Developed Countries

Highlights The Biden administration faces significant risks from outside the US economy – our third “key view” for 2022. The Ukraine conflict brings one external risk to the forefront. These external risks would exacerbate the global supply squeeze, potentially pushing up commodity prices until they start to kill demand. Investors should prepare for oil price overshoots.  Exogenous risks – such as foreign policy crises – rarely help the president’s party in the midterm election. Any crisis that adds to short-term inflation will hurt the ruling party. Tactically we continue to prefer defensive equities. Close our tactical long industrials / short consumer discretionary trade for a gain of 11.6%. Close long energy stocks for a 15.6% gain and convert to long energy small caps versus large caps. Buy the dip in cyber security stocks. Feature Stock market volatility is back, thanks in no small part to external risks such as Europe’s energy shortage and Russia’s conflict with the West over Ukraine. In our forecast for 2022, we highlighted the Biden administration’s external risks as our third key view. The rapidly deteriorating geopolitical situation was one of several reasons behind this view and it has now clearly moved to the forefront. In this report we highlight the consequences for domestic-oriented US investors. Biden’s immediate external risks, if they materialize, will increase the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress, causing US fiscal policy to freeze and driving policy uncertainty and the dollar upward. For detailed coverage of the Ukraine conflict and its global geopolitical, macro, and market implications please refer to our Geopolitical Strategy reports. Why Is Biden Vulnerable To External Risks The Biden administration and the Democratic Party face serious external risks in 2022. The Omicron variant and global supply constraints are a major factor. Also the US’s domestic political divisions invite challenges from abroad. President Biden is politically weak ahead of midterm elections on November 8. His net approval rating is under water at -10 percentage points. Republicans are now leading the generic congressional ballot with 45.5% support against Democrats’ 41.8%. On a deeper level, Democrats are beset by a socialist fringe on their left wing, making it difficult to pass legislation, and an enthusiastic nationalist opposition movement with a viable challenger for the presidency in 2024 (former President Trump). At best they will pass one more major bill this year before Congress gets gridlocked. Foreign rivals have an advantage in this context. America’s chief rivals face limited political constraints at home (no midterm elections) but they can make low-cost, high-impact threats against the Biden administration through their leverage over the global supply chain and hence voters’ pocketbooks. External Risks Are Inflationary (At Least At First) External risks begin with inflation. The US’s large imbalance of investment over savings is evident in a current account deficit of 3.3% and deteriorating terms of trade. American demand is exceedingly strong due to accumulated household savings, a new capex cycle, and lingering effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Yet global supply is impeded. Import prices are rising at a 5.7% rate, the fastest since the BLS started the series in 2010, while imports from China are rising at a 4.7% clip. China’s “zero Covid” policy implies that supply disruptions will keep up the inflationary pressure this year (Chart 1, first panel). The US is also importing inflation from rising commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices have risen to $83 per barrel and average gasoline prices stand at $3.3. With global supply-demand balances tight, WTI prices should average $77 per barrel this year and $78 next year, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy. In this context, unplanned supply disruptions are likely and will put more pressure on the supply side. Any conflicts with oil producers such as Russia and Iran will backfire in the form of higher prices at the pump (Chart 1, second panel). Yet geopolitical competitors (Russia, Iran, China) have unfinished business with the US stemming from the Trump administration. It is also possible that Biden could negotiate diplomatic solutions, reducing the risk of an oil price spike, but that is not the current trajectory. Chart 1Biden's External Risks Are Inflationary For Now Interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve will not easily control inflation derived from external sources and supply constraints. They will take time to dampen domestic demand. Yet voters usually solidify their opinions by mid-summer. Inflation may not have come down much by that time. Biden and the Democratic Party are at the mercy of the global supply chain. In this context Russia deliberately forced its way to the top of the US and global agenda by demanding that the West renounce any attempt to threaten its national security via Ukraine or the former Soviet Union. Energy Shock From Russia? The Ukraine crisis threatens an increase in global energy prices. Russia provides 8% of Europe’s commodity imports, 18% of its energy imports, and 16% of its natural gas imports (Chart 2). Russia is already withholding energy supplies from Europe, helping push natural gas prices up by 122% since last August. If war ignites, Russia could reduce energy flows to Ukraine and hence to the rest of Europe. Europe would not be willing to impose as harsh of sanctions as the US because its energy supply depends on it. The US can increase exports to Europe but it cannot replace Russia without depriving its other allies and partners, including India, Japan, and South Korea (Chart 3). The squeeze will cause prices to rise at first but if it is not addressed by higher output from the US and OPEC 2.0, then demand will be destroyed. Note that in 1979, 2008, and 2014, Russian military invasions coincided with a peak in global oil prices. Chart 2Geopolitical Risks Cause Resource Squeeze Chart 3Can US Replace Russia For Europe? Not Really. If other supply problems emerged simultaneously, the slowdown could be especially disruptive. If US-Iran negotiations fail, then another energy supply risk will emerge immediately this spring. The implication is not only a rise in oil prices but also a resilient dollar, which is also the implication of the Fed’s looming rate hikes. Defensive plays would tend to beat cyclical plays, at least in the short run until the crisis abates. But it is important to look at previous examples of Russian aggression to test this hypothesis. US Market Response To Russian Belligerence When Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, the attack had limited impact on global financial markets, which were focused on the subprime mortgage crisis unfolding on Wall Street. Naturally stocks underperformed bonds, cyclicals underperformed defensives, and value went sideways against growth. Small caps rallied at first versus large caps but then hit a turning point from outperformance to underperformance (Chart 4). Note that the invasion began while President Putin watched the summer Olympics live in Beijing. So one cannot rule out a limited military action against Ukraine in the near term just because Putin is also headed to Beijing for this winter’s Olympics. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, seizing the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, the attack had a greater impact on global financial markets than with Georgia, although Ukraine’s relevance to the global economy was (and is) still limited. Chart 4Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Georgia, 2008 Chart 5Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Ukraine, 2014 Bonds outperformed stocks, cyclicals were flat-to-up against defensives (energy clearly outperformed defensives), and small caps stumbled but then beat out large caps (Chart 5). Energy stocks theoretically stood to benefit but crashed later that year due to supply glut and China policy tightening. In 2022 the situation is different from these previous Russian invasions in that the world is already in the thrall of an energy supply squeeze brought on by various factors. China’s economy is growing slowly but authorities are easing policy. A comparison of the winter of 2021-22 with that of 2013-14, when Russia invaded Crimea, suggests that energy stocks have already far outpaced growth and defensives (Chart 6). Energy small caps, however, could rally substantially against large cap peers. Tactically US investors should maintain a risk-averse positioning until the Russians make a military decision and the West announces its retaliatory measures. This analysis suggests that cyclicals and small caps face volatility but can ultimately grind higher after the onset of any new war in Ukraine. The magnitude of the war will obviously matter, which is why we maintain a defensive tactical positioning. The next question centers on the medium-term policy impact of Biden’s external risks. Chart 6Market Context: 2022 Versus 2014 Implications For US Midterms And Policy It is possible that Biden’s external risks will play a role in the 2022 midterms. It depends on which risks materialize. Most likely a Russian re-invasion of Ukraine would have a negative effect on the Democrats, especially if it adds to voters’ inflation woes. Major foreign policy successes or failures have a substantial impact on a president’s re-election chances but midterms are less obvious. Midterms almost always go against the president’s party because the previous election’s losers turn out in droves while winners sit home in complacency or disillusionment. The midterm electorate tends to be older, whiter, and more educated than the presidential electorate. Chart 7 shows only midterm elections in which external risks – such as foreign policy – played a major role. In the House, the only time the president’s party gained seats was in 2002, though it only lost four seats in 1962. In the Senate, the president’s party gained seats in 1962, 2002, and 2018 and only lost 2 seats in 1954. From these points we can draw the following conclusions: Chart 7US Midterm Elections: Ruling Party Performance Amid Foreign Policy Crises Foreign policy crises do not generally help the president’s party. While major crises like 9/11 helped the Republicans, and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis minimized Democrats’ losses, nevertheless the 1942 midterm occurred after Pearl Harbor and the Democrats lost seats. Minor crises like the 1958 “Lebanon Crisis” also do not help. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 falls under this category and did not help President Obama’s Democrats. A major threat to the homeland can help the president’s party on the margin. This is the significance of 1962 and 2002. The ruling party either minimized losses or made absolute gains in the House, while gaining seats in the Senate. (The 2018 midterm is the other case in which the president’s party gained Senate seats, amid President Trump’s trade war with China, but Republicans suffered heavily in the House.) Wartime escalation and entanglement hurt the president’s party. President Johnson’s Democrats suffered deep losses in 1966, as did President George W. Bush’s Republicans in 2006. Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan was not the main issue but did not help his party in 2010. Ceasefires and peace treaties do not help the president’s party, even when the end of the war is seen as a victory. World War I was drawing to a close in 1918 but Democrats suffered for having gotten the US involved. Democrats also lost in 1946, despite US triumph in WWII. The Korean war ended on a far more ambivalent note and Republicans suffered at the ballot box. Vietnam was drawing to an ignominious close in 1974, which also occurred in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, recession, and Watergate scandal, so no surprise Republicans lost seats. If there is a foreign policy crisis this year, the “best case” for Biden’s Democrats – in crass political terms – would be one that engenders a patriotic rally, like happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11. If Democrats only lose four seats in 2022, like Kennedy in 1962, they will have a one-seat majority in the House. However, this best-case scenario is unlikely. As noted, 1962 and 2002 consisted of direct threats to the US homeland. All other crises either hurt or did not help the president’s party. In 2014, while voters had other things on their minds that year, Russia’s invasion of Crimea reinforced criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy already centered on Libya, Syria, and Iran. Obama responded with sanctions and aid to Ukraine, as Biden threatens to do today. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate. A similar negative impact should be expected if Russia re-invades in 2022. Biden is already vulnerable: his approval rating collapsed after his messy withdrawal from Afghanistan (reinforcing the fourth bullet about ending wars above). A new foreign policy crisis could cement the narrative of foreign policy incompetence. It matters a great deal whether an exogenous crisis automatically hurts the voter’s pocketbook. If it does, then any initial rally around the flag will fade over time, leaving the negative material impact behind and angering voters. In 1974, President Ford’s approval rating shot up above 50% as he took over from Nixon, yet his party still suffered from the inflationary economic backdrop and dour foreign policy backdrop. In 1978, President Carter’s approval rating also recovered to nearly 50% in time for the vote but it was not enough to overcome inflationary malaise – and Iranian oil strikes began in September (Chart 8). If we subtract the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) from the president’s approval rating, we see that Kennedy had a 70% approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Bush had a 62% approval in 2002. But Johnson and Carter were sinking toward 35% during their first midterms, which is where Biden stands today (Chart 9). Chart 8Different Reactions For Different Crises Chart 9Best And Worst Case Scenarios Of Foreign Policy Crisis For Democrats Thus Biden’s external risks, depending on which ones materialize, suggest that the Democratic Party will face another headwind in November. Democrats are very likely to lose the House and somewhat likely to lose the Senate. Gridlock is already setting in – as will be apparent with the potential government shutdown over the February 18 deadline to pass spending bills. But the midterm will formalize it. Policy uncertainty will continue to creep up and weigh on investor risk appetite this year. In other words, even if cyclicals rally through a Ukraine conflict, they may not outperform defensives later this year. Investment Takeaways Cyclically we are booking an 15.6% gain on our long energy trade and will convert it to a long US energy small caps relative to large caps trade. The external risks highlighted in this report would push up oil prices at least initially (Chart 10). However, volatility will pick up from here. OPEC 2.0 will want to keep Brent crude prices from settling above the $90 per barrel that starts to crimp demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy argues. Higher prices will also encourage new production, including from the US shale patch (Chart 11). Note that energy stocks, like other cyclicals, tend to underperform during midterm election years as policy uncertainty affects markets. Chart 10Book Gains On Tactical Long Energy Equities Trade Chart 11US Oil Producers Will Step Up  Tactically we recommend closing our long industrials / short consumer discretionary for a gain of 11.6%. Normally, consumer discretionary stocks are the best performing sector during midterm election years while industrials are the worst. But because of China’s policy easing, we took a tactical bet that the opposite would occur at the start of the year. However, external risks should now cause this situation to reverse by pushing up the dollar, penalizing industrials, without hurting the American consumer too much (Chart 12). Industrial equities are pricing in strong capex intentions but geopolitical conflicts would weigh on those intentions, while new orders and core durable goods orders could suffer a bit (Chart 13). The midterms will come into focus later this year and weigh on industrials as well. Chart 12Close Long Industrials Trade For Now Chart 13Industrials Still Attractive On Cyclical Basis Cyclically stick with cyber security stocks. They have sold off along with the tech sector as interest rates rise. But long cyber security is a secular investment thesis based on digitization of the economy, rising cyber crime, and geopolitical risk. Tensions with Russia, proxied by the fall in the ruble and rise in aerospace/defense stocks, point to the fact that investors recognize international tensions will remain high (Chart 14). Cyber space will remain an area of conflict even if physical conflict does not materialize. Growth stocks should also revive later as midterm policy uncertainty picks up. Chart 14Cyber Security Is A Secular Trade ... Buy The Dip Chart 15Overweight Health Care Amid Political Risk Tactically stick with overweight health care on rising uncertainty and expectations that the dollar will pick up (Chart 15). Defensives, especially health, should also outperform as the year goes on and midterms approach. Pricing power is returning to the sector but the Biden administration only has a little legislative ammunition left and its regulatory focus lies elsewhere for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Highlights Federal Reserve: Market turbulence will not dissuade the Fed from starting to hike rates in March, with longer-term consumer inflation expectations climbing steadily higher. Given the choice of fighting high inflation or supporting asset prices, the Fed will choose the former as tightening financial conditions are not yet an impediment to above-trend US economic growth. Canada: Canadian growth is set to recover as the intense Omicron wave has peaked, further intensifying inflationary pressures. The Bank of Canada has all the information from its consumer and business surveys to justify hiking rates immediately, particularly with inflation expectations above the central bank’s 1-3% target range. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios, as markets have not yet discounted the likely cyclical peak in policy interest rates. Feature Chart of the WeekA Less Friendly Policy Backdrop For Risk Assets Risk assets have taken a beating over the past week, with major equity indices in the US and Europe suffering the sharpest selloffs seen since the early days of the pandemic. There are many sources of investor angst fueling the risk aversion wave - a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, some mixed results on Q4/2021 corporate earnings reports, the lingering Omicron wave and most importantly, fears of tighter global monetary policy. The latter is most evident in the US, with a few prominent Wall Street investment banks now calling for the Fed to deliver much more than the 3-4 rate hikes currently discounted for 2022. The Fed is now in a difficult spot. Realized US inflation remains very high, supply chain disruptions are not going away, and wage growth is accelerating amid tight US labor market conditions. Survey-based consumer inflation expectations show little sign of peaking, with longer-term expectations now climbing steadily higher. As a result, the Fed has been forced to rapidly shift its policy guidance in a more hawkish direction. These trends are not unique to the US, however, as similar inflation dynamics are playing out in places like the UK and Canada where central banks are also expected to deliver a lot of monetary tightening this year (Chart of the Week). For inflation targeting central banks, a surge in inflation that becomes increasingly embedded in longer-term inflation expectations is a direct challenge to their credibility. The policy prescription must involve monetary tightening to raise real interest rates in a bid to stabilize inflation expectations. At the same time, given the starting point of near-0% nominal policy rates and high inflation, deeply negative real interest rates have a lot of room to rise before becoming a serious restraint on economic growth. This limits how far bond yields can decline in response to a generalized risk-off move like the one seen over the past week. For financial markets hooked on easy monetary policies, an inflation-induced monetary tightening cycle will lead to even higher bond yields – especially real yields - and more frequent bouts of market volatility this year. The events of the past week will likely not be a one-off. The Fed Cares About Inflation, Not Your Equity Portfolio US equity markets have had a rough start to 2022. The S&P 500 is down -9% so far in January, with the tech-heavy NASDAQ index down a whopping -13% (Chart 2). The VIX index now sits at 31, nearly double the level seen at the end of 2021. The selloff in risk assets has occurred alongside an increase in real US bond yields. TIPS yields for the 2yr, 5yr and 10yr maturities are up +20bps, +36bps and +43bps, respectively since the start of the year - a reflection of increasing Fed rate hike expectations. Yet other financial markets have seen more limited swings so far in 2022. Non-US equities are sharply outperforming the US; the EuroStoxx index of European equities is down -6%, while the MSCI emerging market (EM) equity index is down just -2%. US investment grade and high-yield spreads, using the Bloomberg benchmark indices, are up a relatively modest +9bps and +36bps, respectively, while the DXY US dollar index is up only +0.4%. The risk asset selloff seen year-to-date has been sharp, but has likely not been enough for the Fed to postpone the expected March liftoff of the fed funds rate. US financial conditions have tightened, but not nearly by enough to make the Fed to more concerned about the US economic growth outlook (Chart 3). Also, financial markets appear to be functioning normally, suggesting what is happening is a repricing of risk assets rather than a selloff driven by poor market liquidity conditions. Chart 2A 'Real' Equity Market Correction​​​​​​ Chart 3High Inflation, Not High Asset Values, is The Fed's Biggest Concern​​​​​​ The bigger risk to US growth may actually come from high inflation, rather than falling asset values. Real US household income growth, derived from responses in the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations to individual questions on incomes and inflation, is expected to contract -3% over the next year (bottom panel). Given that decline in perceived spending power, with inflation far exceeding wage growth, it is no surprise that the University of Michigan consumer confidence index is near an 8-year low. US business confidence has also been hit by high inflation. The NFIB survey of small business sentiment and the Conference Board survey of corporate CEO confidence declined in the latter half of 2021, largely in response to inflationary supply chain disruptions and labor shortages. Nearly one-quarter of NFIB survey respondents cite “inflation” as the single most important problem in operating their businesses. Economic sentiment has clearly taken a hit because of elevated US inflation, even with the US unemployment rate at 3.9% and overall real GDP growth remaining solidly above trend. This suggests that slowing inflation could actually provide a more sustainable boost to the US growth through improved confidence – if the Fed can first successfully engineer a “soft landing” for the economy once it begins hiking rates. The problem the Fed now faces is that the high inflation of the past year is starting to leak into longer-term survey-based measures of inflation expectations. 5-10 year ahead consumer inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey are now at a 10-year high of 3.1%, while the 10-year-ahead inflation forecast from the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters is at a 23-year high of 2.6% (Chart 4). Market-based inflation expectations like TIPS breakevens have stopped rising, as a more hawkish Fed has boosted real TIPS yields, but remain elevated at levels consistent with the Fed achieving, but not exceeding, it's 2% medium-term inflation target (bottom panel). The combination of a tight US labor market and consumers expecting more inflation raises the risk that the US could enter a wage-price spiral, where workers demand wage increases in response to higher inflation and companies are therefore forced to raise prices to maintain profitability. The conditions for a wage-price spiral seem to now be in place in the US (Chart 5): unemployment is low, wages are accelerating and a growing number of US workers are quitting jobs to find better work. Perhaps most importantly, US consumers are more uncertain about where inflation will be in the future. Chart 4US Inflation Expectations Becoming More Entrenched​​​​​ Chart 5The Start Of A US Wage/Price Spiral?​​​​​​ The New York Fed Survey of Consumer Expectations asks respondents to place probabilities on certain ranges for future US inflation rates one and three years ahead. The probability-weighted average of those inflation rates is dubbed “inflation uncertainty”, and those have doubled over the past year from 2% to 4% (bottom panel). This means that the survey respondents now see higher inflation outcomes as more probable, which will likely result in increased wage demands to “keep up” with the cost of living. With the US labor market looking tight as a drum, amid extensive shortages of quality workers as reported in business confidence surveys, the odds of wage increases because of higher inflation instead of higher productivity – a.k.a. a wage-price spiral – have shot up significantly. Already, the 5-year-annualized growth rate of US unit labor costs has doubled since the start of the pandemic (Chart 6), evidence that wage increases are not being matched by faster productivity. Given the strong historical correlation between unit labor cost growth and core inflation in the US, the rise in the latter will be more persistent if US workers ask for bigger cost-of-living driven wage increases. Chart 6Rising US Labor Costs Provide A Lasting Boost To US Inflation​​​​​​ ​​​​​ Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan famously described “price stability” – the Fed’s stated medium-term goal - as a situation where “… households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions.” This is clearly not the situation in the US today, which is why the Fed has no choice but to move ahead with interest rate increases to begin the road back to price stability. Financial market selloffs may actually assist the Fed in achieving that goal through tighter financial conditions, thereby limiting how much interest rates must increase to cool off above-trend US economic growth. Interest rates must still go up first, though – especially in real terms. Already, investors have adjusted to that reality by lifting their medium-term “real rate expectations”. We proxy the latter by taking the difference between the forward path for nominal US interest rates discounted in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve and the forward path of US inflation discounted in the US CPI swap curve. Over just the past month, that market-implied forward path for the real fed funds rate has shifted from discounting an average level of around -1% over the next decade to something closer to -0.25% (Chart 7). We anticipate that those real rate expectations will move even higher as the Fed begins to hike rates in March and continues its tightening cycle over the next 1-2 years. This will underpin the move higher in US bond yields that we expect this year, for both government and corporate debt, with the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield reaching a high of 2.25% by year-end. Bottom Line: Market turbulence will not dissuade the Fed from starting to hike rates in March. Longer-term consumer inflation expectations are climbing steadily higher, which is starting to feed into higher wage demands in a very tight labor market. Given the choice of fighting high inflation or supporting asset prices, the Fed will choose the former as tightening financial conditions are not yet an impediment to above-trend US economic growth. Stay below-benchmark on US interest rate exposure, both in terms of duration and country allocation, in global bond portfolios. Canada Update: The BoC Has A Lot Of Work To Do The Bank of Canada (BoC) meets this week and we anticipate that the first rate hike of this tightening cycle will be announced. This will just be the beginning of what will likely be an extended cycle. Canadian monetary conditions are far too accommodative given above-trend growth and accelerating inflation. The BoC places a lot of analytical weight on its Business Outlook Survey when assessing the state of the Canadian economy. The Q4/2021 survey signaled very strong business confidence and robust demand (both domestic and foreign), with a growing majority of firms surveyed planning to increase investment and hiring over the next year (Chart 8). Survey respondents also reported significant capacity constraints, especially in industries that have experienced strong demand during the pandemic, like retail, manufacturing and housing. This is related to global supply chain disruptions, but also to intensifying labor shortages. Chart 8A Bright Outlook For The Canadian Economy The survey was conducted before the Omicron variant began to spread through Canada, which lead to the reimposition of severe economic restrictions. The number of Canadian COVID cases has peaked, however, and some restrictions have already begun to be lifted in Ontario, Canada’s largest province by population. The economic impact of Omicron will therefore be concentrated in the first couple of months of 2022 and should not derail the hiring and investment plans indicated in the Business Outlook Survey. A reacceleration of Canadian economic growth post-Omicron would magnify high Canadian inflation at a time of intense capacity constraints and tight labor markets. The Canadian unemployment rate fell to 5.9% in December, just 0.2 percentage points above the pre-COVID low seen in February 2020. Headline CPI inflation reached a 31-year high of 4.8% in December 2021, with trimmed CPI inflation (which omits the most volatile components) reaching an 30-year high of 3.7% (Chart 9). The rise in inflation has been broad-based, with large increases seen for both goods inflation (6.8%) and services inflation (3.7%). Like the US, high inflation is becoming more embedded in survey-based inflation expectations. Canadian businesses expect inflation to be 3.2% over the next two years, according to the Business Outlook Survey.1 Canadian consumers expect inflation to be 4.9% over the next year and 3.5% over the next five years, according to the BoC’s Canadian Survey Of Consumer Expectations (Chart 10). The latter had been very stable around 3% since the survey began back in 2014, thus the 0.5 percentage point jump seen in the latest quarterly survey is a highly significant move that suggests the 2021 inflation surge is become more embedded in Canadian consumer psychology. Chart 9The BoC Has An Inflation Problem On Its Hands​​​​​​ Chart 10Canadian Consumer Inflation Expectations Are Rising​​​​​​ The Canadian inflation backdrop has similarities to the US situation described earlier in this report. Like the US, one-year-ahead Canadian consumer inflation expectations are far above wage expectations (only +2%), which suggests that Canadian consumers expect real wages to contract -2.9%. Also like the US, falling real wage expectations are acting as a drag on Canadian consumer confidence (bottom panel). And also like the US, we expect Canadian workers to increase their wage demands to restore real purchasing power, potentially starting a wage-price spiral. Given widespread Canadian labor market shortages, this process has likely already started. According to the BoC Business Outlook Survey, 43% of firms had to boost wages in Q4/2021 because of “cost of living adjustments”, compared to 29% in Q3/2021 (Chart 11). An even larger share of respondents in the Q4 survey (54%) reported having to raise wages to attract and retain workers, up significantly from Q3 and an indication of how Canadian firms are seeing their wage bill go up trying to find quality labor in a tight job market. Given the messages on growth and inflation from its surveys, the BoC has all the evidence it needs to begin the rate hiking process as soon as possible. The bigger question is how high will rates have to go to cool off Canadian economic growth and bring inflation back into the BoC’s 1-3% target range. The BoC’s own internal models estimate that the neutral level of the policy interest rate is between 1.75% and 2.75%. Those estimates were last produced back in April 2021, however, and the range may need to be revised higher to reflect the changes seen in the Canadian economy since then – most notably the greater supply constraints and higher inflation. At a minimum, the BoC will likely have to raise the policy rate to the higher end of its last estimated range for the neutral rate. Current market pricing in the Canadian OIS curve discounts the BoC hiking the policy rate from 0.25% today to 1.6% by the end of 2022 (Chart 12). With eight scheduled BoC policy meetings this year, including this week, the 2022 pricing is realistically achievable. However, only another 50bps of hikes are priced for 2023 and no additional hikes after that. Chart 12Markets Are Underestimating The Likely Cyclical Peak In Canadian Rates Chart 13Stay Underweight Canadian Government Bonds A peak policy rate around 2% would only be in the lower half of the BoC’s range of neutral rate estimates. It would also represent a very low peak real rate of 0% assuming inflation returns to the midpoint of the BoC target range. It is possible that markets are underestimating how high the BoC will have to lift rates, both in nominal and real terms, because of a fear that rate increases will hurt highly indebted Canadian homeowners and trigger a sharp pullback in house prices. This is a legitimate concern given the stretched housing valuations across most major Canadian cities. However, the BoC is facing the same credibility issue that the Fed and other inflation-targeting central banks are facing in the pandemic era. Canadian inflation is too high and becoming more embedded in inflation expectations. Also like the Fed, the BoC will have to fight the inflation battle now and deal with the collateral damage on financial conditions (and the housing market) later. Importantly, with the Fed also likely to deliver several rate hike in 2022. Thus, the BoC has less need to fear a surge in the Canadian dollar, driven by widening interest rate differentials, that could aggressively tighten financial conditions beyond the impact on asset markets and house prices from higher interest rates (Chart 13). Summing it all up, we maintain our negative strategic outlook on Canadian government bonds as markets are underestimating the tightening that will be required from the BoC over the next 1-2 years. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has all the information from its consumer and business surveys to justify hiking rates immediately, particularly with medium-term consumer inflation expectations now above the central bank’s 1-3% target range. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios, as markets have not yet discounted the likely cyclical peak in policy interest rates.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Business inflation expectations calculated as the share of respondents reporting expected inflation within a certain range multiplied by the midpoint of the range. We assume a value of 0.5 for “less than 1” and a value of 3.5 for “greater than 3”. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades

Highlights Corporate Bond Returns & Fed Tightening: Corporate bond performance varied considerably during the past four Fed tightening cycles. Our analysis of these periods suggests that valuations and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to monitor. Investment Grade Strategy: Given tight valuations, our analysis of past Fed tightening cycles suggests that it will make sense to downgrade our allocation to investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) once we are confident that the yield curve has shifted into a flatter regime. High-Yield Strategy: De-risking will also be warranted in the high-yield space as the yield curve flattens, but relative valuations dictate that investors should retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade corporates. Feature It is now apparent that the Federal Reserve intends to kick off the next rate hike cycle at the March FOMC meeting. This move has been strongly hinted at in recent Fed speeches and it will be telegraphed more officially when Jay Powell addresses the media tomorrow. In preparation for upcoming rate increases, last week’s report looked at Treasury returns during prior periods of Fed tightening.1 This week, we extend that analysis to the corporate bond market. Specifically, we consider the excess returns that were earned by both investment grade and high-yield corporates during the four most recent rate hike cycles.2 We conclude that a defensive posture toward credit risk will be warranted as Fed tightening gets underway. While we aren’t quite ready to downgrade our recommended allocation to corporate bonds today, we expect to do so within the next couple of months. Corporate Bond Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 presents excess returns for both the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index and the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Corporate Bond Index in each of the past four Fed tightening cycles. As was the case last week, we define each tightening cycle as spanning from the first rate hike until the last rate hike. We also exclude periods such as 1997 when the Fed only lifted rates once before reversing course. Table 1Corporate Bond Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles Our first preliminary conclusion is that (unlike with Treasury returns) there is not much commonality between the different cycles. For example, corporate excess returns were quite strong during the 2015-18 cycle and very weak during the 1999-2000 cycle. In other words, it’s even more important to examine each cycle individually to get a sense of how we should position in the corporate bond market today. The 2015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target rate by 225 bps. Investment grade corporate bond returns were quite strong during this period (Chart 1A), and there is one major reason why. The start of the tightening cycle happened to coincide with the peak of a default cycle. As a result, corporate spreads were elevated when hiking began and they tightened rapidly throughout 2016 and 2017 (Chart 1A, panel 3). Spread tightening in 2016 and 2017 was helped along by an accommodative policy environment, as evidenced by the fact that the yield curve remained steep (3/10 slope > 50 bps) during those years (Chart 1A, panel 4). It’s notable that returns turned negative in 2018, only after the average index spread moved below 100 bps and the Treasury slope moved below 50 bps. In other words, corporate bond returns were strong early in the cycle but turned negative once value evaporated and the monetary backdrop became less accommodative. High-Yield returns show a similar pattern to investment grade (Chart 1B). Spreads started out very wide in early-2016 and tightened rapidly until monetary conditions turned more restrictive in 2018. Our Default-Adjusted Spread is an additional valuation tool for high-yield bonds (Chart 1B, panel 4). This is calculated as the average index spread less the actual default losses that were experienced during the subsequent 12 months. Our research has shown that high-yield bonds usually outperform Treasuries during 12 month periods in which the Default-Adjusted Spread is above 100 bps (see the Appendix of this report for more details). In this case, the Default-Adjusted Spread was an extremely high 258 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle and it didn’t dip below 100 bps until after rate hikes ended. Chart 1A2015-2018 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 1B2015-2018 Cycle: High-Yield   The 2004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were close to zero during this cycle (Chart 2A). Unlike in 2015, corporate spreads started out at tight levels (below 100 bps), though the accommodative monetary environment – as evidenced by the steep yield curve – allowed them to tighten somewhat during the first year of Fed hiking. However, spreads then reverted closer to 100 bps in 2005 as the yield curve flattened to below 50 bps (Chart 2A, panel 4) and the policy backdrop turned more restrictive. Junk bonds performed extremely well during the 2004-06 cycle (Chart 2B), and once again this is due to very attractive starting valuations. The average High-Yield Index spread was 384 bps on the day of the first hike in 2004, compensation that turned out to be astoundingly high when you consider that monthly default events were in the low single digits throughout the entire period (Chart 2B, bottom panel). As was the case in the 2015-18 cycle, our Default-Adjusted Spread measure never dipped below 100 bps. In fact, it troughed at 145 bps in early 2005 (Chart 2B, panel 4). Chart 2A2004-2006 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 2B2004-2006 Cycle: High-Yield The 1999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5%. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were poor during this period (Chart 3A), the combination of relatively low starting spreads and a very flat yield curve that even inverted in early 2000 (Chart 3A, panels 3 & 4). High-yield excess returns were even worse than for investment grade (Chart 3B). While, at the onset of Fed tightening, junk spreads were quite elevated in absolute terms (Chart 3B, panel 3), they turned out to be too low compared to the magnitude of default losses that occurred throughout 1999 and 2000 (Chart 3B, bottom panel). Our Default-Adjusted Spread measure started the cycle below 100 bps and then dipped into negative territory in early 2000 (Chart 3B, panel 4). Chart 3A1999-2000 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 3B1999-2000 Cycle: High-Yield The 1994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995. This cycle coincided with modestly positive excess returns for investment grade corporates (Chart 4A). The average index spread began the cycle at the extraordinarily tight level of 67 bps (Chart 4A, panel 3). However, unappealing valuations were counteracted by the accommodative monetary environment, as evidenced by a yield curve slope that didn’t dip below 50 bps until the Fed was almost done hiking (Chart 4A, panel 4).    Junk returns were also modestly positive during this period (Chart 4B). Spreads started the cycle at attractive levels (Chart 4B, panel 3) and the default rate was on the downswing (Chart 4B, bottom panel). Junk spreads, however, were mostly rangebound during the period of Fed tightening. Chart 4A1994-1995 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 4B1994-1995 Cycle: High-Yield Investment Implications Investment Grade Our analysis of past cycles reveals that valuation and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to consider when assessing the potential for investment grade corporate bond excess returns during a Fed tightening cycle. The 2015-18 period of strong investment grade returns coincided with elevated spreads and a yield curve slope that stayed above 50 bps for the first two years of tightening. In contrast, the 1999-2000 period of negative corporate returns was driven by expensive starting valuations and a very flat curve. Today, investment grade corporate bond valuations are about as expensive as they’ve ever been. The average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) is currently 100 bps, the index OAS has been tighter than this level 40% of the time since 1995 (Chart 5). This does not appear terrible at first blush, but we must also consider that the risk characteristics of the index have changed during the past few decades. Specifically, the index’s average credit rating is lower, and its average duration is higher. If we adjust the index to maintain a constant credit rating through time, we see that the spread falls from its 40th percentile to its 28th percentile (Chart 5, panel 2). If we then adjust for the changing duration of the index by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread instead of the OAS, we see the spread fall to its 7th percentile since 1995 (Chart 5, bottom panel).3 As for the yield curve, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently very close to 50 bps – the threshold that roughly represents the transition from an accommodative monetary environment to a more neutral one (Chart 6). Given expensive starting valuations, our inclination is to reduce our investment grade corporate bond exposure once we are confident that the 3/10 slope will remain below 50 bps for the remainder of the cycle. We think we are close to reaching that point, but we aren’t quite there yet. Our estimates based on a range of plausible scenarios for Fed tightening suggest that the 3/10 slope will permanently move below 50 bps in the coming months, by July at the very latest. When that occurs, we will reduce our recommended corporate bond exposure from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Chart 6Watch The Treasury Slope Chart 5IG Valuation High-Yield The valuation picture for high-yield is somewhat more pleasant than for investment grade. The OAS differential between the high-yield and investment grade indexes is fairly tight, at its 15th percentile since 1995 (Chart 7). However, this differential rises to the 36th percentile when we adjust for the duration differences of the indexes by using the 12-month breakeven spread. Chart 7HY Valuation Applying our Default-Adjusted Spread methodology to today’s junk market, we estimate that the Default-Adjusted Spread will come in above the crucial 100 bps threshold as long as the default rate is 3.5% or lower during the next 12 months (Chart 7, bottom panel). This seems quite likely given the current strong state of corporate balance sheets.4 All that said, the evidence from past cycles suggests that a more defensive posture toward high-yield corporates will also be warranted once we are confident that the 3/10 slope has permanently moved below 50 bps. However, relative valuation dictates that we should still retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade even as we get more defensive overall. Our next move will likely be to downgrade high-yield from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Some Thoughts On Credit Investment Strategy The above analysis of corporate bond performance shows that it is generally weaker once the yield curve has flattened into a range of 0 – 50 bps. However, that move alone doesn’t guarantee negative excess corporate bond returns. In fact, it is quite plausible that the slope could remain within a 0 – 50 bps range for a long time even as the Fed tightens, and that corporate bonds could still deliver small positive excess returns versus Treasuries. However, we must acknowledge that the risks of Fed overtightening, curve inversion and economic recession increase as the yield curve flattens. We must also acknowledge that current valuations suggest that future excess returns will be small, even if they are positive. For example, if we assume that the average investment grade OAS can’t tighten very much from current levels, then the best we can expect is 100 bps per year of excess return. Meanwhile, 100 bps of spread widening – much less than you would expect in a default cycle – would lead to losses of roughly 850 bps. In other words, it will be profitable to exit investment grade corporate bond positions today as long as the next bout of 100 bps of spread widening occurs within the next 8.5 years (Table 2). The risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a more defensive credit allocation. Table 2The Risk/Reward Trade-off In Corporate Bonds Interestingly, Table 2 shows that the risk/reward math is more favorable for junk bonds. Depending on our default loss assumptions, the 8.5 years we calculated for investment grade falls to a range of 1.8 to 3 years for high-yield. Bottom Line: Tight valuations and low expected returns suggest that investors should be more cautious on credit risk this cycle. In our view, it is advisable to reduce credit risk allocation earlier than usual this cycle in order to ensure that you aren’t invested during the next big selloff. Appendix Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market”, dated January 18, 2022. 2 We define excess returns as the excess returns earned by the corporate bond index relative to a duration-matched position in US Treasuries. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread can be thought of as the spread widening required for the index to break even with duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. It can be approximated as OAS divided by duration. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns