looking set to recover in the coming years (Chart 10B). Although headline CPI shot past the 2% target, driven by fuel and food prices, underlying core inflation remains stable. The Riksbank expects inflation to fall due to less favorable year-over-year base effects, and only sustainably climb to the 2% level by mid-2024. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BThe Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... Breaking down the rise in the Riksbank Monitor, we can see that it is driven overwhelmingly by the growth component (Chart 10C). This, in turn, has been driven by surging PMIs and soaring business and consumer confidence. Our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy have pointed out that the small export-sensitive economy will be poised to benefit from an upturn in the global industrial cycle3. While Sweden did arguably botch its COVID-19 response last year, it is catching up, with 42% of Swedes having already received their first dose of the vaccine. The case for the SEK is strong, given that the currency is a high-beta play on global growth and is also quite undervalued according to our PPP models (Appendix Table 1). Market expectations are that the Riksbank will lag others in normalizing policy, putting off a hike until September 2023. The Riksbank baseline is a flat repo rate out to Q2/2024 but an earlier rate hike is well within the “uncertainty bands” of the Riksbank’s forecast. Such a scenario may manifest if growth and inflation surprise to the upside. Chart 10C...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth Given the positive economic backdrop and the financial stability risks posed by rising house prices and household indebtedness, we believe market pricing is too dovish relative to the actual pressure on the Riksbank to tighten policy (Chart 10D). This makes Swedish sovereign debt an attractive underweight candidate in global government bond portfolios. Chart 10DThe OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank Norges Bank Monitor: The First To Hike Our Norges Bank Monitor has risen sharply from the pandemic lows and now signals that emergency monetary settings are no longer appropriate for the Norwegian economy (Chart 11A). Consistent with this message, Norges Bank governor, Øystein Olsen, suggested this week that a rate hike will occur in September, with possibly another hike by December of this year. Norway has handled the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, it has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was also prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, monetary policy was highly accommodative, with the Norges Bank cutting interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. Fiscal stimulus will remain relatively accommodative, as Norway will register one of the smallest fiscal drags in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022. Rapid improvement in the labor market also continues. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate has fallen to 3.3%. On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024. These developments have set the Norwegian economy on a sustainable recovery path. This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3% (Chart 11B). Meanwhile, while core inflation at 2% is decelerating, the slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mindset has not taken root in Norway. Chart 11AThe Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BInflation Is Well Anchored In Norway The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth and inflation components, the former surging to its highest level in two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 11C). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. The Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the exchange rate is an important valve for adjusting financial conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the NOK cushioned the crash in oil prices last year. This year, a recovery has benefitted the krone. The Norwegian krone also remains undervalued according to our PPP models. Chart 11CThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates A positive correlation also exists between the Monitor and expected rate hikes by the Norges bank (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should either coincide or lead the improvement in global bond yields. From a portfolio perspective, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates SNB Monitor: Green Shoots Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has recovered smartly, and is at the highest level in over a decade (Chart 12A). This is a marked turnaround for a country that has had negative interest rates since 2015. It also raises the prospect that Switzerland may be finally able to escape its liquidity trap, allowing the SNB to modestly adjust monetary policy upward. The Swiss economy has recovered swiftly. As of May, the manufacturing PMI was at 69.9, the highest reading since the start of the series. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades. This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvements in private sector demand. The unemployment rate in Switzerland has rolled over, which should begin to provide an anchor to wage growth. Both core and headline inflation are also recovering, albeit at a slow pace (Chart 12B). Import prices in Switzerland will also rise, driven by the relative weakness of the currency. This is important because for a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation. Chart 12AThe SNB Monitor Chart 12BSwiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, the growth component has been in the driver’s seat (Chart 12C). But encouragingly, both the inflation and financial component have also been grinding higher. This improvement suggests that the weakness in the franc, especially amidst global dollar weakness, has been a welcome jolt to the economy. Like the yen, the CHF is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. Most of the time, the relationship with the monitor is inverse, corresponding to investors using the Swiss franc for carry trades when global conditions improve. Similar to the yen this year, the CHF has also weakened in sympathy with improving global growth. Should global growth see a setback in the near term, the franc will benefit. Chart 12CGrowth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland The SNB Monitor is more accurate at capturing expected policy changes by the SNB. This means that yields in Switzerland could see more meaningful upside (Chart 12D). That said, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low liquidity. Chart 12DCould The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Appendix Table 1 Table 1Appendix Table 1 Footnotes 1 See BCA Research US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden", dated May 3, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions in developed market countries. The surging Monitors are all sending a similar message: tighter global monetary policy is necessary because of above-trend economic growth, intensifying inflation pressur­­es and booming financial markets (Charts 1A & 1B). Chart 1ATightening Pressures … Chart 1B… Everywhere The Monitors are pointing to a continuation of the cyclical rise in global bond yields seen since mid-2020, justifying our recommended below-benchmark stance on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The driver of the next leg upward in yields, however, is shifting from growth and inflation expectations to monetary policy expectations. The Fed is starting to slowly prepare markets for the next US tightening cycle, which is already putting flattening pressure on the US Treasury curve and creating more two-way risk for the US dollar over the next 6-12 months. The timing and pace of rate hikes discounted by markets varies across countries, however, creating interesting opportunities for currency pairs, via changing interest rate differentials, away from the US dollar crosses. An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data which have historically been correlated to changes in monetary policy. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure similar things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. We have constructed Monitors for ten developed market countries: the US, the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. A rising trend for each Monitor indicates growing pressures for central banks to tighten policy, and vice versa. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators (equity prices, corporate credit spreads, etc). The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates. Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar. We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Chart 2AThe Surging CB Monitors …. Chart 2B… Suggest More Upside For Bond Yields In each edition of the Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a “non-standard” chart that shows an interesting correlation between the Monitors and a financial market variable. In this latest report, we show how the relationship between the Monitors and our 24-Month Discounters, which measure that amount of rate hikes/cuts discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves over the next two years. We have also added a new Appendix Table that shows the so-called “liftoff dates” (the date when a first full rate hike is discounted in OIS curves), the cumulative amount of rate hikes expected to the end of 2024, and the valuation of each country’s currency on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. We’ve ranked the countries in the table by liftoff dates, thus providing a handy reference to see how markets are judging the order with which central banks will begin the next monetary policy tightening cycle. Fed Monitor: A Clear Signal Our Fed Monitor has been climbing steadily, uninterrupted, for 13 consecutive months, driven by the combination of strong US growth, sharply higher inflation and booming financial markets (Chart 3A). The message from the highly elevated level of the indicator is clear – the Fed should begin the process of unwinding the massive monetary policy accomodation put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this week’s FOMC meeting, the Fed delivered a mildly hawkish surprise by pulling forward the projected timing of “liftoff” (the first fed funds rate hike) from 2024 to 2023. The timing and pace of future Fed tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment”. We see that happening by the end of 2022, which is a bit ahead of the Fed’s own projections for the unemployment rate. The US OIS curve now discounts liftoff near the end of 2022 (see Appendix Table 1), which is now more in line with our own view that the Fed will begin tapering next January and begin rate hikes in December 20221. US economic growth momentum has likely peaked in Q2, but will remain solid in the latter half of 2021. Most of the nation has lifted the remaining pandemic restrictions on activity after a succesful vaccination program, and fiscal policy is still providing a boost to growth. The Fed’s updated economic projections call for real GDP growth to reach 7% this year, 3.4% in 2022 and 2.4% in 2023. The Fed’s assumption is trend GDP growth is still only 1.8%, thus the central bank now expects three consecutive years of above-trend growth. Unsurprisingly, the Fed is forecasting headline PCE inflation to stay above the Fed’s 2% target for all three years (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor Chart 3BIs This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the growth component, although the inflation and financial components have also risen significantly (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor has typically been negatively correlated to the momentum of the US dollar, which has always been more of a counter-cyclical currency that weakens in good economic times. A more hawkish path for US interest rates could eventually give a sustainable lift to the greenback, but for now, the currency will be caught in a tug of war between shifting Fed expectations and robust global growth over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3CBooming Growth Supporting USD Weakness We continue to recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios, with markets still pricing in a pace of Fed tightening that appears too conservative (Chart 3D). Chart 3DNot Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced The Fed’s mildly hawkish surprise this week generated a signficant flattening of the US Treasury curve, with the spread between 5-year and 30-year US yields narrowing by a whopping 20bps. We are closing our two recommeded yield curve trades in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy tactical trade portfolio, which were positioned more to earn near-term carry in a stable curve environment that has now changed with the Fed injecting volatility back into the bond market. BoE Monitor: More Hawkish Surprises Coming Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has spiked higher, fueled by a rapid recovery of UK growth alongside a pickup in inflation pressures (Chart 4A). The BoE has already responded by slowing the pace of its asset purchases in May, and we expect more tapering announcements over the next 6-12 months. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 4B). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUpside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? The recent decision by the UK government to delay “Freedom Day”, when all remaining COVID-19 restrictions would be lifted, into July because of the spread of the Delta virus variant represents a potential near-term setback to UK growth momentum. The bigger picture, however, still points to an economy benefitting far more from the earlier success of the vaccination program. Consumer confidence remains resilient, while business confidence – and investment intentions – has taken a notable turn higher as well. The housing market has also started to heat up, with house price inflation accelerating. The backdrop still remains one of above-potential UK growth over the next 12-24 months. Within the BoE Monitor sub-components, the economic and financial elements stand out as having the biggest moves over the past year (Chart 4C). Momentum in the British pound is positively correlated to our BoE Monitor. As the central bank moves incrementally moves towards more tapering and eventual rate hikes, the currency, which remains moderately undervalued on a PPP basis (see Appendix Table 1), should be well supported. Chart 4CAll BoE Monitor Components Are Rising The UK OIS curve currently discounts BoE liftoff in May 2023, with 57bps of cumulative rate hikes expected by the end of 2024. We see risks of the central bank moving sooner than the market on liftoff, with a rate hike in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2022 more likely. The Gilt market is vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE with so few rate hikes discounted (Chart 4D). For now, we are maintaining a neutral stance on UK Gilts, given the BoE’s history of talking hawkishly but failing to deliver, but we do have them on “downgrade watch.” Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Growth? Yes. Inflation? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has moved sharply higher as more of the euro area has emerged from pandemic restrictions (Chart 5A). Yet the central bank is not sending any of the kinds of moderately hawkish signals coming from the Fed and other central banks. The ECB is still a long way from such a move. While growth has clearly recovered strongly, the overall euro area unemployment rate remains high at 8% and wage growth remains anemic in most countries. There is the potential for upside growth surprises coming from fiscal policy, with the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funds set to be disributed by the EU later this year. Yet even with this fiscal boost, most of the euro area is likely to remain far enough away from full employment allowing the ECB to stay dovish for longer. While headine euro area inflation reached the ECB’s 2% target in May, core inflaton remained subdued at a mere 0.9% (Chart 5B). Market based measures of inflation expectations are also well below the ECB target, with the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate only at 1.6%. Such “boring” inflation readings – even after a surge in commodity price fueled inflation in many other countries – proves that there remains ample spare capacity in the euro area economy and labor markets. The ECB is under no pressure to turn less dovish anytime soon. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BStill Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe The lack of an immediate inflation threat can also be seen in the sub-components of our ECB Monitor, where the inflation elements have clearly lagged the growth upturn (Chart 5C). From a currency perspective, a growth fueled surge in the ECB Monitor is usually enough to provide a boost to the euro. Yet, without an inflation trigger, the likelihood of the ECB dialing back bond purchases, let alone raising interest rates, is low. This suggests any rally in the euro from current levels will be a slow adjustment towards fair value. Chart 5CInflation Components Lagging Currently, the European OIS curve is discounting an initial ECB rate hike in October 2023, with only 27bps of rate hikes expected by the end of 2024 - one of the most dovish pricings in the G10 (see Appendix Table 1). Even though our ECB Monitor suggests that European bond markets should be pricing in more rate hikes (Chart 5D), that is unlikely to happen with the ECB messaging a dovish stance and with the central bank set to release a review of its inflation strategy later this year. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on European government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Chart 5DMarkets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message   BoJ Monitor: Deflation Is Still A Threat Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has recovered from deeply depressed pandemic lows to just above the zero line (Chart 6A). This is welcome news for the BoJ, that kept interest rates and asset purchases unchanged at yesterday's meeting, but recognized the need for additional stimulus via "green" loans.The reading from the central bank monitor is also consistent with a Japanese economy that requires more accommodative monetary policy vis-à-vis the rest of the G10. The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new COVID-19 cases remains at the highest level per capita in developed Asia. Meanwhile, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the developed world and a third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector. This pins the Japanese recovery well behind that of other G10 countries. The IMF expects the output gap in Japan to close sometime in 2023, but it is worth noting that there are few signs of inflationary pressures that would signal such an outcome. Both core and headline Japanese prices are deflating in a world where the risks are tilted towards an inflation overshoot (Chart 6B). The unemployment rate has rolled over, but still remains a ways from pre-pandemic lows. Savings in Japan are also surging, short-circuiting the sort of positive feedback loop that will generate genuine inflation. Chart 6AThe BoJ Monitor Chart 6BDeflation Is Still A Threat In Japan The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor suggest that the growth component has seen steady improvement over the last few months, while the financial component has rolled over (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the underperformance of Japanese equities in recent months, after a spectacular rally late last year. However, weakness in the yen has also allowed financial conditions to remain relatively easy. The yen is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. When the central bank monitor is improving (both in Japan and globally), traders tend to use the yen to fund carry trades elsewhere, which weakens the currency. When risk aversion sets in, these trades are unwound, and the yen rallies. This year, the yen has weakened in sympathy with improving global growth, suggesting this playbook remains very much relevant. Chart 6CModest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components The strength of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should rise towards the upper bound of the -25bps to +25bps band. However, the BoJ will stand firm in maintaining easy monetary policy, as expected by market participants (Chart 6D). This policy-induced stability makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising, a key reason for our overweight stance on JGBs. Chart 6DNo Change In Policy Expected BoC Monitor: Strong Growth = Early Tightening Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has shown an impressive rebound and currently displays the highest figure among our Central Bank Monitors (Chart 7A). With a growing number of central banks contemplating a less dovish turn, Canada will be in the group of developed countries that hikes policy rates first. The Canadian economy started the year gaining significant positive momentum, with Q1 GDP growing by +5.6% (annualized quarter-on-quarter rate of change). The Q2 picture is a bit more mixed because of another wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. However, thanks to the rapid improvement in the pace of vaccinations after a botched initial rollout, Canadian household consumption and confidence have notably accelerated. Business confidence and investment intentions have also picked up solidly according the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey. The job market also gained significant momentum, and as the lockdown measures gradually ease, workers who have been laid off during the pandemic will return to work. Therefore, the improvement in labor market will continue. A rapidly closing output gap means that the current surge in inflation may endure after the base effect comparisons to 2020 fade (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Looking at the components of our BoC Monitor, all three factors have clearly rebounded but the growth factor has shown the most impressive move (Chart 7C). Amid the broad economic factors that have improved, booming house prices – a primary cause for the BoC’s decision to taper its asset purchases back in April - have caused the growth factor to rebound quickly. Chart 7CA Positive Story For The CAD The Canadian OIS curve is pricing in BoC liftoff in August 2022 (Appendix Table 1), with a sooner liftoff only expected in Norway and New Zealand. We see risks that the BoC moves much sooner than that next year. A quicker liftoff which will put additional upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, both against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis, particularly if Canadian export demand remains solid and oil prices continue to climb, as our commodity strategists expect. Our PPP model suggests that the Loonie is close to fair value, so valuation is not yet an impediment to additional strength in the Canadian dollar. Looking at the longer-term horizon, the OIS curve is discounting four BoC rate hikes within the next 24 months, and it is not clear that will be enough to cool off the red-hot Canadian housing market – currently the biggest threat to inflation stability in Canada (Chart 7D). Given that relatively hawkish view, the more optimistic growth outlook, and the high-beta status of Canadian government bonds, we continue to recommend an underweight position on Canadian government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio. Chart 7DCanadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced RBA Monitor: Waiting For Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has continued its strong rebound since the trough in 2020 and is now at all-time highs, suggesting heightened pressure on the RBA to tighten policy (Chart 8A). This rebound comes amid dovish messaging from an RBA that is waiting on signs of an inflation turnaround. The RBA’s patience makes sense when you consider measures of slack in the economy, such as output and unemployment gaps (Chart 8B). While the IMF does expect the output gap to tighten up significantly in 2021, it does not expect it to be closed even by 2022. Looking to capacity in the labor market, the unemployment rate has just returned to pre-COVID levels. However, the labor market will need to run “hot” for a sustained period of time to push up wage inflation, which remains deep in the doldrums according to the RBA’s wage price index. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMuted Inflationary Pressures Down Under A look at the components of our RBA Monitor explains the RBA’s dovishness in the face of the tightening pressure indicated by the “headline” figure (Chart 8C). The rebound in the Monitor can be attributed almost entirely to the growth and financial components, which are driven in turn by improving confidence and an expanding RBA balance sheet. However, the inflation component, which has barely budged off its 2020 low, best captures the metrics that the RBA is watching. Importantly, the RBA will need to see sustainable domestically-generated inflation before it can begin to tolerate a stronger AUD which would otherwise imperil tradable goods inflation. With the AUD only slightly expensive on our PPP models, the RBA does not have much of a “valuation cushion” to play with in terms of delivering a hawkish surprise (Appendix Table 1). ​​​​​​ Chart 8CGrowth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Chart 8D shows that market pricing for hikes over the next two years has remained mostly flat in 2021 in the face of persistently dovish messaging from the RBA. Our view, as expressed in a recent update of our “RBA checklist”2, is that fundamental factors will force the RBA to remain dovish, making Australian government debt an attractive overweight within global government bond portfolios. Chart 8DMarkets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia RBNZ Monitor: Heating Up Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has rebounded to levels last seen in 2017, largely on the back of improving growth (Chart 9A). Success at containing the virus has allowed the New Zealand economy to beat growth expectations for Q1/2021, effectively pulling forward future policy tightening. Measures of capacity utilization in New Zealand will likely respond accordingly to improved growth prospects, with the output gap likely to close even faster than projected by the IMF (Chart 9B). Measures of core and headline inflation remain within the RBNZ’s 1-3% target range, with the Bank expecting headline inflation to shoot up to 2.6% in Q2/2021 before settling around the midpoint of the range. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BThe New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack Looking at the individual components of our RBNZ Monitor, the rebound in the overall indicator is clearly a growth story (Chart 9C). This component of our Monitor also captures the effect of accelerating house prices, which have become a direct concern for RBNZ policy. According to the bank’s own projections, house prices will post a whopping 29% growth rate in the second quarter. With issues of housing affordability at the forefront, and political pressure mounting, the RBNZ will likely be forced to turn less dovish soon, even if it comes with unwanted strength in the NZD. However, the currency is among the most expensive on our PPP models (Appendix Table 1), which means that a reversion to fair value could counteract upward pressure from a hawkish RBNZ. Chart 9CThe RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices Historically, our RBNZ Monitor has correlated well with market pricing embedded in the OIS curve (Chart 9D). In 2021, however, market expectations have far outstripped the signal from our central bank monitor, meaning that markets believe the RBNZ is more focused on growth factors rather than the overall picture, a view that we largely agree with. Chart 9DMarkets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Even after the Fed’s hawkish surprise at this week’s meeting, we still believe that the RBNZ will be among the first to taper its balance sheet and move towards normalizing policy. Stay underweight New Zealand sovereign debt. Riksbank Monitor: Watch For An Upside Surprise Our Riksbank Monitor has posted a strong rebound, reaching all-time highs (Chart 10A). This rebound has come on the back of a robust economic recovery. Meanwhile, monetary policy has been accommodative with the Riksbank holding the repo rate at 0% while expanding the size of its balance sheet. Capacity utilization, which in Sweden did not fall nearly as much as in other developed economies, is looking set to recover in the coming years (Chart 10B). Although headline CPI shot past the 2% target, driven by fuel and food prices, underlying core inflation remains stable. The Riksbank expects inflation to fall due to less favorable year-over-year base effects, and only sustainably climb to the 2% level by mid-2024. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BThe Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... Breaking down the rise in the Riksbank Monitor, we can see that it is driven overwhelmingly by the growth component (Chart 10C). This, in turn, has been driven by surging PMIs and soaring business and consumer confidence. Our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy have pointed out that the small export-sensitive economy will be poised to benefit from an upturn in the global industrial cycle3. While Sweden did arguably botch its COVID-19 response last year, it is catching up, with 42% of Swedes having already received their first dose of the vaccine. The case for the SEK is strong, given that the currency is a high-beta play on global growth and is also quite undervalued according to our PPP models (Appendix Table 1). Market expectations are that the Riksbank will lag others in normalizing policy, putting off a hike until September 2023. The Riksbank baseline is a flat repo rate out to Q2/2024 but an earlier rate hike is well within the “uncertainty bands” of the Riksbank’s forecast. Such a scenario may manifest if growth and inflation surprise to the upside. Chart 10C...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth Given the positive economic backdrop and the financial stability risks posed by rising house prices and household indebtedness, we believe market pricing is too dovish relative to the actual pressure on the Riksbank to tighten policy (Chart 10D). This makes Swedish sovereign debt an attractive underweight candidate in global government bond portfolios. Chart 10DThe OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank Norges Bank Monitor: The First To Hike Our Norges Bank Monitor has risen sharply from the pandemic lows and now signals that emergency monetary settings are no longer appropriate for the Norwegian economy (Chart 11A). Consistent with this message, Norges Bank governor, Øystein Olsen, suggested this week that a rate hike will occur in September, with possibly another hike by December of this year. Norway has handled the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, it has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was also prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, monetary policy was highly accommodative, with the Norges Bank cutting interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. Fiscal stimulus will remain relatively accommodative, as Norway will register one of the smallest fiscal drags in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022. Rapid improvement in the labor market also continues. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate has fallen to 3.3%. On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024. These developments have set the Norwegian economy on a sustainable recovery path. This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3% (Chart 11B). Meanwhile, while core inflation at 2% is decelerating, the slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mindset has not taken root in Norway. Chart 11AThe Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BInflation Is Well Anchored In Norway The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth and inflation components, the former surging to its highest level in two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 11C). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. The Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the exchange rate is an important valve for adjusting financial conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the NOK cushioned the crash in oil prices last year. This year, a recovery has benefitted the krone. The Norwegian krone also remains undervalued according to our PPP models. Chart 11CThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates A positive correlation also exists between the Monitor and expected rate hikes by the Norges bank (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should either coincide or lead the improvement in global bond yields. From a portfolio perspective, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates SNB Monitor: Green Shoots Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has recovered smartly, and is at the highest level in over a decade (Chart 12A). This is a marked turnaround for a country that has had negative interest rates since 2015. It also raises the prospect that Switzerland may be finally able to escape its liquidity trap, allowing the SNB to modestly adjust monetary policy upward. The Swiss economy has recovered swiftly. As of May, the manufacturing PMI was at 69.9, the highest reading since the start of the series. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades. This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvements in private sector demand. The unemployment rate in Switzerland has rolled over, which should begin to provide an anchor to wage growth. Both core and headline inflation are also recovering, albeit at a slow pace (Chart 12B). Import prices in Switzerland will also rise, driven by the relative weakness of the currency. This is important because for a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation. Chart 12AThe SNB Monitor Chart 12BSwiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, the growth component has been in the driver’s seat (Chart 12C). But encouragingly, both the inflation and financial component have also been grinding higher. This improvement suggests that the weakness in the franc, especially amidst global dollar weakness, has been a welcome jolt to the economy. Like the yen, the CHF is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. Most of the time, the relationship with the monitor is inverse, corresponding to investors using the Swiss franc for carry trades when global conditions improve. Similar to the yen this year, the CHF has also weakened in sympathy with improving global growth. Should global growth see a setback in the near term, the franc will benefit. Chart 12CGrowth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland The SNB Monitor is more accurate at capturing expected policy changes by the SNB. This means that yields in Switzerland could see more meaningful upside (Chart 12D). That said, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low liquidity. Chart 12DCould The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Appendix Table 1 Table 1Appendix Table 1 Footnotes 1 See BCA Research US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden", dated May 3, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights China’s Communist Party has overcome a range of challenges over the past 100 years, performed especially well over the past 42 years, but the macro and geopolitical outlook is darkening. The “East Asian miracle” phase of Chinese growth has ended. Potential GDP growth is slowing and it will be harder for Beijing to maintain financial and sociopolitical stability. The Communist Party has shifted the basis of its legitimacy from rapid growth to quality of life and nationalist foreign policy. The latter, however, will undermine the former by stirring up foreign protectionism. In the near term, global investors should favor developed market equities over China/EM equities. But they should favor China and Hong Kong stocks over Taiwanese stocks given significant geopolitical risk over the Taiwan Strait. Structurally, favor the US dollar and euro over the renminbi. Feature Ten years ago, in the lead up to the Communist Party’s 90th anniversary, I wrote a report called “China and the End of the Deng Dynasty,” referring to Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese Communist Party’s great pro-market reformer.1 The argument rested on three points: the end of the export-manufacturing economic model, an increasingly assertive foreign policy, and the revival of Maoist nationalism. After ten years the report holds up reasonably well but it did not venture to forecast what precisely would come next. In reality it is the rule of the Communist Party, and not the leader of any one man, that fits into China’s history of dynastic cycles. As the party celebrates a hundred years since its founding on July 23, 1921, it is necessary to pause and reflect on what the party has achieved over the past century and what the current Xi Jinping era implies for the country’s next 100 years. Single-Party Rule Can Bring Economic Success. Communism Cannot. Regime type does not preclude wealth. Countries can prosper regardless of whether they are ruled by one person, one party, or many parties. The richest countries in the world grew rich over centuries in which their governments evolved from monarchy to democracy and sometimes back again. Even today several of the world’s wealthy democracies are better described as republics or oligarchies. Chart 1China Outperformed Communism But Not Liberal Democracy The rule of one person, or autocracy, is not necessarily bad for economic growth. For every Kim Il Sung of North Korea there is a Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. But authority based on a single person often expires with that person and rarely survives his grandchild. In China, Chairman Mao Zedong’s death occasioned a power struggle. Deng Xiaoping’s attempts to step down led to popular unrest that threatened the Communist Party’s rule on two separate occasions in the 1980s. The rule of a single party is thought to be more sustainable. Japan and Singapore are effectively single-party states and the wealthiest countries in Asia. They are democracies with leadership rotation and a popular voice in national affairs. And yet South Korea’s boom times occurred under single-party military rule. The same goes for the renegade province of Taiwan. Only around the time these two reached about $11,000-$14,000 GDP per capita did they evolve into multi-party democracies – though their wealth grew rapidly in the wake of that transition. China and soon Vietnam will test whether non-democratic, single-party rule can persist beyond the middle-income economic status that brought about democratic transition in Taiwan (Chart 1). Vietnam and Taiwan are the closest communist and non-communist governing systems, respectively, to mainland China. Insofar as China and Vietnam succeed at catching up with Taiwan it will be for reasons other than Marxist-Leninist ideology. Most communist systems have failed. At the height of international communism in the twentieth century there were 44 states ruled by communist parties; today there are five. China and Vietnam are the rare examples of communist states that not only survived the Soviet Union’s fall but also unleashed market forces and prospered (Chart 2). North Korea survived in squalor; Cuba’s experience is mixed. States that close off their economies do not have a good record of generating wealth. Closed economies lack competition and investment, struggle with stagflation, and often succumb to corruption and political strife. Openness seems to be a more diagnostic variable than government type or ideology, given the prosperity of democratic Japan and non-democratic China. Has the CPC performed better than other communist regimes? Arguably. It performs better than Vietnam but worse than Cuba on critical measures like infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Has it performed better than comparable non-communist regimes? Not really, though it is fast approaching Taiwan in all of these measures (Chart 3). Chart 2Communist States Get Rich By Compromising Their Communism Chart 3China Catching Up To Cuba On Basic Wellbeing What can be said for certain is that, since China’s 1979 reform and opening up, the CPC has avoided many errors and catastrophes. It survived the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s without succumbing to international isolation, internal divisions, or economic crisis. It has drastically increased its share of global power (Table 1). Contrast this global ascent with the litany of mistakes and crises in the US since the year 2000. The CPC also managed the past decade relatively well despite the Chinese financial turmoil of 2015-16, the US trade war of 2018-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these events hint at greater challenges to come. China’s transition to a consumer-oriented economy has hardly begun. The struggle to manage systemic financial risk is intensifying today at risk to growth and stability (Chart 4). The trade war is simmering despite the Phase One trade deal and the change of party in the White House. And it is too soon to draw conclusions about the impact of the global pandemic, though China suppressed the virus more rapidly than other countries and led the world into recovery. Table 1China’s Global Rise After ‘Reform And Opening Up’ Chart 4China To Keep Struggling With Financial Instability Judging by the points above, there are two significant risks on the horizon. First, the CPC’s revival of neo-Maoist ideology, particularly the new economic mantra of self-reliance and “dual circulation” (import substitution), poses the risk of closing the economy and undermining productivity.2 Second, China’s sliding back into the rule of a single person – after the “consensus rule” that prevailed after Deng Xiaoping – increases the risk of unpredictable decision-making and a succession crisis whenever General Secretary Xi Jinping steps down. The party’s internal logic holds that China’s economic and geopolitical challenges are so enormous as to require a strongman leader at the helm of a single-party and centralized state. But because of the traditional problems with one-man rule, there is no guarantee that the country will remain as stable as it has been over the past 42 years. Slowing Growth Drives Clash With Foreign Powers Every major East Asian economy has enjoyed a “miracle” phase of growth – and every one of them has seen this phase come to an end. Now it is China’s turn. The country’s potential GDP growth is slowing as the population peaks, the labor force shrinks, wages rise, and companies outsource production to cheaper neighbors (Charts 5A & 5B). The Communist Party is attempting to reverse the collapse in the fertility rate by shifting from its historic “one Child policy,” which sharply reduced births. It shifted to a two-child policy in 2016 and a three-child policy in 2021 but the results have not been encouraging over the past five years. Chart 5AChina’s Demographic Decline Accelerating Chart 5BChina’s Demographic Decline Accelerating In the best case China’s growth will follow the trajectory of Taiwan and South Korea, which implies at most a 6% yearly growth rate over the next decade (Chart 6). This is not too slow but it will induce financial instability as well as hardship for overly indebted households, firms, and local governments. Chart 6China's Growth Rates Will Converge With Taiwan, South Korea The Communist Party’s legitimacy was not originally based on rapid economic growth but it came to be seen that way over the roaring decades of the 1980s through the 2000s. Thus when the Great Recession struck the party had to shift the party’s base of legitimacy. The new focus became quality of life, as marked by the Xi administration’s ongoing initiatives to cut back on corruption, pollution, poverty, credit excesses, and industrial overcapacity while increasing spending on health, education, and society (Chart 7). Chart 7China’s Fiscal Burdens Will Rise On Social Welfare Needs The party’s efforts to improve standards of living and consumer safety also coincided with an increase in propaganda, censorship, and repression to foreclose political dissent. The country falls far short in global governance indicators (Chart 8). Chart 8China Lags In Governance, Rule Of Law A second major new source of party legitimacy is nationalist foreign policy. China adopted a “more assertive” foreign and trade policy in the mid-2000s as its import dependencies ballooned. It helped that the US was distracted with wars of choice and financial crises. After the Great Recession the CPC’s foreign policy nationalism became a tool of generating domestic popular support amid slower economic growth. This was apparent in the clashes with Japan and other countries in the East and South China Seas in the early 2010s, in territorial disputes with India throughout the past decade, in political spats with Norway and most recently Australia, and in military showdowns over the Korean peninsula (2015-16) and today the Taiwan Strait (Chart 9). Chart 9Proxy Wars A Real Risk In China’s Periphery If China were primarily focused on foreign policy and global strategy then it would not provoke multiple neighbors on opposite sides of its territory at the same time. This is a good way to motivate the formation of a global balance-of-power coalition that can constrain China in the coming years. But China’s outward assertiveness is not driven primarily by foreign policy considerations. It is driven by the secular economic slowdown at home and the need to use nationalism to drum up domestic support. This is why China seems indifferent to offending multiple countries at once (like India and Australia) as well as more distant trade partners whom it “should be” courting rather than offending (like Europe). Such assertive foreign policy threatens to undermine quality of life, namely by provoking international protectionism and sanctions on trade and investment. The US is galvanizing a coalition of democracies to put pressure on China over its trade practices and human rights. The Asian allies are mostly in step with the US because they fear China’s growing clout. The European states do not have as much to fear from China’s military but they do fear China’s state-backed industry and technological rise. Europe’s elites also worry about anti-establishment political movements just like American elites and therefore are trying to win back the hearts and minds of the working class through a more proactive use of fiscal and industrial policy. This entails a more assertive trade policy. China has so far not adapted to the potential for a unified front among the democracies, other than through rhetoric. Thus the international horizon is darkening even as China’s growth rates shift downward. China’s Geopolitical Outlook Is Dimming China’s government has overcome a range of challenges and crises. The country takes an ever larger role in global trade despite its falling share of global population because of its productivity and competitiveness. The drop in China’s outward direct investment is tied to the global pandemic and may not mark a top, given that the country will still run substantial current account surpluses for the foreseeable future and will need to recycle these into natural resources and foreign production (Chart 10). However, the limited adoption of the renminbi as a reserve currency in the face of this formidable commercial power reveals the world’s reservations about Beijing’s ability to maintain macroeconomic stability, good governance, and peaceful foreign relations. Chart 10China's Rise Continues Chart 11China's Policy Uncertainty: A Structural Uptrend China is not in a position to alter the course of national policy dramatically prior to the Communist Party’s twentieth national congress in 2022. The Xi administration is focused on normalizing monetary and fiscal policy and heading off any sociopolitical disturbances prior to that critical event, in which General Secretary Xi Jinping, who was originally slated to step down at this time according to the old rules, may be anointed the overarching “chairman” position that Mao Zedong once held. The seventh generation of Chinese leaders will be promoted at this five-year rotation of the Central Committee and will further consolidate the Xi administration’s grip. It will also cement the party’s rotation back to leaders who have ideological educations, as opposed to the norm in the 1990s and early 2000s of promoting leaders with technocratic skills and scientific educations.3 This does not mean that President Xi will refuse to hold a summit with US President Biden in the coming months nor does it mean that US-China strategic and economic dialogue will remain defunct. But it does mean that Beijing is unlikely to make any major course correction until after the 2022 reshuffle – and even then a course correction is unlikely. China has taken its current path because the Communist Party fears the sociopolitical consequences of relinquishing economic control just as potential growth slows. The new ruling philosophy holds that the Soviet Union fell because of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika, not because openness and restructuring came too late. Moreover it is far from clear that the US, Europe, and other democratic allies will apply such significant and sustained pressure as to force China to change its overall strategy. America is still internally divided and its foreign policy incoherent; the EU remains reactive and risk-averse. China has a well-established set of strategic goals for 2035 and 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic, and the broad outlines will not be abandoned. The implication is that tensions with the US and China’s Asian neighbors will persist. Rising policy uncertainty is a secular trend that will pick back up sooner rather than later (Chart 11), to the detriment of a stable and predictable investment environment. Chart 12Chinese Government’s Net Worth High But Hidden Liabilities Pose Risks Monetary and fiscal dovishness and a continued debt buildup are the obvious and necessary solutions to China’s combination of falling growth potential, rising social liabilities, the need to maintain the rapid military buildup in the face of geopolitical challenges. Sovereign countries can amass vast debts if they own their own debt and keep nominal growth above average bond yields. China’s government has a very favorable balance sheet when national assets are taken into consideration as well as liabilities, according to the IMF (Chart 12). On the other hand, China’s government is having to assume a lot of hidden liabilities from inefficient state-owned companies and local governments. In the short run there are major systemic financial risks even though in the long run Beijing will be able to increase its borrowing and bail out failing entities in order to maintain stability, just like Japan, the US, and Europe have had to do. The question for China is whether the social and political system will be able to handle major crises as well as the US and Europe have done, which is not that well. Investment Takeaways The rule of a single party is not a bar to economic success – but the rule of a single person is a liability due to the problem of succession. Marxism-Leninism is terrible for productivity unless it is compromised to allow for markets to operate, as in China and Vietnam. States that close their economies to the outside world usually atrophy. There is no compelling evidence that China’s Communist Party has performed better than a non-communist alternative would have done, given the province of Taiwan’s superior performance on most economic indicators. Since 1979, the Communist Party has avoided catastrophic errors. It has capitalized on domestic economic potential and a favorable international environment. Now, in the 2020s, both of these factors are changing for the worse. China’s “miracle” phase of growth has expired, as it did for other East Asian states before it. The maturation of the economy and slowdown of potential GDP have forced the Communist Party to shift the base of its political legitimacy to something other than rapid income growth: namely, quality of life and nationalist foreign policy. An aggressive foreign policy works against quality of life by provoking protectionism from foreign powers, particularly the United States, which is capable of leading a coalition of states to pressure China. The Communist Party’s policy trajectory is unlikely to change much through the twentieth national party congress in 2022. After that, a major course correction to improve relations with the West is conceivable, though we would not bet on it. Between 2021 and China’s 2035 and 2049 milestones, the Communist Party must navigate between rising socioeconomic pressures at home and rising geopolitical pressures abroad. An economic or political breakdown at home, or a total breakdown in relations with the US, could lead to proxy wars in China’s periphery, including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait. For now, global investors should favor the euro and US dollar over the renminbi (Chart 13). Chart 13Prefer The Dollar And Euro To The Renminbi Mainland investors should favor government bonds relative to stocks. Chinese stocks hit a major peak earlier this year and the government’s seizure of control over the tech sector is taking a toll. Investors should prefer developed market equities relative to Chinese equities until China’s current phase of policy tightening ends and there is at least a temporary improvement in relations with the United States. But investors should also prefer Chinese and Hong Kong stocks relative to Taiwanese due to the high risk of a diplomatic crisis and the tail risk of a war. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The report concluded, “the emerging trends suggest a likely break from Deng's position toward heavier state intervention in the economy, more contentious relationships with neighbors, and a Party that rules primarily through ideology and social control.” Co-written with Jennifer Richmond, "China and the End of the Deng Dynasty," Stratfor, April 19, 2011, worldview.stratfor.com. 2 The Xi administration’s new concept of “dual circulation” entails that state policy will encourage the domestic economy whereas the international economy will play a secondary role. This is a reversal of the outward and trade-oriented economic model under Deng Xiaoping. See “Xi: China’s economy has potential to maintain long-term stable development,” November 4, 2020, news.cgtn.com. 3 See Willy Wo-Lap Lam, "China’s Seventh-Generation Leadership Emerges onto the Stage," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief 19:7, April 9, 2019, Jamestown.org.

Highlights New variants of SARS-Cov-2 will create new waves of infection, the inflation bubble is bursting, and massive slack in the US labour market will keep US inflation structurally subdued. The coming years will be defined by a trifecta of surging productivity, massive slack in the labour market, and ultra-low inflation.  Overweight US T-bonds both tactically and structurally. Equity investors should overweight growth versus value… …overweight defensives versus cyclicals… …overweight the US versus the euro area… …and overweight DM versus EM, both tactically and structurally. Tactically underweight US REITS. Tactically overweight Nike versus L’Oréal. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Global Pandemic Is Still In Flow The UK will have to wait for its ‘freedom day.’ Lifting the remaining pandemic-related restrictions has been postponed because a new and more vaccine-resistant ‘delta’ variant of the virus is threatening to unleash a third wave of UK infections. The UK experience is important because it was the first major developed economy to roll out its mass vaccination program. Thereby, the UK experience could be the harbinger of things to come in other major economies like the US and the euro area. Vaccines Against RNA Viruses Are Not Highly Effective The general public and financial markets have high expectations that mass vaccination programs can banish Covid forever. Such expectations are unrealistic, just as it is unrealistic to expect vaccinations to banish the flu forever. It is unrealistic to expect vaccinations to banish Covid forever. Covid, the flu, and measles are all diseases caused by ‘RNA viruses.’ The defining characteristic of RNA viruses is their poor proofreading ability during replication, resulting in high rates of mutation. The resulting variant strains make RNA viruses highly effective at evading vaccinations. As the Journal of Immunology Research puts it:1 “No vaccine or specific treatment is available for many of these RNA viruses and some of the available vaccines and treatments are not highly effective.” Measles is an exception because its virus is ‘antigenically monotypic.’ The spike proteins (antigens) that the measles virus uses to infect a cell cannot mutate even slightly without breaking. However, the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins can mutate and still infect. This we know because the virus has already evolved several infectious variants – including the latest delta variant – with increasing abilities to evade the current spike-based vaccines (Figure I-1). Figure I-1How Variants Of SARS-CoV-2 Evade Spike-Based Vaccines SARS-Cov-2 doesn’t care who it infects or in which country they live. Sadly, the pandemic has claimed more fatalities in the first half of 2021 than in the whole of 2020 (Chart of the Week). And the virus will continue to mutate liberally given that its reproduction rate is still close to 1 (Chart I-2).   Chart I-2The Reproduction Rate Is Still Close To 1 Crucially, the mutations of the virus that evade vaccinations are the ones that are more likely to spread and become the new dominant strains. After the delta variant will come the epsilon variant, the zeta variant, the eta variant… and so on until we run out of Greek alphabet. In which case, should we just adopt the same strategy for Covid as we use for the seasonal flu – remove all pandemic-related restrictions, while offering booster vaccinations to the most medically vulnerable once or twice a year? There are two problems with this strategy: First, it could still overwhelm our healthcare systems during surges in demand. This we know because a bad flu season, by itself, was already pushing some healthcare systems to the limit. There is very little spare capacity to cope with additional demand. Second, unlike the flu, Covid appears to have long-term sequelae, colloquially called ‘long Covid’ with unknown chronic damage to health. As the Lancet points out: “Long-term sequelae of Covid-19 are unknown… we owe good answers on the long-term consequences of the disease to our patients and healthcare providers” Without these answers, policymakers cannot adopt the same strategy for Covid as for the flu. So yes, we can certainly offer vaccinations to the most medically vulnerable once or twice a year. But managing infections will also require non-pharmaceutical interventions, dialled up and down based on the severity of future waves of infection. A Productivity Super-Boom Is Coming Periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions which include restrictions to national and international movement will be around for much longer than the general public and financial markets expect. This will solidify a more remote way of working, shopping, interacting, and doing business. The good news is that this will create the mother of all productivity booms. Productivity tends to surge after every recession. This is because the period immediately after a recession is when the economy experiences the most intensive clearing out of dead wood, restructuring of capital and labour, and absorption of new technologies and ways of working. The pandemic has forced nearly every company and every worker to adopt new technologies and ways of working and living. But whereas most recessions upend one or two sectors of the economy, the pandemic has upended all sectors – forcing nearly every company and every worker to adopt new technologies and ways of working and living. This will make the pandemic productivity boom a super-boom unlike anything experienced in recent history (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Pandemic Productivity Boom Will Be A Super-Boom The unfortunate corollary of this productivity super-boom is that the pace of absorption of the excess unemployed and inactive will be slower, meaning that it will take a long time to reach the goal of ‘full employment’ (Chart I-4). Chart I-4It Will Take A Long Time To Reach 'Full Employment' In the US, the Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this. As Jay Powell has pointed out: “It’s going to be a different economy. We’ve been hearing a lot from companies looking at deploying better technology and perhaps fewer people, including in some of the services industries that have been employing a lot of people. It seems quite likely that a number of the people who had those service sector jobs will struggle to find the same job, and may need time to find work” Without full employment, it will be difficult to maintain US inflation at or above the Fed’s 2 percent target. The transmission mechanism is that the (permanent) unemployment rate establishes the ability to pay rent. Thereby, it is the main driver of ‘rent of shelter’, which comprises almost half of the core consumer price index. Empirically, unless rent of shelter inflation gets to 3 percent and remains there, it will be very difficult for core inflation to remain at over 2 percent (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). For reference, rent of shelter inflation is now running well short of 3 percent, at 2.2 percent. Chart I-5Full Employment Is Needed To Lift Rent Inflation To 3 Percent... Chart I-6...And Rent Inflation At 3 Percent Is Needed To Keep Core Inflation At 2 Percent In a nutshell, the coming years will be defined by a trifecta of surging productivity, massive slack in the labour market, and ultra-low inflation. Overweight Growth, And Overweight The US Given that new variants of the virus will create new waves of infection, that The Inflation Bubble Will Burst, and that the massive slack in the labour market will keep inflation structurally subdued, investors should own US T-bonds both tactically and structurally. There is massive slack in the US labour market. Furthermore, The Pareto Principle Of Investment tells us that if you get the direction of the bond yield right, you will get your whole investment strategy right. Declining bond yields boost growth stocks. This is because the ‘net present value’ of cashflows that are weighted deep into the future are highly leveraged to a falling discount rate. In addition, the productivity super-boom will be facilitated by technology and new economy sectors. As such, equity investors should avoid value, and steer towards growth, both tactically and structurally (Chart I-7). This extends to overweighting defensives versus cyclicals, overweighting the growth-heavy US versus the value-heavy euro area, and so on. In effect, all these positions are just one massive correlated trade (Charts I-8-Chart I-11). Chart I-7Structurally Overweight Growth Versus Value Chart I-8Correlated Trades: Bond Price, Growth Versus Value... Chart I-9...Tech Versus ##br##Market... Chart I-10...Defensive Versus Cyclical... Chart I-11...And US Versus Euro Area These sector preferences also imply an overweight to developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM). Tactically Underweight US REITS, And Tactically Overweight Nike Versus L’Oréal Finally, and corroborating the preceding sections, the rally in ‘reopening plays’ has become fractally fragile. One way to play this tactically is to underweight US REITS (Chart I-12). Chart I-12'Reopening Plays' Are Fractally Fragile: US REITS But our preferred tactical expression is to overweight Nike versus L’Oréal (Chart I-13), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 9 percent. Chart I-13'Reopening Plays' Are Fractally Fragile: L'Oreal Versus Nike   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Journal of Immunology Research, Volume 218: Immune Responses to RNA Viruses, by Elias A. Said Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations