Labor Market
Dear Client, There will be no report next week as we will be working on our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will be published the following week. In the meantime, please keep an eye out for BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows. While inflation will fall in the first half of next year as goods prices stabilize, an overheated labor market will cause inflation to re-accelerate into 2023. The Fed will be slow to respond to high inflation, implying that monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. This should help propel stocks to new highs. Chinese stimulus will offset much of the drag from a weaker domestic property market. The dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t bet against the greenback in the near term. Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon. A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging market stocks. The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. From Ice To Fire In past reports, we have contended that inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, would follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows. We are currently near the top of those two steps. The pandemic ushered in a major re-allocation of spending from services to goods (Chart 1). US inflation should dip over the next 6-to-9 months as the demand for goods decelerates and supply-chain disruptions abate. Chart 1The Pandemic Caused A Major Shift In Spending From Services To Goods CHart 2Those With Low Paid Jobs Are Enjoying Stronger Wage Gains The respite from inflation will not last long, however. The labor market is heating up. So far, most of the wage growth has been at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 2). Wage growth will broaden over the course of 2022, setting the scene for a price-wage spiral in 2023. We doubt that either fiscal or monetary policy will tighten fast enough to prevent such a spiral from emerging. As a result, US inflation will surprise meaningfully on the upside. Our view has no shortage of detractors. In this week’s report, we address the main counterarguments in a Q&A format: Q: What makes you think that service spending will rebound fast enough to offset the drag from weaker goods consumption? Chart 3Inventory Restocking Could Be A Source Of Growth Next Year A: There is still a lot of pent-up demand for goods. Try calling any auto dealership. You will hear the same thing: “We have nothing in stock now, but if you put in an order today, you might get a vehicle in 3-to-6 months.” Thus, durable goods sales are unlikely to weaken quickly. And with inventories near record low levels, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 3). Inventory restocking will support GDP growth. As for services, real spending in the US grew by 7.9% in the third quarter, an impressive feat considering that this coincided with the Delta-variant wave. Service growth will stay strong in the fourth quarter. The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped to a record high of 66.7 in October, up from 61.9 in September. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is tracking real PCE growth of 9.2% in Q4. Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator has hooked up (Chart 4). Q: Aren’t you worried that spending on services might stall next year? A: Not really. Chart 5 shows the percentage change in real spending for various types of services from January 2020 to September 2021, the last month of available data. The greatest decline in spending occurred in those sectors that were most directly affected by the pandemic. Notably, spending on movie theaters, amusement parks, and live entertainment in September was still down 46% on a seasonally-adjusted basis compared to last January. Hotel spending was down 22%. Spending on public transport was down 26%. Only spending on restaurants was back to normal. The number of Covid cases has once again started to trend higher in the US, so that path to normalization will take time (Chart 6). Nevertheless, with vaccination rates still edging up and new antiviral drugs set to hit the market, it is reasonable to assume that many of the hardest-hit service categories will recover next year. Q: What about medical services? Some have speculated that the shift to telemedicine will require much lower spending down the road. A: It is true that spending on outpatient services in September was $43 billon below pre-pandemic levels. However, over two-fifths of that shortfall was in dental services, which are not amenable to telemedicine. Spending on dental services was down 16% from its January 2020 levels, compared to 6% for physician services. A more plausible theory is that many people are still worried about venturing to the doctor’s or dentist’s office. In addition, a lot of elective procedures were canceled or postponed due to the pandemic. Clearing that backlog will lift medical spending next year. Chart 7The Flow Of Savings Has Fallen Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels But The Stock Of Accumulated Savings Remains High In any case, the cost of a telemedicine appointment is typically no different from an in-person one. And, to the extent that telemedicine does become more widespread, this could encourage more people to seek medical assistance. Lastly, even if spending on certain services does not fully recover after the pandemic, this will probably simply result in a permanent increase in spending on goods. The only way that overall consumer spending will falter is if the savings rate rises, which seems unlikely to us. Q: Why do you say that? The savings rate has been very high throughout the pandemic. A: The savings rate did spike during the pandemic, but that was mainly because fewer services were available, and because households were getting transfer payments from the government. Now that these payments have ended, the savings rate has dropped to 7.5%, roughly where it was prior to the pandemic. There is good reason to think the savings rate will keep falling next year. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, most of which reside in bank deposits (Chart 7). As they run down those savings, consumption will rise in relation to income. The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 8). Banks are eager to make consumer loans (Chart 9). Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 10). As we discussed three weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Chart 8APost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 8BPost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 9Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumer Loans Chart 10A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Q: Household wealth could fall as the Fed starts tapering and eventually raising rates. Wouldn’t that cool the economy? A: The taper is a fait accompli, and markets are already pricing in rate hikes starting in the second half of next year. If the Fed were to signal its intention to raise rates more quickly than what has been priced in, then home prices and stocks could certainly weaken. We do not think the Fed will pivot in a more hawkish direction before the end of next year, however. The Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate is only 2.5%, a big step down from its estimate of 4.25% in 2012. The market’s view is broadly in line with the Fed’s (Chart 11). Despite the upward move in realized inflation, long-term inflation expectations remain in check – expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey has increased from 2.3% in late 2019 to 2.9%, bringing it back to where it was between 2010 and 2015. The 5-year/ 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 12). Chart 11The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Yet A Concern For The Fed Q: What about fiscal policy? Isn’t it set to tighten sharply next year? A: The US budget deficit will decline next year. However, this will happen against the backdrop of strong private demand growth. Moreover, budget deficits are likely to remain elevated in the post-pandemic period. This week, President Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law, containing $550 billion in new spending. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $1.5-to-$2 trillion social spending bill using the reconciliation process. All in all, the IMF foresees the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit averaging 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 13). Chart 14While Overall Consumption Has Recovered, Business Spending and Direct Government Expenditures Remain Below Trend It should also be noted that government spending on goods and services has been quite weak over the past two years (Chart 14). The budget deficit surged because transfer payments exploded. Unlike direct government spending, which is set to accelerate over the next few years, households saved a large share of transfer payments. Thus, the fiscal multiplier will increase next year, even as the budget deficit shrinks. Q: We have focused a lot on demand, but what about supply? There are over 4 million fewer Americans employed today than before the pandemic and yet the job openings rate is near a record high. Chart 15Despite A Notable Decline, There Are Still A Lot Of People Avoiding Work Because Of Worries About Contracting Or Transmitting Covid A: Some people who left the workforce will regain employment. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, there are still 2.5 million people not working because they are afraid of catching or transmitting the virus (Chart 15). That said, some workers may remain sidelined for a while longer. The very same survey also revealed that about 8 million of the 100 million workers currently subject to vaccine mandates say that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” In addition, about 3.6 million workers have retired since the start of the pandemic, about 1.2 million more than one would have expected based on pre-existing demographic trends. Most of these retirees will not work again. Lifestyle choices may keep others from seeking employment. Female labor participation has declined much more during the pandemic and than it did during the Great Recession (Chart 16). While many mothers will re-enter the labor force now that schools have reopened, some may simply choose to stay at home. The bottom line is that the pandemic has reduced labor supply at a time when labor demand remains very strong. This is likely to exacerbate the labor shortage. Q: Any chance that higher productivity will offset some of the damage to the supply side of the economy from decreased labor participation? A: US labor productivity did increase sharply during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, that appears to have been largely driven by composition effects in which low-skilled, poorly-paid service workers lost their jobs. As these low-skilled workers have returned to the labor force, productivity growth has dropped. The absolute level of productivity declined by 5.0% at an annualized rate in the third quarter, leading to an 8.3% increase in labor costs. It is telling that productivity growth has been extremely weak outside the US (Chart 17). This gives weight to the view that the pandemic-induced changes in business practices have not contributed to higher productivity, at least so far. It is also noteworthy that a recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. Increased investment spending should eventually boost productivity. Core capital goods orders, which lead corporate capex, are up 18% since the start of the pandemic (Chart 18). However, the near-term impact of increased investment spending will be to boost aggregate demand, stoking inflation in the process. Chart 18US Capex Should Pick Up Q: We have spoken a lot about the US, but the world’s second biggest economy, China, is facing a massive deflationary shock from the implosion of its real estate market. Could that deflationary impulse potentially cancel out the inflationary impulse from an overheated US economy? A: You are quite correct that inflation has risen the most in the US. While inflation has picked up in Europe, this mainly reflects base effects (Chart 19). Inflation in China has fallen since the start of the pandemic despite booming exports. There are striking demographic parallels between China today and Japan in the early 1990s. The bursting of Japan’s property bubble corresponded with a peak in the country’s working-age population (Chart 20). China’s working-age population has also peaked and is set to decline by more than 40% over the remainder of the century. Chart 19The US Stands Out As The Inflation Leader Chart 20Demographic Parallels Between China And Japan That said, there are important differences between the two nations. In 1990, Japan was a rich economy; output-per-hour was nearly 70% of US levels. China is still a middle-income economy; output-per-hour is only 20% of US levels (Chart 21). China has the ability to outgrow some of its problems in a way that Japan did not. In addition, Chinese policymakers have learned from some of Japan’s mistakes. They have been trying to curb the economy’s dependence on property development; real estate development investment has fallen from 12% of GDP in 2014 to less than 10% of GDP (Chart 22). China is still building too many new homes, but unlike Japan in the 1990s, the government is likely to pursue stimulus measures to compensate for a shrinking property sector. This should keep the economy from entering a deflationary slump. Chart 22Real Estate Investment Has Peaked In China Q: Let’s bring this back to markets. What is the main investment takeaway from your view? A: The main takeaway is that investors should remain bullish on stocks and other risk assets for the next 12 months but be prepared to turn more cautious in 2023. The neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than generally assumed. This means that monetary policy is currently more accommodative than widely believed, which is good for stocks. Unfortunately, it also means that a policy error is likely: The Fed will keep rates too low for too long, causing the economy to overheat. Chart 23Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise This overheating will not be evident over the next six months. As we noted at the outset of this report, the US economy is currently at the top of the proverbial two steps in our projected “two steps up, one step down” trajectory for inflation. The cresting in durable goods inflation will provide a temporary respite from inflationary worries, even as the underlying long-term driver of higher inflation – an increasingly tight labor market – gains traction. Strong consumer demand and persistent labor shortages will incentivize companies to invest in new capacity and automate production. This will benefit industrial stocks and select tech names. Rising bond yields will also boost bank shares (Chart 23). A country’s current account balance is simply the difference between what it saves and what it invests. With savings on the downswing and investment on the upswing, the US will find it increasingly difficult to finance its burgeoning trade deficit. The US dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t necessarily bet against the greenback in the near term (Chart 24). Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon (Chart 25). Chart 25Long Dollar Is A Crowded Trade Chart 26A Depreciating Dollar Next Year Should Help Non-US Equities A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging markets (Chart 26). The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This augurs well for the US dollar but will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. EM markets are at risk in absolute terms and will continue to underperform their DM counterparts. From a global macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. Feature Chart 1DXY Breakout, EM FX Breakdown The US dollar is breaking out and EM currencies are breaking down (Chart 1). This will set in motion a number of responses in global financial markets. These include but are not limited to selloffs in EM equities, domestic bonds and EM credit markets and a setback in the commodity complex. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. Please refer to the end of this report for detailed investment recommendations. Why The Greenback Is Set To Strengthen Since early in the year, our investment strategy has been based on two macro themes: China’s slowdown and rising US inflation. We concluded early on that these dynamics are positive for the US dollar. Both macro themes have played out fairly well, yet until recently the broad trade-weighted US dollar’s advance has been hesitant. Odds are that the rally in the greenback is about to accelerate. Chart 2China's Slowdown = US Dollar Rally The fundamental case for the US dollar rally remains as follows: China’s slowdown will weigh more on emerging Asia, Japan, Europe, and/or commodity producing, developing and developed economies than it will on the US. The basis is that US exports to China make up only 0.7% of its GDP. The same ratio is much higher for the rest of the world. Hence, the US economy will outperform many advanced and emerging economies. Chart 2 illustrates that, historically, whenever China has slowed down, the US dollar has rallied. The mainland’s property construction is shrinking, and traditional infrastructure investment is also extremely weak (Chart 3). Beijing is easing its regulatory and macro policies but only by degrees. For now, policy support will be insufficient to reverse the business cycle downturn. In the meantime, the US economy is overheating. Specifically, all core type inflation measures have surged to well above 2% (Chart 4). Critically, nominal wages are rising at the fastest rate seen in the past 35 years (Chart 5). Chart 3China: Infrastructure Investment Is Very Weak Chart 4US Core Inflation Is Broad-Based And High Given that the employee quit rate is very high, employers will have to grant notable wage increases to both new and current employees. Thus, wage growth will accelerate further. Recent wage gains have not been offset by productivity growth. As a result, unit labor costs are rising (Chart 6). This will push businesses to raise their selling prices. So long as household income and consumption remain robust, businesses will likely succeed in raising their prices. In short, US inflation is acute and genuine, and, hence, it will persist unless the economy slows considerably. Chart 5US Nominal Wage Growth Is At Its Fastest In 35 Years Chart 6US Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Fast The rise in US inflation will initially be bullish for the US dollar. The reason is that fixed-income markets will move to price in higher Fed funds rates and the Fed will also acknowledge the need to hike rates given that core inflation is well above its target range. At some point in future, however, high inflation will start hurting the US dollar. This will happen when the Fed eschews rate hikes and falls behind the inflation curve. We believe we are still in a window where US bond yields could rise further. Rising US interest rates will support the dollar. Finally, the US economy, but not necessarily its equity and credit markets, is better positioned to handle central bank tightening than are other DM and EM economies. American consumers have substantially deleveraged and there are shortages in US housing and cars. Even as US borrowing costs rise, interest rate sensitive sectors like housing and autos will still do well because of pent-up demand. In particular, the US housing market is sensitive to long-term (30-year) mortgage rates and not the front end of curve. On the contrary, many EM and other DM economies and their housing sectors are sensitive to domestic short-term rates. In percentage terms, the rise in US mortgage rates will likely be smaller than those in DM and EM economies. In short, the US economy will not slow sharply in the response to rates while EM and other DM economies will. This augurs well for the dollar. The key US vulnerability from higher interest rates stems from its equity and credit markets, not the real economy. US equities and credit markets are very richly priced, so the rising cost of capital could trigger a major selloff. In turn, wealth effects and tightening financial conditions will pose a risk to the real economy. However, even in this case, the US dollar will initially appreciate because it always rallies during risk-off phases. The greenback’s depreciation will resume when the Fed turns dovish again. From a big picture macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. In this period of US dollar strength, EM financial markets will be hurt because foreign investors always flee EM when their currencies depreciate. Bottom Line: China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. Watch Out Commodity Prices Chart 7Reduced Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction The downturns in China’s property construction and traditional infrastructure spending are bad for raw material prices. The following points offer an explanation as to why commodity prices will relapse in spite of the fact that they have thus far resisted China’s slowdown. Although Chinese property sales and starts have been shrinking, floor area completed (construction work) has been very strong. However, the liquidity crunch that many real estate developers are experiencing will lead them to halt or cut back on their construction work (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will weigh on raw material prices (Chart 7, bottom panel). Taiwan’s new export orders PMI for the basic materials sector has dropped below 50, indicating plunging regional demand for raw materials (Chart 8). Ongoing weakness in Chinese demand is the culprit behind this drop. Due to electricity shortages, mainland production of industrial metals has plunged (Chart 9, top panel). Yet, the prices of these metals have recently corrected (Chart 9, bottom panel). Falling prices amid shrinking supply are a sign of major demand relapse. Chart 8Greater China: Orders For Basic Materials Are Already Shrinking Chart 9Base Metal Price Falling Despite Production Shutdowns In China The Baltic Dry index – the price of shipping bulk commodities – has rolled over decisively. It has reasonable correlation with industrial metal prices. Oil is much less exposed than base metals to China’s property and infrastructure contraction. In the case of crude, the key risks are the US and China releasing their strategic reserves and the US dollar strength. Bottom Line: The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. Other Considerations Chart 10China's Onshore Stock-to_Bond Ratio Is Breaking Down There are a number of other considerations and indicators that lead us to maintain a negative stance on EM financial markets: China’s onshore stock-to-bond ratio has broken below its 200-day moving average (Chart 10). This signifies a deepening growth slump in China. EM equity underperformance has been broad-based. Both the market cap-weighted and equal-weighted EM equity indexes have been underperforming their respective DM indexes. Further, not only have TMT (technology, media and telecom) stocks been underperforming their DM peers, but non-TMT stocks have also lagged their counterparts substantially (Chart 11). Last but not least, EM TMT stocks remain at risk. First, share prices of Chinese internet companies will continue derating due to structurally lower profitability going forward as the government exercises more control over them. We have discussed this in previous reports. In addition, consumer spending online has slowed sharply while smartphone sales are plunging (Chart 12). Chart 11EM Equity Underperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 12China: Online Spending Is Very Weak Second, DRAM (memory chip) prices are deflating and the value of DRAM sales is shrinking (Chart 13). This is weighing on Korean semiconductor share prices like Samsung and SK Hynix. These stocks have a large market cap in the KOSPI index. Finally, demand for semiconductors produced by Taiwanese companies has been booming but it is presently showing signs of moderation (Chart 14). Chart 13Falling DRAM Prices Are Weighing On Korean Semi Stocks Chart 14Taiwanese Semiconductor Industry: Moderating Orders Importantly, geopolitical risks around Taiwan in general and TSMC in particularly are enormous. The latter is literally at the center of the US-China confrontation. The timing of a diplomatic or even military crisis is uncertain but our Geopolitical Strategy team expects geopolitical risks over Taiwan to escalate substantially. The recent summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping does not change this assessment. Investment Recommendations Chart 15EM Credit Markets: Prepare For A Broad Selloff Continue underweighting EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Within the EM space, our overweights are Korea, Singapore, China (favoring A shares over investable stocks), Vietnam, Russia, central Europe and Mexico. Concerning EM equity sectors, we reiterate the short EM banks / long DM banks and short EM banks / long EM consumer staples positions. In line with our US dollar breakout thesis, we continue to recommend a short position in a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, COP, PEN, ZAR, TRY, THB, PHP and KRW. EM exchange rate depreciation is bad for EM domestic bonds. Currency weakness could lead central banks in Latin America to hike rates further. In brief, the risk-reward of EM local currency bonds is still unattractive. In this space, we recommend the following positions: bet on yield curve flattening in Mexico and Russia (pay 1-year/receive 10-year swap rates); pay Czech 10-year swap rates; receive Chinese and Malaysian 10-year swap rates. We reiterate our underweight in EM credit (both sovereign and corporate) markets versus US corporate credit, quality adjusted. As EM exchange rates depreciate, EM credit spreads will widen (Chart 15). Chinese high-yield corporate US dollar bonds are not yet a buy because the mainland property market’s travails are far from over, as was discussed in our recent Special Report. For a complete list of our recommendations across all asset classes and country strategy within each asset class, please see below or visit our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Concerns about inflation are continuing to dent US consumer confidence. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey’s headline index fell nearly 5 points in November to a decade low of 66.8, disappointing expectations of a minor improvement. The…
The September Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey highlights that US labor market conditions are in favor of workers. The share of Americans quitting their jobs hit a fresh series high of 3%. Meanwhile, the job openings rate was broadly unchanged at 6.6%.…
Highlights Geopolitical conflicts point to energy price spikes and could add to inflation surprises in the near term. However, US fiscal drag and China’s economic slowdown are both disinflationary risks to be aware of. Specifically, energy-producers like Russia and Iran gain greater leverage amid energy shortages. Europe’s natural gas prices could spike again. Conflict in the Middle East could disrupt oil flows. President Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending bill is a litmus test for fiscal fatigue in developed markets. It could fail, and even assuming it passes it will not prevent overall fiscal drag in 2022-23. However, it is inflationary over the long run. China’s slowdown poses the chief disinflationary risk. But we still think policy will ease to avoid an economic crash ahead of the fall 2022 national party congress. We are closing this year’s long value / short growth trade for a loss of 3.75%. Cyclical sectors ended up being a better way to play the reopening trade. Feature Equity markets rallied in recent weeks despite sharp upward moves in core inflation across the world (Chart 1). Inflation is fast becoming a popular concern and we see geopolitical risks that could drive headline inflation still higher in the short run. We also see underrated disinflationary factors, namely China’s property sector distress and economic slowdown. Several major developments have occurred in recent weeks that we will cover in this report. Our conclusions: Biden’s domestic agenda will pass but risks are high and macro impact is limited. Congress passed Biden’s infrastructure deal and will probably still pass his signature social spending bill, although inflation is creating pushback. Together these bills have little impact on the budget deficit outlook but they will add to inflationary pressures. Energy shortages embolden Russia and Iran. Winter weather is unpredictable, the energy crisis may not be over. But investors are underrating Russia’s aggressive posture toward the West. Any conflict with Iran could also cause oil disruptions in the near future. US-China relations may improve but not for long. A bilateral summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will not reduce tensions for very long, if at all. Climate change cooperation is an insufficient basis to reverse the cold war-style confrontation over the long run. Chart 1Inflation Rattles Policymakers The investment takeaway is that geopolitical tensions could push energy prices still higher in the short term. Iran and Russia need to be monitored. However, China’s economic slowdown will weigh on growth. China poses an underrated disinflationary risk to our views. US Congress: Bellwether For Fiscal Fatigue While inflation is starting to trouble households and voters, investors should bear in mind that the current set of politicians have long aimed to generate an inflation overshoot. They spent the previous decade in fear of deflation, since it generated anti-establishment or populist parties that threatened to disrupt the political system. They quietly built up an institutional consensus around more robust fiscal policy and monetary-fiscal coordination. Now they are seeing that agenda succeed but are facing the first major hurdle in the form of higher prices. They will not simply cut and run. Inflation is accompanied by rising wages, which today’s leaders want to see – almost all of them have promised households a greater share of the fruits of their labor, in keeping with the new, pro-worker, populist zeitgeist. Real wages are growing at 1.1% in the US and 0.9% across the G7 (Chart 2). Even more than central bankers, political leaders are focused on jobs and employment, i.e. voters. Yet the labor market still has considerable slack (Chart 3). Almost all of the major western governments have been politically recapitalized since the pandemic, either through elections or new coalitions. Almost all of them were elected on promises of robust public investment programs to “build back better,” i.e. create jobs, build infrastructure, revitalize industry, and decarbonize the energy economy. Thus while they are concerned about inflation, they will leave that to central banks, as they will be loathe to abandon their grand investment plans. Chart 2Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Still, there will be a breaking point at which inflation forces governments to put their spending plans on hold. The US Congress is the immediate test of whether today’s inflation will trigger fiscal fatigue and force a course correction. Chart 3Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure bill passed Congress last week and will be signed into law around November 15. Now he is worried that his signature $1.75 trillion social spending bill will falter due to inflation fears. He cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (and only three votes in the House of Representatives). Odds that the bill fails are about 35%. Democratic Party leaders will not abandon the cause due to recent inflation prints. They see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the role of government, the social safety net, and the interests of their constituents. If they miss this chance due to inflation that ends up being transitory then they will lose the enthusiastic left wing of the party and suffer a devastating loss in next year’s midterm elections, in which they are already at a disadvantage. Biden’s social bill is also likely to pass because the budget reconciliation process necessary to pass the bill is the same process needed to raise the national debt limit by December 3. A linkage of the two by party leaders would ensure that both pass … and otherwise Democrats risk self-inflicting a national debt default. The reconciliation bill is more about long-term than short-term inflation risk. The bill does not look to have a substantial impact on the budget outlook: the new spending is partially offset by new taxes and spread out over ten years. The various legislative scenarios look virtually the same in our back-of-the-envelope budget projections (Chart 4). However, given that the output gap is virtually closed, this bill combined with the infrastructure bill will add to inflationary pressures. The fiscal drag will diminish by 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year. The deficit is not expected to increase or decrease substantially between 2023 and 2024. From then onward the budget deficit will expand. The increased government demand for goods and services and the increased disposable income for low-earning families will add to inflationary pressures. Other developed markets face a similar situation: inflation is picking up, but big spending has been promised and normalizing budgets will marginally weigh on growth in the next few years (Chart 5). True, growth should hold up since the private economy is rebounding in the wake of the pandemic. But politicians will not be inclined to renege on campaign promises of liberal spending in the face of fiscal drag. The current crop of leaders is primed to make major public investments. This is true of Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy as well as the United States. It is partly true in France, where fiscal retrenchment has been put on hold given the presidential election in the spring. The effect will be inflationary, especially for the US where populist spending is more extravagant than elsewhere. The long run will depend on structural factors and how much the new investments improve productivity. Bottom Line: A single vote in the US Senate could derail the president’s social spending bill, so the US is now the bellwether for fiscal fatigue in the developed world. Biden is likely to pass the bill, as global fiscal drag is disinflationary over the next 12 months. Yet inflation could stay elevated for other reasons. And this fiscal drag will dissipate later in the business cycle. Russia And Iran Gain Leverage Amid Energy Crunch The global energy price spike arose from a combination of structural factors – namely the pandemic and stimulus. It has abated in recent weeks but will remain a latent problem through the winter season, especially if La Niña makes temperatures unusually cold as expected. Rising energy prices feed into general producer prices, which are being passed onto consumers (Chart 6). They look to be moderating but the weather is unpredictable. There is another reason that near-term energy prices could spike or stay elevated: geopolitics. Tight global energy supply-demand balances mean that there is little margin of safety if unexpected supply disruptions occur. This gives greater leverage to energy producers, two of which are especially relevant at the moment: Russia and Iran. Russia’s long-running conflict with the West is heating up on several fronts, as expected. Russia may not have caused the European energy crisis but it is exacerbating shortages by restricting flows of natural gas for political reasons, as it is wont to do (Chart 7). Moscow always maintains plausible deniability but it is currently flexing its energy muscles in several areas: Chart 6Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Ukraine: Russia has avoided filling up and fully utilizing pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine, where the US is now warning that Russia could stage a large military action in retaliation for Ukrainian drone strikes in the still-simmering Russia-Ukraine war. Belarus: Russia says it will not increase the gas flow through the major Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline in 2022 even as Belarus threatens to halt the pipeline’s operation entirely. Belarus, backed by Russia, is locked in a conflict with Poland and the EU over Belarus’s funneling of migrants into their territory (Chart 8). The conflict could lead not only to energy supply disruptions but also to a broader closure of trade and a military standoff.1 Russia has flown two Tu-160 nuclear-armed bombers over Belarus and the border area in a sign of support. Moldova: Russia is withholding natural gas to pressure the new, pro-EU Moldovan government. Russia’s main motive is obvious: it wants Germany and the EU to approve and certify the new Nord Stream II pipeline. Nord Stream II enables Germany and Russia to bypass Ukraine, where pipeline politics raise the risk of shortages and wars. Lame duck German Chancellor Angela Merkel worked with Russia to complete this pipeline before the end of her term, convincing the Biden administration to issue a waiver on congressional sanctions that could have halted its construction. However, two of the parties in the incoming German government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, oppose the pipeline. While these parties may not have been able to stop the pipeline from operating, Russia does not want to take any chances and is trying to force Germany’s and the EU’s hand. The energy crisis makes it more likely that the pipeline will be approved, since the European Commission will have to make its decision during a period when cold weather and shortages will make it politically acceptable to certify the pipeline.2 The decision will further drive a wedge between Germany and eastern EU members, which is what Russia wants. EU natural gas prices will likely subside sometime next year and will probably not derail the economic recovery, according to both our commodity and Europe strategists. A bigger and longer-lasting Russian energy squeeze would emerge if the Nord Stream II pipeline is not certified. This is a low risk at this point but the next six months could bring surprises. More broadly, the West’s conflict with Russia can easily escalate from here. First, President Vladimir Putin faces economic challenges and weak political support. He frequently diverts popular attention by staging aggressive moves abroad. There is no reason to believe his post-2004 strategy of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space has changed. High energy prices give him greater leverage even aside from pipeline coercion – so it is not surprising that Russia is moving troops to the Ukraine border again. Growing military support for Belarus, or an expanded conflict in Ukraine, are likely to create a crisis now or later. Second, the US-Germany agreement to allow Nord Stream II explicitly states that Russia must not weaponize natural gas supply. This statement has had zero effect so far. But when the energy shortage subsides, the EU could pursue retaliatory measures along with the United States. Of course, Russia has been able to weather sanctions. But tensions are already escalating significantly. After Russia, Iran also gains leverage during times of tight energy supplies. With global oil inventories drawing down, Iran is in the position to inflict “maximum pressure” on the US and its allies, a role reversal from the 2017-20 period in which large inventories enabled the US to impose crippling sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal (Chart 9). Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear program and a new round of diplomatic negotiations may only serve to buy time before it crosses the “breakout” threshold of uranium enrichment capability as early as this month or next. In a recent special report we argued that there is a 40% chance of a crisis over Iran in the Middle East. Such a crisis could ultimately lead to an oil shock in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz. Chart 9Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Bottom Line: Russia’s natural gas coercion of Europe could keep European energy prices high through March or May. More broadly Russia’s renewed tensions with the West confirm our view that oil producers gain geopolitical leverage amid the current supply shortages. Iran also gains leverage and its conflict with the US could lead to global oil supply disruptions anytime over the next 12 months. Until Nord Stream II is certified and a new Iranian nuclear agreement is signed, there are two clear sources of potential energy shocks. Moreover in today’s inflationary context there is limited margin of safety for unexpected supply disruptions regardless of source. Xi’s Historical Rewrite China continues to be a major source of risk for the global economy and financial markets in the lead-up to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. While Chinese assets have sold off this year, global risk assets are still vulnerable to negative surprises from China. The five-year political reshuffle in 2022 is more important than usual since President Xi Jinping was originally supposed to step down but will instead stick around as leader for life, like China’s previous strongmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.3 Xi’s rejection of term limits became clear in 2017 and is not really news. But Xi will fortify himself and his faction in 2022 against any opposition whatsoever. He is extremely vigilant about any threats that could disrupt this process, whether at home or abroad. The Communist Party’s sixth plenary session this week highlights both Xi’s success within the Communist Party and the sensitivity of the period. Xi produced a new “historical resolution,” or interpretation of the party’s history, which is only the third such resolution. A few remarks on this historical resolution are pertinent: Mao’s resolution: Chairman Mao wrote the first such resolution in 1945 to lay down his version of the party’s history and solidify his personal control. It is naturally a revolutionary leftist document. Deng’s revision of Mao: General Deng Xiaoping then produced a major revision in 1981, shortly after initiating China’s economic opening and reform. Deng’s interpretation aimed to hold Mao accountable for “gross mistakes” during the Cultural Revolution and yet to recognize the Communist Party’s positive achievements in founding the People’s Republic. His version gave credit to the party and collective leadership rather than Mao’s personal rule. Two 30-year periods: The implication was that the party’s history should be divided into two thirty-year periods: the period of foundations and conflict with Mao as the party’s core and the period of improvement and prosperity with Deng as the core. Jiang’s support of Deng: Deng’s telling came under scrutiny from new leftists in the wake of Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. But General Secretary Jiang Zemin largely held to Deng’s version of the story that the days of reform and opening were a far better example of the party’s leadership because they were so much more stable and prosperous.4 Xi’s reaction to Jiang and Deng: Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has shown an interest in revising the party’s official interpretation of its own history. The central claim of the revisionists is that China could never have achieved its economic success if not for Mao’s strongman rule. Mao’s rule and the Communist Party’s central control thus regain their centrality to modern China’s story. China’s prosperity owes its existence to these primary political conditions. The two periods cannot be separated. Xi’s synthesis of Deng and Mao: Now Xi has written himself into that history above all other figures – indeed the communique from the Sixth Plenum mentions Xi more often than Marx, Mao, or Deng (Chart 10). The implication is that Xi is the synthesis of Mao and Deng, as we argued back in 2017 at the end of the nineteenth national party congress. The synthesis consists of a strongman who nevertheless maintains a vibrant economy for strategic ends. What are the practical policy implications of this history lesson? Higher Country Risk: China’s revival of personal rule, as opposed to consensus rule, marks a permanent increase in “country risk” and political risk for investors. Autocratic governments lack institutional guardrails (checks and balances) that prevent drastic policy mistakes. When Xi tries to step down there will probably be a succession crisis. Higher Macroeconomic Risk: China is more likely to get stuck in the “middle-income trap.” Liberal or pro-market economic reform is de-emphasized both in the new historical resolution and in the Xi administration’s broader program. Centralization is already suppressing animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and the private sector. Higher Geopolitical Risk: The return to autocracy and the withdrawal from economic liberalism also entail a conflict with the United States, which is still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. The US is not what it once was but it will put pressure on China’s economy and build alliances aimed at strategic containment. Bottom Line: China is trying to escape the middle-income trap, like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but it is trying to do so by means of autocracy, import substitution, and conflict with the United States. These other Asian economies improved productivity by democratizing, embracing globalization, and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. China’s odds of succeeding are low. China will focus on power consolidation through fall 2022 and this will lead to negative surprises for financial markets. China Slowdown: The Disinflationary Risk While it is very unlikely that Xi will face serious challenges to his rule, strange things can happen at critical junctures. Therefore the regime will be extremely alert for any threats, foreign or domestic, and will ultimately prioritize politics above all other things, which means investors will suffer negative surprises. The lingering pandemic still poses an inflationary risk for the rest of the world while the other main risk is disinflationary: Inflationary Risk – Zero COVID: The “Covid Zero” policy of attempting to stamp out any trace of the virus will still be relevant at least over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Clampdowns serve a dual purpose since the Xi administration wants to minimize foreign interference and domestic dissent before the party congress. Hence the global economy can suffer more negative supply shocks if ports or factories are closed. Inflationary Risk – Energy Closures: The government is rationing electricity amid energy shortages to prioritize household heating and essential services. This could hurt factory output over the winter if the weather is bad. Disinflationary Risk – Property Bust: The country is still flirting with overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. Throughout the year we have argued that authorities would avoid overtightening. But China is still very much in a danger zone in which policy mistakes could be made. Recent rumors suggest the government is trying to “correct the overcorrection” of regulatory policy. The government is reportedly mulling measures to relax the curbs on the property sector. We are inclined to agree but there is no sign yet that markets are responding, judging by corporate defaults and the crunch in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil Evergrande, the world’s most indebted property developer, is still hobbling along, but its troubles are not over. There are signs of contagion among other developers, including state-owned enterprises, that cannot meet the government’s “three red lines.” 5 Credit growth has now broken beneath the government’s target range of 12%, though money growth has bounced off the lower 8% limit set for this year (Chart 13). China is dangerously close to overtightening. China’s economic slowdown has not yet been fully felt in the global economy based on China’s import volumes, which are tightly linked to the combined credit-and-fiscal-spending impulse (Chart 14). The implication is that recent pullbacks in industrial metal prices and commodity indexes will continue. Chart 13China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening Chart 14China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt Until China eases policy more substantially, it poses a disinflationary risk and a strong point in favor of the transitory view of global inflation. It is difficult for China to ease policy – let alone stimulate – when producer prices are so high (see Chart 6 above). The result is a dangerous quandary in which the government’s regulatory crackdowns are triggering a property bust yet the government is prevented from providing the usual policy support as the going gets tough. Asset prices and broader risk sentiment could go into free fall. However, the party has a powerful incentive to prevent a generalized crisis ahead of the party congress. So we are inclined to accept signs that property curbs and other policies will be eased. Bottom Line: The full disinflationary impact of China’s financial turmoil and economic slowdown has yet to be felt globally. Biden-Xi Summit Not A Game Changer As long as inflation prevents robust monetary and fiscal easing, Beijing is incentivized to improve sentiment in other ways. One way is to back away from the regulatory crackdown in other sectors, such as Big Tech. The other is to improve relations with the United States. A stabilization of US ties would be useful before the party congress since President Xi would prefer not to have the US interfering in China’s internal affairs during such a critical hour. No surprise that China is showing signs of trying to stabilize the relationship. The US is apparently reciprocating. Presidents Biden and Xi also agreed to hold a virtual bilateral summit next week, which could lead to a new series of talks. The US Trade Representative also plans to restart trade negotiations. The plan is to enforce the Phase One trade deal, issue waivers for tariffs that hurt US companies, and pursue new talks over outstanding structural disputes. The Phase One trade deal has fallen far short of its goals in general but on the energy front it is doing well. China will continue importing US commodities amid global shortages (Chart 15). The summit alone will have a limited impact. Biden had a summit with Putin earlier this year but relations could deteriorate tomorrow over cyber-attacks, Ukraine, or Belarus. However, there is some basis for the US and China to cooperate next year: Iran. Xi is consolidating power at home in 2022 and probably wants to use negotiations to keep the Americans at bay. Biden is pivoting to foreign policy in 2022, since Congress will not get anything done, and will primarily focus on halting Iran’s nuclear program. If China assists the US with Iran, then there is a basis for a reduction in tensions. The problem is not only Iran itself but also that China will not jump to enforce sanctions on Iran amid energy shortages. And China is not about to make sweeping structural economic concessions to the US as the Xi administration doubles down on state-guided industrial policy. Meanwhile the US is pursuing a long-term policy of strategic containment and Biden will not want to be seen as appeasing China ahead of midterm elections, especially given Xi’s reversion to autocracy. What about cooperation on climate change? The US and China also delivered a surprise joint statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Scotland (COP26), confirming the widely held expectation that climate policy is an area of engagement. These powers and Europe have a strategic interest in reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil (Chart 16). Climate talks will begin in the first half of next year. However, climate cooperation is not significant enough alone to outweigh the deeper conflicts between the US and China. Moreover climate policy itself is somewhat antagonistic, as the EU and US are looking at applying “carbon adjustment fees” to carbon-intensive imports, e.g. iron and steel exports from China and other high-polluting producers (Chart 17). While the EU and US are not on the same page yet, and these carbon tariffs are far from implementation, the emergence of green protectionism does not bode well for US-China relations even aside from their fundamental political and military disputes. Bottom Line: Some short-term stabilization of US-China relations is possible but not guaranteed. Markets will cheer if it happens but the effect will be fleeting. Chinese assets are still extremely vulnerable to political and geopolitical risks. Investment Takeaways Gold can still go higher. Financial markets are pricing higher inflation and weak real rates. Gold has been our chief trade to prepare both for higher inflation and geopolitical risk. We are closing our long value / growth equity trade for a loss of 3.75%. We are maintaining our long DM Europe / short EM Europe trade. This trade has performed poorly due to the rally in energy prices and hence Russian equities. But while energy prices may overshoot in the near term, investors will flee Russian equities as geopolitical risks materialize. We are maintaining our long Korea / short Taiwan trade despite its being deeply in the red. This trade is valid over a strategic or long-term time horizon, in which a major geopolitical crisis and/or war is likely. Our expectation that China will ease policy to stabilize the economy ahead of fall 2022 should support Korean equities. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Over the past year President Alexander Lukashenko’s repression of domestic unrest prompted the EU to impose sanctions. Lukashenko responded by organizing an immigration scheme in which Middle Eastern migrants are flown into Belarus and funneled into the EU via Poland. The EU is threatening to expand sanctions while Belarus is threatening to cut off the Yamal-Europe pipeline amid Europe’s energy crisis. See Pavel Felgenhauer, “Belarus as Latest Front in Acute East-West Standoff,” Jamestown Foundation, November 11, 2021, Jamestown.org. 2 Both Germany and the EU must approve of Nord Stream II for it to enter into operation. The German Federal Network Agency has until January 8, 2022 to certify the project. The Economy Ministry has already given the green light. Then the European Commission has two-to-four months to respond. The EU is supposed to consider whether the pipeline meets the EU’s requirement that gas transport be “unbundled” or separated from gas production and sales. This is a higher hurdle but Germany’s clout will be felt. Hence final approval could come by March 8 or May 8, 2022. The energy crisis will put pressure for an early certification but the EU Commission may take the full time to pretend that it is not being blackmailed. See Joseph Nasr and Christoph Steitz, “Certifying Nord Stream 2 poses no threat to gas supply to EU – Germany,” Reuters, October 26, 2021, reuters.com. 3 Xi is not serving for an “unprecedented third term,” as the mainstream media keeps reporting. China’s top office is not constant nor were term limits ever firmly established. Each leader’s reign should be measured by their effective control rather than technical terms in office. Mao reigned for 27 years (1949-76), Deng for 14 years or more (1978-92), Jiang Zemin for 10 years (1992-2002), and Hu Jintao for 10 years (2002-2012). 4 See Joseph Fewsmith, “Mao’s Shadow” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 43 (2014), and “The 19th Party Congress: Ringing In Xi Jinping’s New Age,” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 55 (2018), hoover.org. 5 Liability-to-asset ratios less than 70%, debt-to-equity less than 100%, and cash-to-short-term-debt ratios of more than 1.0x. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions
Rising inflationary pressures are seeping into Aussie inflation expectations which according to the Melbourne Institute reached 4.6% in November. Nevertheless, the RBA pushed back against market rate hike expectations at last week’s meeting. Instead, it…
Highlights Fed: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Nominal Treasuries: We project that Treasury securities will still deliver negative total returns, even if Fed liftoff is delayed until December 2022. Investors can protect returns by favoring the 2-year note (long 2yr over cash/10yr barbell) and 20-year bond (long 20yr over 10yr/30yr barbell). TIPS: Investors should short 2-year TIPS outright in anticipation of falling short-dated inflation expectations during the next 12 months. The Taper Is Done, Now Onto Liftoff The Fed announced a tapering of its asset purchases last week and the details of the tapering plan were consistent with what had already been signaled to the public. The Fed will purchase $70 billion of Treasuries this month (compared to $80 billion in October) and $35 billion of agency MBS (down from $40 billion in October). It will then reduce monthly Treasury and MBS purchases by $10 billion and $5 billion each month, respectively, until it reaches net zero asset purchases by June of next year (Chart 2). The Fed didn’t give specific guidance on what will happen with the balance sheet after June, but it’s highly likely that it will follow the pattern of the last tightening cycle and keep the balance sheet flat for a long time, until the fed funds rate is well above the zero bound. The Fed also gave itself the option to increase or decrease the pace of purchases if such changes are warranted by the economic outlook, but it would take a major shock to knock the Fed off its pre-set course. Chart 1The Market's Liftoff Expectations Chart 2Net Purchases Will Reach Zero By June With the tapering announcement out of the way, the Fed can now turn to the more important question of when to start lifting interest rates. Jay Powell made it clear at last week’s press conference that the committee hasn’t yet formally taken up the issue, but that didn’t stop reporters from pressing the Chairman to provide more details about when the Fed will hike. None of that should be too surprising. There’s intense market interest and a great deal of uncertainty about the timing of Fed liftoff. Two months ago, markets were pricing-in no rate hikes at all in 2022. Now, markets are looking for Fed liftoff at the September 2022 FOMC meeting and are discounting a 90% chance of 2 rate hikes by the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s Thinking On Liftoff So, what did we learn from last week’s FOMC Statement and press conference about how the Fed is thinking about the liftoff date? First, we know from previous comments that the Fed would prefer to reduce net asset purchases to zero before it starts lifting rates. This means that the July 2022 FOMC meeting is the first “live meeting” where a rate hike could possibly occur, and the fed funds futures market is already pricing-in a 74% chance that liftoff will occur at that meeting (Chart 1). We aren’t so sure. In fact, we don’t see the Fed lifting rates until December 2022, and Chair Powell’s comments about inflation at last week’s press conference only increased our confidence in that view. On inflation, Powell echoed comments by Fed Governor Randal Quarles that we flagged in a recent report.1 Both Powell and Quarles put less emphasis on the length of time that inflation remains above the Fed’s target and more emphasis on the causes of that inflation and whether it’s appropriate for the Fed to lean against it. Here’s Powell from last week (emphasis added): Supply constraints have been larger and longer lasting than anticipated. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the drivers of higher inflation have been predominantly connected to dislocations caused by the pandemic, specifically the effects on supply and demand from the shutdown, the uneven reopening, and the ongoing effects of the virus itself. Our tools cannot ease supply constraints. Like most forecasters, we continue to believe that our dynamic economy will adjust to the supply and demand imbalances, and that as it does, inflation will decline to levels much closer to our 2 percent longer-run goal. Of course, it is very difficult to predict the persistence of supply constraints or their effects on inflation. Global supply chains are complex; they will return to normal function, but the timing of that is highly uncertain.2 Essentially, Powell is pointing out that it would be a mistake for the Fed to tighten policy to bring down inflation only to find out that the economy’s natural supply side response was about to do so anyways. The Fed would have dragged down aggregate demand for no reason. So what would cause the Fed to lift rates? We see two potential triggers. The first liftoff trigger would be an assessment by the FOMC that the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. This is the liftoff condition that the Fed has officially set for itself. The second liftoff trigger would be an uncomfortable increase in long-dated inflation expectations. A spike in long-dated inflation expectations would be worrying enough that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” goal and tighten earlier. The “Maximum Employment” Trigger Chart 3How Far From "Maximum Employment"? The concept of “maximum employment” brings a whole host of other issues along with it. How will the Fed know if the labor market is at “maximum employment”? We’ve discussed this topic at length ourselves and have come to a few helpful conclusions.3 First, we can infer from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that the Fed views an unemployment rate of 3.8% as roughly consistent with “maximum employment”. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Fed will even consider declaring victory on its employment goal until the unemployment rate is in the vicinity of 3.8%, down from its current 4.6% (Chart 3). Second, there are good reasons to believe that the aging of the US population and the recent sharp increase in retirements will prevent the labor force participation rate from re-gaining its pre-pandemic level. However, FOMC participants seem to agree that the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate should be close to its February 2020 level for the “maximum employment” condition to be satisfied (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chair Powell even specifically referenced the prime-age participation rate at last week’s press conference. We think a declaration of “maximum employment” will only occur once the unemployment rate is near 3.8% and the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is near its February 2020 level of 82.9%, up from its current 81.7%. It’s unlikely that these conditions will be met in time for a July 2022 rate hike. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios for the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and participation rates by specific future dates. Our scenarios use the overall participation rate (not the prime-age one), but we think the scenarios derived from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers come close to capturing reasonable conditions for “maximum employment”. Based on those scenarios, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 602k to 733k is required to reach “maximum employment” by June 2022. Conversely, average monthly payroll growth of only 379k to 455k is required to reach “maximum employment” by December 2022. We see the latter as easily achievable and the former as more of a stretch. On the topic of employment growth, it’s worth noting that both monthly nonfarm payroll growth and the prime-age labor force participation rate were dragged down by the spread of the Delta variant during the past few months (Chart 4). With new COVID cases falling, we should see stronger payroll growth and a higher prime-age part rate in the months ahead. Relatedly, falling COVID cases will also help alleviate some the constraints on labor supply as workers grow less fearful of the virus and more confident about re-entering the labor force. This will not only push prime-age participation higher, but it will also take some of the sting out of wage growth. Wage growth has been extremely high recently as the number of job openings has far outpaced the number of new hires (Chart 5). Fading COVID fears should increase the pace of hiring and slow wage growth. This will give the Fed even more confidence that it should stay the course. Chart 5Peak Wage Growth? The Inflation Expectations Trigger Chart 6Inflation Expectations Are Well-Anchored We noted above that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” liftoff condition if long-dated inflation expectations rose to uncomfortably high levels. Specifically, we like to track the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate relative to a target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 6). As long as the 5-year/5-year breakeven rate stays within that range or below, the Fed will be guided by its “maximum employment” goal. However, if that rate were to break above 2.5% for a significant period of time, the Fed would be sufficiently worried about an expectations-driven inflationary spiral that it would abandon its “maximum employment” trigger and bring forward the liftoff date. We don’t expect to see a breakout above 2.5% in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate anytime soon. The rate has stayed well contained throughout the past few months even as inflation skyrocketed. It would be strange for it to suddenly spike after inflation has already peaked.4 Bottom Line: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Treasury Market Positioning For A December 2022 Liftoff To determine how we should position within the Treasury market, we translate our above views on the timing of Fed liftoff into fair value estimates for different segments of the Treasury curve. Specifically, we assume a scenario where the Fed starts hiking in December 2022 and then lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a terminal rate of 2.08%. That 2.08% terminal rate is based on an expected target range of 2%-2.25% that is inferred from responses to the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers. We assume that the effective fed funds rate will trade 8 bps above the lower-bound of its target range, as it does currently. Table 1 shows expected 12-month total returns for each Treasury maturity, assuming the market moves to fully price-in our expected funds rate path during the next year. Table 1Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.08% Terminal Rate The first observation that jumps out is that, except for the 2-year and 20-year maturities, expected Treasury returns are negative across the board. This justifies sticking with our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Second, our expectation that liftoff will be delayed relative to current market expectations gives the 2-year note slightly better expected returns, particularly relative to the 10-year note. As a result, we advise investors to hold 2/10 yield curve steepeners. Specifically, investors should go long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and cash. Third, the 20-year bond looks to be priced cheaply on the curve. It offers expected 12-month returns of +79 bps while the 10-year note and 30-year bond are both projected to lose money. We recommend taking advantage of this situation by going long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This proposed trade offers positive carry of 20 bps (Chart 7). Further, the 10/20 slope is stuck in the middle of where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, panel 2). The 20/30 slope, meanwhile, is inverted and well below where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our 20 over 10/30 trade will profit as the 20/30 slope re-steepens, even if the 10/20 slope doesn’t move that much. Chart 7Buy 20s Versus 10s30s It could be argued that our recommend trades are all predicated on a fed funds rate scenario that embeds too low of a terminal rate. In fact, the median projection of FOMC participants would place the terminal rate closer to 2.5% than to 2%. If we alter our scenario by increasing the terminal rate assumption from 2.08% to 2.58%, it only improves the outlook for our recommended positions (Table 2). Table 2Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.58% Terminal Rate In the new scenario, expected Treasury returns are more negative – especially at the long-end. However, the 2-year note is still expected to earn a small profit. Our 20 over 10/30 trade performs slightly worse in this second scenario compared to the first one (+1.79% versus +1.95%), but it is still expected to make money. TIPS Chart 8A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields We have one final government bond recommendation based on our expectation that Fed liftoff will be delayed until December 2022. That trade is to go short 2-year TIPS. Alternatively, investors could enter 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners. Our base case economic outlook is that supply side constraints (both in global supply chains and in the labor market) will loosen during the next 12 months. This will push down short-dated inflation expectations while long-dated inflation expectations stay relatively close to the Fed’s target. If we assume that both the 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates trend towards the middle of the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range during the next 12 months and that the nominal 2-year and 10-year yields follow the paths predicted by the fair value scenario presented in Table 1, then we see that the 2-year real yield has a lot of upside (Chart 8). This is true both in absolute terms and relative to the 10-year real yield. We advise investors to short 2-year TIPS outright. Alternatively, 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners will also perform well during the next 12 months. Bottom Line: We suggest four different ways that bond investors can profit from the Fed delaying liftoff until December 2022. Investors should keep portfolio duration low, enter 2/10 nominal curve steepeners, buy the 20-year T-bond versus a 10/30 barbell and short 2-year TIPS. Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.7% and a participation rate of 62.7%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +455k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20211103.pdf 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 4 For more details on our inflation outlook please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns
We will be holding our quarterly webcasts next Monday, November 15th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time and Tuesday, November 16th at 8:00 a.m. Hong Kong time in lieu of publishing a Weekly Report. Please join us with your questions to make it a fully interactive event. We will resume our regular publication schedule on the 22nd. Highlights Economy – Wages could be on the rise if workers are able to exploit the considerable leverage they now enjoy: The labor market currently has no slack. Workers’ ability to derive a lasting advantage from today’s shortages will determine if the extended decline in labor’s share of income will reverse. Markets – Lengthy agreements in labor’s favor could give inflation an additional impetus: Investors are not prepared for a shift in the balance of power from management to labor and a range of assets will have to reprice if workers can achieve some durable victories. Strategy – Keep an eye on labor agreements, which could hasten a shift to more defensive positioning: The current economic backdrop, along with accommodative monetary and fiscal policy, support risk-friendly portfolio positioning, but a labor revival could prompt the Fed to engage in a disruptive tightening cycle that would halt the bull markets in equities and credit and possibly also short-circuit the expansion. Feature At the end of 2019, tiring of the market debates du jour, we began haunting the New York Public Library, reading all we could about US labor relations history. Several books and rolls of microfilm later, we published a three-part Special Report on workers’ past, present and future. While we concluded that organized labor would not regain the influence it wielded in the fifties, sixties and seventies, we thought that investors were underestimating the potential for workers to reverse the grinding decline in their fortunes that began in the early eighties. Public opinion seemed to be shifting in workers’ favor, especially among the young; the coming election held promise for the Democrats; and the pendulum had swung so far, for so long, that there was little scope for management to gain any more ground. We looked forward to countering the view that organized labor was as dead as a doornail, only to have COVID-19 render the topic irrelevant. Nearly two years later, however, dislocations caused by the pandemic have pushed negotiations over wages and labor conditions to the fore. Amidst a recent flurry of strikes against S&P 500 constituents, clients have been asking what the labor future holds. We refresh the themes we identified in our initial analysis, noting how conditions have shifted since early 2020. The investment takeaway is that increasing labor muscle could stoke inflation and push long-run inflation expectations higher, forcing the Fed to tighten monetary policy more abruptly than markets expect. The 2020 Election Went Labor’s Way A review of the historical record makes it crystal clear that employees cannot gain ground if government sides with employers. The 2020 election, which delivered both the White House and the Senate to Democrats, put some unexpected wind in labor’s sails. They did not mark a revival of the New Deal, however, as Democrats’ legislative majorities are precariously thin and unlikely to survive the 2022 midterms, their control of the presidency may not extend beyond 2024, and the federal judiciary will be inclined to see things management’s way for some time thanks to past conservative appointments. At the state level, the executive and legislative branches remain firmly in Republican control. A friendly executive branch can do a lot to reset the scales nonetheless. The Biden Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Department of Justice are certain to enforce existing worker protection laws more vigorously than their recent predecessors, while more actively challenging business combinations. Joe Biden began his election campaign at a Pittsburgh union hall and returned to the Steel City to end it, promising to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen.” Labor leaders have generally given him high marks since taking office for supporting legislation to make it easier for workers to organize and he publicly offered moral support to John Deere’s UAW workers when they went on strike last month, saying, “My message is they have a right to strike and they have a right to demand higher wages.” Public Opinion Has Continued To Shift Toward Labor We noted two years ago that young Democratic voters overwhelmingly favored Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s candidacies, suggesting that solidarity with workers might be on the rise. It is no surprise that students would be the most avid supporters of progressive campaigns, but Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Generation Z might be viewed as the Inequality Generations, having entered the workforce after China’s admittance to the WTO, which coincided with a peak in labor’s share of income (Chart 1). Their lives have spanned the September 11th attacks, the financial crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic and three equity market crashes, and many of them started adulthood with onerous student debt burdens and dim earnings prospects. They might find the notion of a union buffer from market forces especially alluring and therefore view unions favorably. The 2019 Gallup poll found that public approval for unions had reached nearly 20-year highs; two years on, it’s up to levels last reached over 50 years ago (Chart 2). Chart 1Workers' Share Of The Pie Shrank For 15 Years Chart 2Extreme Makeover Public opinion is crucially important to the outcome of labor negotiations because for-profit employers will seek the most favorable terms they can get, to the extent that they are socially acceptable. In our schematic of the 1980s vicious circle that initiated unions’ 40-year decline, public opinion made it possible for the Reagan administration to take a hard line against the air traffic controllers’ union and emboldened private employers to take more aggressive measures as well (Figure 1). Beyond the private sector, elected officials reliably deliver what their constituents want, and the courts do, too, albeit with a longer lag. The median voter theory advanced by our geopolitical strategists doesn’t just predict future outcomes, it directly influences them. Striketober Another key takeaway from our original study was that successful strikes beget strikes. Strikes are the most potent weapon in workers’ arsenal – withholding their labor threatens to reduce their employer’s output and may halt it altogether – but they are fraught with risk for individual employees. Striking workers don’t get paid beyond the partial support that may be provided by their union strike fund and may find themselves entirely out of work if the strike fails. Workers should only strike when they have a good chance of winning or when their situation has become so intolerable that they have little to lose. Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative position, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, and when both parties recognize that relative bargaining positions are fluid, they are likely to exercise it. Viewing labor negotiations through a game theory lens, we posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Labor (L) can believe it is way stronger than Management (M), L >> M; stronger than Management, L > M; roughly equal, L ≈ M; weaker than Management, L < M; or way weaker than Management, L << M. Management also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure 2 displays only the outcomes consistent with labor’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of management’s potential perceptions, but we deem the three away from the extremes to be most likely. Record job openings and job quits rates (Chart 3) should disabuse even the most rabidly anti-union managements from thinking they hold all the cards. On the other hand, four consecutive decades of victories will make it hard for all but the most objective management negotiators to believe that the tables have completely turned and that labor is fully in control. Chart 3It's A Labor Seller's Market ... Strike outcomes turn on which side has overestimated its leverage. The broad factors we use to assess leverage are overall labor market slack; economic concentration; regulatory and legal trends; and the sustainability of either side’s accumulated advantage, which we describe as the labor-management rubber band. Other factors that matter on a case-by-case basis, but are beyond the scope of our analysis, include industry-level slack, a labor input’s susceptibility to automation, and the degree of labor specialization/skill involved in that input. For these micro-level factors, a given group of workers’ leverage is inversely related to the availability of substitutes for their input. Labor Market Slack Though we hold the view that labor force participation is likely to revive in coming months because inequality and a comparatively thin social safety net will compel many lower-income workers to return to the work force, no one knows for sure where the workers have gone or when they will return, if at all. It is abundantly clear from accelerating wage gains (Chart 4), the openings and quits rates, and small businesses’ historic inability to fill job openings (Chart 5) that the labor market is extremely tight right now. A difference of opinion about whether and how long the worker shortages will persist could make finding common ground in contract negotiations a challenge. Chart 4... As Rising Wages ... Chart 5... And Frantic Employers Confirm Economic Concentration We previously noted that the trend toward economic concentration has strengthened management’s hand in labor negotiations as it has made an increasing share of local labor markets tend toward monopsony. A monopsony is a market with a single buyer, the mirror image of a monopoly, which is a market with a single seller. Unfortunately for labor, monopsonies restrain prices just as monopolies inflate them. The trend toward economic concentration is well established and we think the probability that it will reverse is low – Congress may shake its fist at Big Tech and the Biden Justice Department will more vigorously contest mergers on anti-trust grounds, but there is an ocean of liquidity available to support acquisitions and robust CEO confidence suggests it will be deployed. Regulatory And Legal Trends Over the last four decades, unions have endured a near-constant drubbing from statehouses, federal agencies and the courts, as union and labor protections have been under siege from all sides. But the regulatory and legal tide has been such a huge benefit for employers since the beginning of the Reagan administration that it simply cannot continue to maintain its pace. Furthermore, as our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have observed, the Republican party’s lurch toward populism may leave Big Business without a champion in Washington, DC. The regulatory and legal winds are shifting and management teams that have spent their entire careers in an environment in which labor has perpetually been on the back foot may be the last to know, leading to an uptick in the number and contentiousness of labor disputes. A change in Fed policy, as unveiled in the August 2020 revision to the FOMC’s statement on longer-run monetary policy goals, has also tilted the playing field in workers’ favor. The Fed has sworn off preemptively tightening monetary policy when the labor market appears to be getting tight. The new direction contrasts with 40-plus years of Fed policy that were predicated on taking away the punch bowl before upward wage pressures could build momentum. The tacit pledge in the revised statement on monetary policy implies that the Fed will prioritize its full employment mandate over its price stability mandate in the near term. That’s not an unalloyed positive for workers, who will only be better off if their nominal wage gains outpace inflation, but it will help give them more of a head start than they would have gotten if the FOMC had stuck with the proposition that tight labor markets stoke inflation. The Labor-Management Rubber Band Employees and employers have a deeply symbiotic relationship, and we like to think of labor and management as being linked by an elastic tether with a finite range. Since neither side can indefinitely thrive if the other is suffering, the tether pulls the two sides closer together when the gap between them threatens to become too wide. When labor does too well for too long at management’s expense, profit margins shrink and the company’s viability as a going concern is threatened. When management does too well, deteriorating living standards drive the best employees away, undermining productivity and profitability. One does not have to be a card-carrying socialist to believe that the band is near its limit and that some sort of mean reversion is inevitable, given how badly real hourly wages have lagged gains in hourly output over the last 50 years (Chart 6). Chart 6Testing How Far The Labor-Management Rubber Band Can Stretch What Comes Next Steady concentration across industries and a persistently hospitable legal and regulatory climate has given management the upper hand for four decades. Going forward, however, labor should see its fortunes improve as the legal and regulatory climate cannot get materially better for employers, and the labor-management rubber band becomes less stretched in management’s favor (Figure 3). The major uncertainty pertains to the ongoing level of slack in the labor market and how employment agreements should account for it. All parties recognize there is no slack right now and employers are duly offering generous inducements to attract workers. Sign-on bonuses for new employees in unskilled services positions are ubiquitous and negotiations with unionized employees include ratification bonuses for signing new contract packages. Because wages are sticky on the downside – it’s difficult to get employees to swallow outright pay cuts – employers prefer making one-time concessions like bonuses to increasing wage rates across the board, which is tantamount to locking in higher long-term input costs. The duration of concessions appears to be a sticking point in the negotiations to settle the current strikes. Over the last two decades, several large companies with unionized workforces have instituted a two-tier employment track distinguishing legacy employees from new hires. The legacy employees remain on their existing salary path and retain their retirement and health insurance benefits, while new employees are subject to a lower salary scale and are entitled to fewer benefits, if any. The result has been to bend the human resources cost curve lower in the future as natural attrition shrinks the share of employees on the more costly legacy path. The two-tier employment classification has proven to be an effective way for employers to bend the cost curve to their liking, as it protects the interests of a considerable majority of employee voters at the expense of a largely hypothetical future employee constituency. It is presumably difficult to empathize with workers who aren’t yet coming to the plant every day and legacy employees haven’t dwelled on their plight when participating in contract ratification votes. An interesting feature of the ongoing John Deere strike is that the UAW rejected what appeared to be a strikingly generous package partially in the interest of defending current and future employees who have no path to reach legacy employees’ all-in compensation level. The recent strikes against S&P 500 constituents have been concentrated in industries that faced demand spikes during the pandemic. The bakery worker’s union (BCTGM) representing Kellogg’s workers struck against Frito-Lay (owned by Pepsi) for three weeks in July and Nabisco (a unit of Mondelez) for five weeks in August and September. A significant motivation for the BCTGM workers’ actions seemed to be frustration over intense pandemic workloads. Their plants ramped up capacity to fill kitchen cabinets while consumers were cooped up at home and they are now seeking redress for the emergency hours they were asked to work. (All of the bakery workers who struck, as well as the John Deere workers, were considered essential workers.) Management, on the other hand, might take the view that their employees’ sacrifices are in the past, and are not likely to be repeated if product demand settles back into its pre-pandemic trend. Viewing ongoing negotiations from our game theory perspective, there is ample room for divergent perceptions of relative negotiating strength, based on differing opinions about the persistence of pandemic trends. The divergence might make for increasingly contentious labor negotiations going forward, with strikes exacerbating supply bottlenecks and ramping up near-term inflation pressures. If ongoing rounds of labor negotiations result in workers achieving longer-term victories, it will pressure corporate profit margins. Labor gains will also potentially feed into inflation if capacity is not poised to meet the ensuing increase in aggregate demand. We will keep close tabs on labor negotiations as the economy works its way back to a post-pandemic steady state. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com