Yield Curve

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

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

Highlights Chart 1Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls With 12-month PCE inflation already above the Fed’s 2% target, it is progress toward the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal that will determine both the timing of Fed liftoff and whether bond yields rise or fall. On that note, the bond market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in early 2023. We also calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between 378k and 462k is required to meet the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal by the end of 2022, in time for an early-2023 rate hike. It follows from this analysis that any monthly employment print above +462k should be considered bond-bearish and any print below +378k should be considered bond-bullish (Chart 1). In that light, May’s +559k print is bond-bearish, and we anticipate further bond-bearish employment reports in the coming months as COVID fears fade and people return to a labor market that is already awash with demand. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US bond portfolios and also continue to favor spread product over duration-matched Treasuries. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +159 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 142 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.27% - almost, but not quite, within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”.1 The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is almost at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, tight valuations cause us to recommend only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We prefer high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns. Last week, the Fed announced that it will wind down its corporate bond portfolio over the coming months. The corporate bond purchase facility has not been operational since December 2020, meaning that the corporate bond market has been functioning without an explicit Fed back-stop for all of 2021. The portfolio itself is also quite small compared to the size of the corporate bond market. As a result, we anticipate no material impact on spreads. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +343 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.3% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s corporate debt binge will moderate in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 7 bps in May. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 24 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 27 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly more than the 18 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons over low coupons within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 32 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +37 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 30 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +360 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both outperformed by 8 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +27 bps and +24 bps, respectively. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +286 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and came to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. However, there may not be time to pass these tax hikes before the 2022 midterm elections. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over investment grade corporates that investors should take advantage of (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 22% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them prone to extension risk if bond yields gap higher. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/30 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields fell in May, with the 5-10 year part of the curve benefiting the most. The 7-year yield fell 8 bps in May while the 5-year and 10-year yields both fell 7 bps. Yield declines were smaller for shorter (< 5-year) and longer (> 10-year) maturities. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps to end the month at 147 bps (Chart 7). We recently changed our recommended yield curve position from a 5 over 2/10 butterfly to a 5 over 2/30 butterfly.6 In making the switch we noted that the slope of the Treasury curve has behaved differently since bond yields peaked in early April. Prior to April, the rise in bond yields was concentrated at the very long-end (10-year +) of the curve. During the past two months, the belly of the curve (5-7 years) has seen more volatility. We conclude that we are now close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that further significant increases in yields will be met with a flatter curve beyond the 5-year maturity point and that the 5-year and 7-year notes are likely to benefit the most if bond yields dip. We also observe an exceptional yield pick-up of +33 bps in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend buying the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell to take advantage of the strong positive carry in a flat yield environment, and as a hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 86 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +484 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.42%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.27%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). With long-maturity breakevens already consistent (or close to consistent) with the Fed’s target, they have limited upside going forward. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. We also think that the market has priced-in an overly aggressive inflation outlook at the front-end of the curve. The 1-year and 2-year CPI swap rates stand at 3.76% and 3.12%, respectively. There is a good chance that these lofty inflation expectations will not be confirmed by the actual data. With all that in mind, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and also a neutral posture towards the inflation curve (panel 4). The inflation curve could steepen somewhat in the near-term if short-maturity inflation expectations moderate, but we expect the curve to remain inverted for a long time yet. An inverted inflation curve is more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, and it should be considered the natural state of affairs moving forward. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +70 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. This excess savings has still not been spent and, already, the most recent round of stimulus checks is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 27 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +78 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 84 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +453 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +125 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and it currently sits at 27 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion of how we assess the state of monetary policy vis-à-vis spread product please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021.

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. Duration: The overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Corporate Bonds: High and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds. Feature Recent inflationary trends are making the Fed’s job more difficult. Not only was April’s increase in core CPI the largest since 1981, but measures of long-term inflation expectations have also jumped. The 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has quickly risen to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 1). What’s more, survey measures of inflation expectations have also moved up, in many cases to uncomfortably high levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Back To Target Chart 2Inflation Expectations Have Jumped All of this makes the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy look increasingly untenable. Can the Fed really just sit on the sidelines as inflation and inflation expectations rise to above-target levels? Our expectation is that the Fed will ignore rising inflation until the labor market is fully recovered, but it may then need to move quickly to contain inflationary pressures. The result could very well be a rate hike cycle that takes a long time to start, but then proceeds at a rapid pace. The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Are Different Than Its Criteria For Pace A crucial point about the Fed’s forward guidance is that the criteria that will determine the timing of the first rate hike are different than the criteria that will determine the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Liftoff Criteria Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff For liftoff, the Fed has been very explicit that three conditions must be met before it will raise rates off the zero bound (Table 1). Of the three conditions listed in Table 1, the timing of when the labor market will reach “maximum employment” is the most uncertain. We have written extensively about how the Fed defines “maximum employment” and about the pace of employment growth that’s necessary to achieve that goal by specific future dates.1 To summarize, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of at least 698k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year and average monthly payroll growth of at least 412k is required to hit that target by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Employment Growth Chart 4Labor Demand Is Strong Our assessment is that “maximum employment” will be achieved in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, largely because employment growth must rise quickly in order to catch up with skyrocketing indicators of labor demand (Chart 4). The risk, of course, is that inflation continues to run hot as the Fed waits for its “maximum employment” condition to be met. If this occurs, we believe that the Fed will stick to its current forward guidance. It will ignore rising inflation until its liftoff criteria are met. Only then, will Fed policy turn toward containing inflation. Pace Criteria In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida laid out three indicators that he will track to guide the pace of policy tightening post Fed liftoff.2 First, he pointed to inflation expectations. In particular, the Fed’s index of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE):3 Other things being equal, my desired pace of policy normalization post-liftoff to return inflation to 2 percent […] would be somewhat slower than otherwise if the CIE index is, at time of liftoff, below the pre-ELB level. [ELB = effective lower bound]. Chart 2 shows that the CIE index has already broken above its 2018 peak. It stands to reason that, all else equal, an elevated CIE index would speed up the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Chart 5Inflation Since August 2020 Second, Clarida noted that: Another factor I will consider in calibrating the pace of policy normalization post-liftoff is the average rate of PCE inflation since the new framework was adopted in August 2020. The annualized rate of change in core PCE since August 2020 is almost at the Fed’s 2% target already, and it will certainly rise to above-target levels when the April data are released, as was the case with core CPI (Chart 5). Finally, Clarida offered up a detailed Taylor-type monetary policy rule that he says he will consult once the conditions for liftoff are met: Consistent with our new framework, the relevant policy rule benchmark I will consult once the conditions for liftoff have been met is an inertial Taylor-type rule with a coefficient of zero on the unemployment gap, a coefficient of 1.5 on the gap between core PCE inflation and the 2 percent longer-run goal, and a neutral real policy rate equal to my SEP forecast of long-run r*. Chart 6Balanced Approach (Shortfalls) Rule* Recommendations Chart 6 shows the results of a very similar policy rule using median FOMC estimates for r*, NAIRU and the path of inflation. We use a slightly more pessimistic forecast for the unemployment rate and assume that it reaches 4.5% by the end of 2022 and 4% by the end of 2023. Even with those conservative assumptions, the rule still recommends a policy rate of 1.5% by the end of 2022 and 2.65% by the end of 2023. This is not to say that the Fed will immediately lift rates to those levels once it is ready to hike, only that the Fed will have a strong incentive to pursue a rapid pace of rate hikes once it finally lifts rates off the zero bound. Investment Implications For investors, the bottom line is that the Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation and inflation expectations rise further, or even remain sticky near current levels, the Fed will lift rates more quickly than many anticipate. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Is Inflation A Risk For Spread Product? Yes it is, but not just yet. In past reports, we’ve often pointed to 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% as a reason to turn more cautious on spread product (see Chart 1), and the recent rise in inflation expectations certainly does set off some alarm bells. High inflation expectations pose a risk to credit spreads because of what they signal about the future course of Fed policy. If the Fed responds to high inflation expectations by tightening policy into restrictive territory, then economic growth and credit spreads are at risk. All this remains true, but the Fed’s willingness to ignore rising inflation expectations – at least until “maximum employment” and fed funds liftoff are achieved – gives spread product a little more runway than usual. One way to illustrate this dynamic is with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). Historically, corporate bond (both investment grade and junk) excess returns are strong at least until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps (Table 2). Currently, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is well above 100 bps and has shown few signs of rolling over. If the Fed was still following its old forward-looking policy framework, then the yield curve would likely be much flatter today. That is, the curve would be pricing-in some policy tightening in response to high and rising inflation expectations. However, as discussed above, inflation expectations are not currently the Fed’s primary concern and they will only become the Fed’s primary concern once “maximum employment” has been achieved and the funds rate has been lifted off the zero bound. Chart 7Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Table 2Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle All in all, we are concerned that, if inflation expectations remain elevated, the Fed may quickly ramp up its post-liftoff pace of rate hikes, sending credit spreads wider. But we are reluctant to position for that outcome when we are still many months away from Fed liftoff and the slope of the yield curve remains so steep. Chart 8Low Expected Returns In IG Another factor to consider is that value in spread product is extremely tight. In fact, our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread for the quality-adjusted investment grade corporate bond index is almost at its most expensive level since 1995 (Chart 8). This doesn’t change our assessment of when restrictive Fed policy will cause spreads to widen, but it does reduce our return expectations in the interim. All else equal, since the rewards from being overweight spread product versus Treasuries are low, we will be quicker to reduce our recommended spread product allocation when our indicators start to point toward the end of the credit cycle. Though, at the very least, we will still want to see the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope start to flatten and approach 50 bps before we get too pessimistic on spread product. The bottom line is that high and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overshoot Territory”, dated April 13, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm 3 The CIE is a composite measure of different market-based and survey-based indicators of inflation expectations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm  Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting   The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights ECB Tapering?: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. Euro Area Bond Strategy: We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued. We also suggest a new tactical trade to fade the current market pricing of ECB rate hikes by going long the December 2023 euribor interest rate futures contract. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing a Special Report, discussing the investment implications of the current global housing boom, with our colleagues at the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. You will be receiving that report on Friday, May 28. We will return to regular weekly publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 1. - Rob Robis Chart of the WeekAn Underwhelming Rise In European Bond Yields For next month’s monetary policy meeting, European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde reportedly plans to invite the Governing Council members to meet in person for the first time since the start of the pandemic. That provides an interesting subtext to a meeting that will surely involve a debate over how much monetary support is still necessary for an increasingly vaccinated Europe that is emerging from the depths of COVID-19. Some ECB officials have already noted that the risks to economic growth and inflation expectations were now “tilted to the upside”, according to the minutes of the last ECB meeting in April. With European economic confidence improving, European bond yields have moved higher in response (Chart of the Week). The benchmark 10-year German bund yield now sits at -0.11%, up 46bps year-to-date but with half of that move occurring over the past month. The pickup up in yields has not been contained to the core countries of Germany and France – the 10-year Italian government bond yield is now up to 1.11%, over twice the level that began 2021 (0.52%). Inflation expectations have picked up sharply, with the 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swap now up to 1.63%, a level last seen in December 2018. These yield increases have lagged the big moves seen in other countries; 10-year government bond yields in the US and Canada have seen year-to-date increases of 72bps and 90bps, respectively. In those countries, yields have surged because of rising inflation expectations and worries about a tapering of central bank bond buying – concerns that turned out to be accurate in the case of Canada, where the Bank of Canada did indeed announce a slower pace of bond buying last month. In our view, it is still too soon for the ECB to contemplate such a shift to a less dovish policy stance. This message is corroborated by our ECB Monitor that has risen but is still not signaling a need for tighter monetary policy. The bond selloff in Europe looks like a case of "too much, too fast". The ECB Now Has A Lot To Think About Recent euro area economic data has not only caught up to the earlier strength visible in the US, but in some cases is back to levels not seen for many years. The expectations component of the German ZEW survey surged nearly 14 points in May and is now up to levels last seen in 2000. The Markit PMI for manufacturing reached an all-time high of 62.9 in April. The European Commission’s consumer confidence index for the euro area is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2), which bodes well for a continued recovery of the Markit PMI for services. More positive news on the pandemic is driving the surge in growth expectations. The pace of new COVID-19 cases has fallen steadily, with Italy – one of the hardest-stricken regions during the initial months of the pandemic – now seeing the lowest rate of new cases since October (on a rolling 7-day basis). Meanwhile, the pace of vaccinations has accelerated after a slow initial rollout; the number of daily jabs administered (per 100 people) is now greater in Germany, France and Italy than in the US (Chart 3). Chart 2European Growth Is Recovering Chart 3Inoculation Acceleration In Europe Chart 4How Much Spare Capacity Is There In Europe? The rapid increase in inoculations is setting Europe up for a solid recovery from the lockdown-driven double-dip recession of Q4/2020 and Q1/2021. The European Commission upgraded its growth forecasts for the euro area last week, with real GDP now expected to expand by 4.3% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022, compared with previous forecasts of 3.8% in both years. All euro area countries are now expected to see a return to the pre-pandemic level of economic output by the end of 2022 – a number boosted by a pickup in public investment through the Next Generation EU (NGEU) package, which is expected to begin paying out funds later this summer. The ECB will surely raise its own forecasts at the June meeting, both for economic growth and inflation. The outlook for the latter will likely turn into the biggest source of debate within the ECB Governing Council. Despite the fairly coordinated recovery of survey-based data like the manufacturing PMIs, there remains a wide divergence of unemployment rates - and measures of spare capacity, more generally - within the euro area (Chart 4). This will make it difficult for the ECB to determine if the current surge in realized inflation, which has pushed the annual growth of headline HICP inflation towards the 2% level in many euro zone nations, can persist with countries like Italy and Spain still suffering from very high unemployment. The wide dispersion of unemployment rates within the euro zone also suggests that the current level of policy rates (at or below 0%) is appropriate. One simple metric to measure the “breadth” of European labor market strength is to look at the percentage of euro area countries that have an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU.1 That metric correlates well with an estimate of the appropriate level of euro area short-term interest rates generated by a basic Taylor Rule. Currently, only 43% of euro zone countries are beyond full employment, which is consistent with an ECB policy rate round 0% (Chart 5). Chart 5Policy Rates Near 0% Are Still Appropriate A slightly larger share of countries (47%) is witnessing an acceleration in wage growth (bottom panel). This could mean that some of the NAIRU estimates for the individual countries are too low, which would fit with the acceleration in overall euro area wage growth seen since 2015. With so many euro area countries still working off the rise in unemployment generated by the pandemic, however, it will take some time for the ECB to get a clear enough read on labor market dynamics to determine if any necessary monetary policy adjustments should be made. The “breadth” of data trends do not only correlate to theoretical interest rate measures like the Taylor Rule. Actual ECB policy decisions are motivated by the degree to which higher growth and inflation is evident across the euro area. In Chart 6, we show a similar metric to the labor market breadth measures from Chart 5, but using other economic and inflation data. Specifically, we show the percentage of euro area countries that are seeing: Chart 6ECB Typically Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based a) Accelerating growth momentum, indicated by an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than the level of one year earlier; b) Accelerating inflation momentum, comparing the latest reading on headline HICP inflation to that of one year earlier; c) Relatively high inflation, measured by headline HICP inflation being above the ECB’s “just below 2%” target. Looking at all previous periods of ECB monetary tightening since the inception of the euro in 1998 – taking the form of actual policy rate hikes or a flat-to-declining trend in the ECB’s balance sheet – it is clear that the ECB does not tighten without at least 75% of euro area countries seeing both economic growth and inflation accelerate. Actual rate hikes occur when at least 75% of countries had inflation above 2%, as occurred during the hiking cycles of 2000, 2005-2007 and 2011. More recently, the ECB paused the expansion of its balance sheet in 2017 when growth and inflation accelerated, but did not make any policy rate adjustments as only 50% of countries had inflation above 2%. Today, essentially all euro area countries are seeing accelerating growth momentum compared to the pandemic-depressed levels of a year ago. 59% of the euro area is seeing faster inflation, a number that is likely to move higher as more of Europe reopens from lockdown amid a surge in global commodity prices. Yet only 12% of euro area countries have headline inflation above 2%, suggesting that realized inflation is not yet strong enough to trigger even an ECB balance sheet adjustment, based on the 2017 experience. Don’t Bet On A June ECB Taper So judging by past ECB behavior, an announcement to taper bond buying at the June policy meeting would be highly premature. A more likely scenario is that an upgrade of the ECB’s growth and inflation forecast prompts a discussion of what to do with all the varying parts of the ECB’s monetary stimulus – quantitative easing, bank funding programs like TLTROs, as well as policy interest rates. Yet it will be impossible for the ECB Governing Council to reach any conclusions on their next step(s) at the June meeting because the very nature of the ECB's inflation target might soon change. The ECB is currently conducting a review of its monetary policy strategy – the first since 2003 – that is scheduled for completion later this year. Some adjustment to the ECB inflation target is expected to allow more flexibility, but it is not yet clear what that change will look like. Could the ECB follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and move to an “average inflation target” regime, tolerating overshoots of the inflation target after periods of below-target inflation? ECB Chief Economist Philip Lane noted back in March that “there was a very strong logic” to the Fed’s new approach. He also said that the “very different histories of inflation” in some European countries may make it difficult to reach an agreement on any system that allows even temporary periods of higher inflation.2 More recently, Bank of Finland Governor Olli Rehn – a moderate member of the Governing Council who was considered a candidate for the current ECB presidency – came out in favor of the ECB shifting to a Fed-like average inflation target for Europe in a recent Financial Times interview.3 Rehn noted that a Fed-like focus on aiming for maximum unemployment “makes sense in the current context of a lower natural rate of interest.” Rehn went on to describe the ECB’s current wording of its inflation target as having “generated a perception of asymmetry” such that “2 per cent is perceived as a ceiling and that is dampening inflation expectations.” We imagine that Jens Weidmann from the Bundesbank would vehemently oppose any move to change the ECB inflation target to tolerate even a temporary period of inflation above 2%. German headline HICP inflation already reached 2.1% in April, with more increases likely as the German economy reopens from extended pandemic lockdowns. Yet even if Weidmann were to not dig in his heels against any “loosening” of the ECB inflation target, the looming conclusion of the ECB strategy review makes it highly unlikely that any change in policy – like tapering – could credibly be announced before then. If higher inflation will be tolerated, then why bother to taper at all? Looking beyond the inflation strategy review, there are other factors that could weigh on the ECB in its deliberations on the next monetary policy move: China policy tightening: China – Europe’s largest trading partner – has seen its policymakers begin to rein in credit growth, and fiscal spending, after allowing a surge in borrowing in 2020 to help boost growth during the pandemic. Our measure of the China credit impulse leads the annual growth rate of European exports to China by around nine months (Chart 7), and is flagging a dramatic slowing of exports in the latter half of this year. This represents a downside risk to euro area growth, particularly in countries that export more heavily to China like Germany. Slowing loan growth: The annual growth rate of overall euro area bank lending peaked at 12.2% back in February and is now down to 10.9% (Chart 8). Much of the softening has occurred in Germany and France – countries that had seen a big take-up of subsidized bank funding through the ECB’s TLTROs. The pricing incentives set up by the ECB for the latest TLTRO program were highly attractive, and it appears that German and French banks took advantage of the cheap funding to ramp up lending activity. This makes the economic interpretation of the bank lending data more challenging for the ECB, especially with Italian loan growth – and TLTRO usage – now accelerating. Chart 7Warning Signs For European Export Demand Chart 8ECB LTROs Are Becoming Italy-Focused NGEU spending: As mentioned earlier, disbursements from the €750bn NGEU (a.k.a. “recovery fund”) are expected to begin later this year, pending EU approval of government investment proposals. NGEU funds are intended to finance initiatives that can boost future economic growth, like investments in digital and green programs. Most euro area countries have already submitted their proposals, led by Italy’s request for €192bn. Chart 9NGEU Will Give A Big Boost To European Growth Over The Next Five Years Chart 10NGEU Impact Will Be Front Loaded A recent study by S&P Global concluded that NGEU investments could boost overall euro area growth by between 1.3 and 3.9 percentage points, cumulatively, between 2021 and 2026 (Chart 9).4 That same study also noted that the impacts of the spending will be front-loaded over the next two years (Chart 10). The Italian government believes that NGEU investment could double Italy’s anemic trend growth rate to 1.5%. Many ECB officials have noted that NGEU is the kind of structural fiscal stimulus that makes it less necessary to maintain highly accommodative monetary policy. Until the NGEU proposals are finalized and the final approved amounts are dispersed, however, the ECB will be unable to adjust its economic forecasts to account for more government investment. Given all of these immediate uncertainties, including how successfully Europe can reopen from pandemic lockdowns, we do not see a plausible scenario where the ECB Governing Council could conclude at the June policy meeting that an immediate change in the current monetary policy tools and guidance was needed. Bottom Line: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. Likely ECB Next Moves & Investment Implications While a June taper announcement from the ECB is unlikely, a hint towards a future move is quite possible. The ECB is notorious for preparing markets well in advance of any policy shifts, thus the official statement following the June meeting – as well as ECB President Lagarde’s press conference – could contain clues as to what the ECB will do next. Chart 11ECB Easing Takes Many Forms A discussion of what will happen with the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – which is scheduled to end next March – could come up in June. We deem it more likely that the topic will be raised at the September policy meeting when there will be more clarity on the success of the reopening of Europe’s economy, and to the final approved size of the NGEU funds, which will determine the need to maintain an asset purchase program introduced because of the COVID-19 shock. There are certainly many policy options available for the ECB to choose from when they do decide to dial back accommodation. There are several policy interest rates that could be adjusted. Although it is likely that when the ECB next tries to hike interest rates, the first rate to move will be the overnight deposit rate which is currently at -0.5% and represents the “floor” for short-term interest rates in Europe (Chart 11). Rate hikes will not occur before the balance sheet tools are reduced or unwound, however, which means asset purchases will be dialed back first. Market participants are well aware of that order of policy choices, as a very flat path for short-term interest rates is currently discounted in the European overnight index swap (OIS) curve. The spread between forward rates in the OIS and CPI swap curves can be used as a proxy for the market forward pricing of real interest rates. Currently, the market-implied real ECB policy rate is expected to stay between -2% and -1% over the next decade (Chart 12). Put another way, the markets are pricing in a very flat path for ECB policy rates that will stay below expected inflation over the next ten years. While the natural real rate of interest in Europe is likely very low given low trend growth, a real rate as low as -2% discounts a lot of bad structural news for the European economy. By comparison, the NY Fed’s last estimate of the natural real rate (r-star) for Europe – calculated in Q2/2020 before the economic volatility surrounding the pandemic made r-star estimation more unreliable – was positive at +0.6%. The prolonged path of negative expected real interest rates in Europe goes a long way in explaining the persistence of negative real bond yields in the benchmark German government yield curve. Simply put, there is little belief that the ECB will ever be able to engineer a full-blown rate hike cycle – an outcome that Japanese fixed income investors are quite familiar with. Given the ECB’s constant worry about the level of the euro, and its role in impacting European growth and inflation expectations, markets are correct in thinking that it will be difficult for the ECB to lift rates much without triggering unwanted currency appreciation. It is no coincidence that the euro has been consistently undervalued on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis ever since the ECB moved to a negative interest rate policy back in 2014 (Chart 13). Chart 12Markets Expect Negative European Real Rates For The Next Decade Looking ahead, the ECB will need to be careful about signaling any changes in monetary policy, including tapering, that would force markets to revise up the future path of European interest rates and give the euro a large boost. Chart 13Low ECB Rates Keeping The Euro Undervalued That means that European real bond yields are likely to stay deeply negative over at least the latter half of 2021, with any additional nominal yield increases coming from higher inflation expectations (Chart 14). This will limit how much more European bond yields can rise from current levels. Chart 14European Bond Strategy Summary We continue to believe that core European bond yields will trade with a “low yield beta” to US Treasury yields over at least the second half of 2021 and likely into 2022 when we expect the Fed to begin tapering its bond buying. Thus, we are sticking with our strategic recommendation to overweight core European government bonds versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. We simply see greater odds of a taper occurring in the US than in Europe, with the Fed more likely to deliver subsequent post-taper rate hikes than the ECB. We still recommend a moderately below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated European bond portfolios, although if the 10-year German bund yield rises significantly into positive territory, we would likely look to raise our suggested European duration exposure. We are also maintaining our recommended overweight on European inflation-linked bonds, as breakeven spreads in Germany, France and Italy are the only ones that remain below fair value in our suite of global valuation models. On European credit, we continue to recommend overweighting spread product versus sovereign bonds. That includes Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well as both investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. The time to turn more bearish on those markets will be when the ECB does begin to taper its asset purchases, as credit spreads have tended to widen during periods when the growth of the ECB’s balance sheet has been decelerating (Chart 15). We expect that when the ECB does finally decide to taper, the net amount of TLTROs will likely be maintained near current levels (by introducing new TLTROs to replace expiring ones). This will ensure that borrowing costs in the more fragile countries like Italy do not spike higher from the double-whammy of reduced ECB buying of Italian bonds and diminished access to cheap ECB bank funding. One final note – we are introducing a new trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19 this week, as a way to fade the markets pricing in a more hawkish ECB outlook. A 10bp rate hike – the most likely size of any first attempt for the ECB to lift rates – is now priced in the OIS curve around mid-2023. By the end of 2023, nearly 25bps of hikes are discounted in forward rate curves. We do not expect the ECB to lift rates at all in 2023, but even if rates were increased, a cumulative 25bps of hikes within six months is unlikely to be delivered. Thus, we recommend going long the December 2023 3-month Euribor interest rate futures contract at an entry price of 100.27 (Chart 16). Chart 15ECB Tapering Would Be Bad News For European Credit Chart 16Go Long Dec/2023 Euribor Futures Bottom Line: The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 NAIRU is an acronym for the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. 2 Lane’s comments came from a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times published on March 16, 2021, which can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 Rehn’s comments were published earlier this month on May 9 and can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 The S&P Global report, titled “Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear”, can be found here: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 19 at 10:00 AM EDT, 3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 11:00 PM HKT). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights The US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. On a multi-year horizon, a deflationary shock is a near-certainty. The shock will be deflationary, because even if it starts inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields resulting from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Hence, the US 30-year bond will ultimately deliver an absolute return approaching 100 percent, in absolute terms… …and relative to core European and Japanese bonds. Fractal trade shortlist: Stocks to consolidate versus bonds; Commodities look dangerously frothy; Buy USD/CAD. Feature Chart of The WeekThe Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks Ten years ago, 30-year bond yields in the US, UK and Germany stood at near-identical levels, around 3 percent. Today though, those yields are widely dispersed: the US at 2.3 percent, the UK at 1.3 percent, and Germany at 0.3 percent. What happened? In 2012, the German bond yield decoupled from the UK and the US, because the deflationary shock from the euro debt crisis was focussed in the euro area. Then, in 2016, the UK bond yield decoupled from the US, because the deflationary shock from Brexit was focussed in the UK and EU27 (Chart Of The Week). The ‘Shock Theory’ Of Bond Yields Welcome to a new concept – the ‘shock theory’ of bond yields. According to this theory, the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that the economy has suffered. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level until it can go no lower (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Since 2011, US, UK and German bond yields have decoupled because the US has suffered the legacies of one fewer deflationary shock than the UK, and two fewer deflationary shocks than Germany. But the important corollary is that the US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. When that deflationary shock arrives and the US 30-year bond yield reaches the recent low achieved in the UK, it will equate to a price gain of over 50 percent. And if the yield reaches the recent low achieved in Germany, it will equate to a price gain of well over 100 percent. Many people say that such gains are impossible. Yet ten years ago these same people were saying that UK and German long-duration bonds could never reach near-zero yields, and look what happened! Our high-conviction view is that the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. The simple reason is that another deflationary shock is just a matter of time away. Long-Term Investors Must Always Plan For A Shock Most strategists and investors claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable, and therefore that you cannot plan for them. We disagree. Yes, the timing and nature of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. What constitutes a shock? There is no established definition, so our definition is any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 25 percent.1 (Chart I-3) Using this definition through the last 50 years, we can say that the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the statistical distribution of the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-3A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years It follows that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-4). And even in any five-year period, the likelihood of a shock is an extremely high 81 percent. Chart I-4On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty For many people, this creates a cognitive dissonance. Even though a shock is a near-certainty, they cannot visualise its exact nature or timing, so they resist planning for it. Yet long-term investors must always plan for shocks. Not to do so is unforgiveable. An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock The crucial question is, will the next shock be deflationary, or inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if the shock starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields that would come from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. The 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. As prices doubled almost everywhere, the value of global real estate surged by $150 trillion (Chart I-5), of which $75 trillion was due to the valuation uplift from lower bond yields (Chart I-6). To put this into context, lower bond yields have boosted the value of global real estate by the equivalent of world GDP! Chart I-5In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Surged By $150 Trillion… Chart I-6…Of Which $75 Trillion Was Due To Lower Bond Yields Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock is much lower than during price stability. For example, for equities in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But in the inflation shock of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed How much can bond yields rise before undermining the value of global real estate? Over the past decade the global rental yield has not been able to deviate from the global long-duration bond yield by more than 100 bps.2 Given that the bond yield is already around 25 bps above the rental yield, we deduce that the long-duration bond yield can rise by no more than 75 bps before global real estate prices start getting hurt (Chart I-8).  Chart I-8The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt To repeat our key structural recommendation, the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week we note that the rally in stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) is likely to consolidate in the coming months – given the fragility in the 260-day fractal structure similar to previous turning points in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months We also repeat our warning to steer clear of commodities. The rally in all commodities is becoming dangerously frothy, displaying the extremes of fractal fragility seen in 2008. (Chart I-10and Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... Chart I-11...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 A good trade right now is to short the Canadian dollar. Based on the loonie’s composite fractal structure, a lot of good news is already priced in, including the dangerously frothy commodity markets and the Bank of Canada’s (hawkish) taper of asset purchases. As such we expect the Canadian dollar to reverse in the coming months (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short The Canadian Dollar Go long USD/CAD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 Here, the global long-duration bond yield is defined as the average of the 30-year yields in the US and China. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Global Tapering: The Bank of England has joined the Bank of Canada as central banks tapering the pace of bond buying. Markets are now trying to sort out who is next and concluding that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. US Treasury Curve: We are adding a new recommended US butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell using US Treasury futures. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Feature Heading into 2021, one of our key investment themes for the year was that no major central bank would shift to a less dovish monetary policy stance before the Fed. Not even five months into the year, our theme has already been proven incorrect. Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) announced a slower pace of its asset purchases, following a similar tapering decision by the Bank of Canada (BoC) last month. Chart of the WeekUS Jobs Recovery Lagging, Despite Vaccine Success We had assumed that no central bank could tolerate the currency strength that would inevitably occur by tapering ahead of the Fed. That was clearly not the case in Canada, and the Canadian dollar has already appreciated 4.6% versus the greenback since the BoC taper announcement April 21. The British pound also rallied solidly against both the US dollar and euro immediately after the BoE taper announcement last week. Markets are beginning to speculate on future taper candidates, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), with the New Zealand dollar being one of the strongest currencies in the G10 versus the US dollar since the end of March (+4.4%). Investors had been debating the possibility that the Fed could begin tapering sometime in the second half of 2020, largely based on what has to date been a successful US vaccination campaign. Yet while that led to optimism that the US economy can quickly reopen and return to normal, the fact remains that the recovery in US employment from the COVID shock has lagged other major economies (Chart of the Week). The big downside miss on the April US payrolls report highlights how the Fed can be patient before joining the tapering club. US Treasury yields are likely to continue trading sideways, and the US dollar will trade soft, until markets can sort out the true state of US labor demand versus supply. Which Central Bank Could Follow The BoC And BoE? Back in March, we published a report that discussed what we called the “pecking order of global liftoff”.1 We looked at how interest rate markets were pricing in an increasingly diverse path out of the coordinated global monetary easing enacted last year during the COVID recession (Chart 2). We looked at both the timing of “liftoff” (the first rate hike) and the pace of hikes afterward to the end of 2024. We then ranked the countries by the market-implied timing of liftoff. Chart 2Sorting Out The Relative Hawks & Doves Among Global CBs At the time, overnight index swap (OIS) curves were discounting the earliest liftoff from the RBNZ (June 2022) and BoC (August 2022). The Fed was expected to hike in January 2023, followed by the BoE in June 2023 and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in July 2023. The European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) were the laggards, with no rate hiked discounted until September 2023 and February 2025, respectively. In terms of the pace of rate hikes after liftoff through 2024, our list was broken into two groups. The more aggressive central banks were expected to be the BoC (+175bps), RBA (+156bps), RBNZ (+140bps) and the Fed (+139bps). Much smaller amounts of rate hikes were anticipated from the BoE (+63bps), ECB (+25bps) and BoJ (+9bps). In the two months since our March report, the market timing of liftoff, and the pace of subsequent hikes, has shifted for all those countries (Table 1). The BoC is now expected to move in September 2022, ahead of the RBNZ (October 2022). In 2023, the Fed is now priced for liftoff in March 2023, followed by the BoE and RBA (both in July 2023). The ECB liftoff date is little changed (now August 2023), while the market has dramatically pushed out the timing of any BoJ hike (now November 2025). The cumulative rate hikes through 2024 are moderately lower for all countries except Australia (a reduction in total tightening of 56bps). Table 1The Fed Is Sliding Down The “Pecking Order Of Liftoff” List What is interesting about these changes is that the market has pulled forward the timing of liftoff for the BoE and RBA, while pushing it out for the BoC, RBNZ, BoJ and, most importantly, the Fed. The Fed is now drifting down the “pecking order” for liftoff, expected to lift rates only a couple of months before the BoE or RBA. This is a major change from previous monetary policy cycles, when the Fed would typically be a first mover when it comes to tightening policy. Chart 3The Momentum Of Global QE Has Already Been Slowing While the BoC and BoE decisions to taper quantitative easing (QE) have garnered the headlines, the pace of global central bank balance sheet expansion had already peaked at the start of 2021 (Chart 3). The pace has slowed most dramatically in Canada and the US, but this was a result of certain emergency programs expiring – most notably the Fed’s corporate bond buying vehicles late last year and the BoC’s short-term repo facilities more recently. Greater financial market stability was the reason cited to end those programs, while still leaving government bond QE buying in place unchanged. The year-over-year pace of global QE was set to slow, simply from less favorable comparisons to 2020 after the surge in central bank balance sheet expansion last year. Yet now we are starting to see actual tapering of government bond purchases from some central banks. Is such “early tightening” warranted? Back in that same March report where we discussed the order of global liftoff, we gave our assessment of the most important factors that could drive central banks to consider a shift to a less dovish stance (like tapering). For the BoC, we cited booming house prices and robust business confidence as reasons the BoC could turn less dovish sooner (Chart 4). For the BoE, we noted a sharper-than-expected recovery in domestic investment and consumer spending, as the locked-down UK economy reopens, as reasons why the BoE could begin to tweak its policy settings. For both central banks, all those indicators were mentioned as factors leading to their decision to taper. For the Fed, we determined that rising inflation expectations and increasing labor market tightness would both be required for the Fed to turn less dovish. Only inflation expectations have reached that goal, with the US Employment/Population ratio still well below the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 5). For the RBA, we looked solely at realized inflation measures, as the RBA has explicitly noted that Australian wage growth must rise sustainably towards 3% - nearly double current levels - before realized CPI inflation could return to the 2-3% target range. For both the Fed and RBA, the necessary conditions for a change in current policy settings have not yet been met. Chart 4What The More Hawkish CBs Are Watching Chart 5What The More Dovish CBs Are Watching For the ECB, we noted that realized inflation (and the ECB’s inflation forecasts), along with the Italy-Germany government bond spread as a measure of financial conditions, were the most important indicators to watch before the ECB could consider any move to taper its QE programs (Chart 6). Italian spreads have widened a bit in recent months, while the latest set of ECB economic forecasts still call for headline euro area inflation to remain well south of the 2% target out to 2023. For the BoJ, we simply cited a rise in realized inflation as the only possible development that could lead to a BoJ taper. The BoJ now forecasts that Japanese inflation will not reach the 2% central bank target until at least 2024. So for both the ECB and BoJ, the conditions do not warrant any imminent tapering of bond buying. Chart 6What The Most Dovish CBs Are Watching As another way to determine who could taper next, we turn to our Central Bank Monitors, which are designed to measure the pressure on policymakers to ease or tighten monetary setting. All the Monitors have responded to the recovery in global growth and inflation, along with the easing of financial conditions implied by booming markets, over the past year. Yet only the RBA Monitor is calling for tightening (Chart 7), indicating that the RBA’s current focus on only wages and realized inflation is a departure from their behavior in the past. The Fed and BoE Monitors have risen to the zero line, suggesting no further pressure to ease policy but no tightening is needed either. The ECB, BoJ and RBNZ Monitors are all close, but just below, the zero line, suggesting diminishing need for more monetary stimulus (Chart 8). Chart 7Bond Yields Have Moved Ahead Of Our CB Monitors Chart 8Yields Overshooting Tightening Pressures Here Too Based on our assessment of the above indicators, we judge the RBNZ to be the next central bank most likely to taper, sometime in the 2nd half of 2021. We still see the Fed starting to signal tapering later this year, but with actual slowing of US Treasury (and Agency MBS) purchases not occurring until early 2022. The year-over-year momentum of bond yields correlates strongly with the Central Bank Monitors. The rise in global bond yields seen over the past year has exceeded the pace implied by the Monitors. This is unsurprising given how rapidly the global economy has recovered from pandemic-fueled recession in 2020. Supply chain disruptions and surging commodity prices have also given a lift to bond yields via rising inflation expectations, even as central banks have promised to keep rates on hold for at least the next couple of years. Yet purely from a monetary policy perspective, the surge in global bond yields looks to have gone a bit too far, too fast. Bottom Line: Markets are now trying to sort out who will taper next after the BoC and BoE, and have concluded that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. Bond yields in other developed markets appear to have overshot economic momentum, and a period of consolidation is needed before yields can begin moving higher again. US Treasury Curve: How Much Steepening Left? Chart 9A Pause In The UST Bear-Steepening Trend For most of the past year, the primary trend in the US Treasury curve has been one of bear steepening. Longer maturity yields have borne the brunt of the upward pressure stemming from the rapid recovery in US (and global) economic growth from the depths of the 2020 COVID-19 recession. In recent weeks, however, the surge in longer-maturity Treasury yields has stalled, as have the immediate steepening pressures (Chart 9). Purely from a fundamental economic perspective, a steepening Treasury curve is an expected result of the reflationary mix of growth, inflation and monetary policy currently at work in the US. For example, since the 2020 lows, 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from the TIPS market have risen 143bps while the ISM manufacturing index surged from a low of 41 to a high of 65 in March of this year (Chart 10). Combine that with the Fed cutting rates to 0% last year, while promising to keep rates unchanged through 2023 and reinforcing that commitment through QE, and it is no surprise to see a steeper US Treasury curve. Chart 10UST Curve Steepening Has Been Driven By Reflation Yet even despite these obvious steepening pressures, the pace of the Treasury curve steepening does seem to be a bit rapid compared to history. In Chart 11, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis, comparing the slope of various US Treasury curve segments (2-year versus 5-year, 5-year versus 10-year, 10-year versus 30-year) to the average of the previous five US business cycles, dating back to the 1970s. The curves are lined up to the start date of the previous recession, with the vertical line in the chart representing that date. Thus, this chart allows us to see how the Treasury curve evolved heading into, and coming out of, economic downturns. Chart 11 shows that the current 2-year/5-year curve, with a steepness of 63bps, is in line with past steepening moves coming out of recession. For the curve segments at longer maturities, the pace of steepening has been much more rapid than in the past. In fact, the current 5-year/10-year slope of 82bps is already above the average past peak level, as is the 10-year/30-year curve of 72bps. If we do the same cycle-on-cycle analysis for the three previous US recessions dating back to 1990, the current curve slopes are more in line with levels seen one year into the economic expansion (Chart 12). During those previous cycles, the curve steepening trend ended around two years into the expansion. This suggests that the current curve steepening could continue into 2022, except for one major difference – the Fed cut rates to 0% very rapidly last year, far faster than in the previous easing cycles. This suggests that additional curve steepening from current levels can only occur through a surge in US inflation. Chart 11Current UST Steepening Has Moved Fast Compared To Past Cycles Chart 12Can More UST Curve Steepening Occur With A 0% Funds Rate? The slope of the Treasury curve is typically correlated to the level of the nominal fed funds rate, but is even more strongly correlated to the funds rate minus actual inflation, or the real fed funds rate. When the real funds rate is below the natural real rate of interest, a.k.a. r-star, the Treasury curve has historically exhibited its strongest steepening trend. That can be seen in Chart 13, where we show the real fed funds rate (adjusted by US core CPI inflation) compared to the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star. The gap between the two series is shown in the bottom panel, correlating very strongly to the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve slope. Chart 13Curve Steepening Results When Real Rates Are Below R* With the nominal funds rate at zero, that gap between r-star and the real fed funds rate can only widen in a fashion that would support more curve steepening if a) realized US inflation moves higher or b) r-star moves higher. Both outcomes are possible as the US economic recovery, fueled by expanding vaccinations and fiscal stimulus. Both real rates and r-star are much lower in the current cycle than in previous economic recoveries, although the r-star/real funds rate gap appears to be following a more typical path that suggests potential additional steepening pressure (Chart 14). The wild card in this analysis is the Fed itself. If US economic growth and inflation evolve in way that makes it more likely the Fed would have to begin tapering QE and, eventually, signal future rate hikes, the Treasury curve may shift to a more typical bear-flattening trend seen during tightening cycles. We saw an example of that after the release of the March US employment report, where over a million jobs were created in a single month, causing 5-year Treasury yields to jump higher than longer-maturity Treasuries (i.e. curve flattening). Looking ahead, it appears that the US yield curve is more likely to slowly transition to a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime than continue the bear-steepening/bull-flattening: trend of the past twelve months. One way to position for this is to enter into butterfly curve trades that offer attractive carry or valuation. For that, we turn to our Treasury curve valuation models. We have been recommending a Treasury yield curve trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19, going long a 7-year bullet versus going short a 5-year/10-year barbell (Chart 15). This barbell is now very cheap on our models, which measure value by regressing the butterfly spread on the underlying slope of the curve. In this case, the spread between the 5/7/10 butterfly is unusually wide compared to the slope of the 5/10 Treasury curve. According to our model, this butterfly spread discounts nearly 100bps of additional 5/10 steepening, an excessive amount compared to past cycles. Chart 14R* - Real Funds Rate Gap Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Chart 15Maintain Our Current 5/7/10 UST Butterfly Trade While the valuation is attractive on the 5/7/10 butterfly (Table 2), the carry on this position is a modest 12bps. A butterfly with more attractive carry is the 2/5/30 butterfly. Table 2US Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 3US Butterfly Strategies: Carry Chart 16Enter A New 2/5/30 UST Butterfly Trade This butterfly has a neutral valuation (Chart 16) on our model, but offers 35bps of carry - the most attractive among all butterflies involving a 5-year bullet (Table 3). With US Treasury yields, and the Treasury curve slope, likely to remain rangebound for the next few months, going for higher carry trades is an attractive strategy – particularly if used in conjunction with a below-benchmark duration stance, which we still advocate. The 2/5/30 butterfly represents an attractive near-term hedge to that more defensive duration posture. Bottom Line: We are adding a new recommended US Treasury butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", dated March 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns