Economy

Executive Summary Depressing Housing Market And Service Sector Activity May’s economic data ticked up from extremely depressed levels in April, driven by a normalization in the supply chain and a resumption in production. The service sector and housing market continued to shrink on a year-on-year (YOY) basis and sentiment among households and corporates remains lackluster. The rebound in exports growth in May will likely be unsustainable. Chinese exports are set to contract from 2021 as external demand for goods weakens. The rapidly worsening labor market dynamics reinforce households’ unwillingness to consume and hence, will hinder the recovery in household consumption. Although industrial production showed a decent rebound in May, the manufacturing production recovery might be derailed by rolling lockdowns and prolonged logistic bottlenecks. Barring major lockdowns, China’s economy will likely improve in 2H 2022 from the very low base in Q2. That said, the country’s economic recovery faces several challenges and the magnitude of the rebound will be subdued. Bottom Line: The elements for a robust and sustainable recovery in the Chinese economy are not yet in place. The recent rally in the A-share market reflects a mean-reversal to the pre-March lockdown price level, rather than the beginning of a cyclical bull market. Investors should remain cautious on Chinese equities in the next several months. Feature China’s economic data moved up slightly in May from an extremely depressed level in April. A normalization of the supply chain and a resumption of production post-lockdown in Shanghai and other cities led to a modest recovery in business activities. However, indicators from the service sector and housing market continued to shrink on a YOY basis, highlighting persistent weaknesses on the demand side. Chart 1Import Dynamics Reflect Weak Domestic Demand May’s import data also reflects sluggish domestic demand. The increase in imports value from a year ago was largely driven by the elevated prices in energy and agriculture products. China’s imports in May, in volume terms, continued to contract on a YOY basis, albeit improved from its historical low in April (Chart 1). Barring major lockdowns, China’s economy will likely improve in the second half of this year. However, the economic recovery in 2H 2022 will be very subdued due to the following challenges: Downbeat sentiment among households and enterprises; Continued real estate woes; A contraction in exports; Deteriorating labor market conditions; and Risk of rolling lockdowns and persistent logistic bottlenecks. The recent rebound in the A-share market reflects an improvement in investors’ sentiment buttressed by the easing of lockdowns and a resumption of production. In other words, the rebound in Chinese stock prices is probably a mean-reversal to pre-lockdown levels, rather than a sustainable rally (Chart 2). Our cautious view on Chinese equities is also corroborated by the divergence between falling raw industrial prices, which reflect weak China’s growth, and rising Chinese equity prices (Chart 3). Overall, we continue to recommend a neutral stance in Chinese equities within a global portfolio. Chart 2Too Early To Turn Bullish On Chinese Stocks Chart 3Falling Prices In Raw Materials Do Not Signal An Imminent Round In Demand   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Downbeat Household And Corporate Sentiment Chart 4Subdued Bank Loan Growth Has Been A Drag On Credit Expansion Although China’s credit growth improved sequentially in May after a very weak reading in April, the magnitude of May’s credit rebound is much more subdued compared with the months following the first lockdowns in early 2020 (Chart 4). In addition, May’s rebound in credit growth was mainly driven by an acceleration in local government bond issuance. The modest pickup in the credit impulse - calculated as a 12-month change in total social financing (TSF) as a percentage of nominal GDP - is much more muted when excluding local government bond issuance (Chart 5). Furthermore, as noted in our previous report, given that most of the planned local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) will be issued by the end of June, barring any increase in this year’s SPBs quota, the support from local government bond issuance to TSF growth will likely wane significantly in the second half of 2022. Meanwhile, confidence among consumers and businesses remained downbeat through May (Chart 6). The poor private-sector sentiment will continue to dampen credit demand and thus, limit the effectiveness of monetary stimulus. Chart 5The Rebound In Credit Impulse Is Much More Muted When Excluding Local Government Bond Issuance Chart 6Gloomy Sentiment Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Private-sector credit demand remains very frail. Household medium- to long-term loans are still contracting from previous month, while bank loans to corporate peers were also weak in May (Chart 7 & 8). Chart 7Depressed Household Loan Demand Chart 8Corporate Demand For Credit Remains Weak Despite Accommodative Monetary Conditions Chart 9Deterioration In Corporate Sentiment Is Also Reflected In Surveys of Business Conditions On the other hand, corporate bill financing as a portion of new bank loans, although rolled over from April’s record high, remained very elevated through May (Chart 8, bottom panel). Moreover, enterprises’ financing and investment expectations deteriorated further in May (Chart 9).   Persisting Real Estate Woes The near-term outlook for China’s property market remains uninspiring. So far, easing measures in the housing sector have not been successful in reviving home sales and homebuyers’ sentiment. Residential property sales and real estate investment growth ticked up slightly in May after plummeting by 43% and 10% in April, respectively (Chart 10). However, the modest improvement in May does not mark the start of a full-fledged cyclical recovery. High-frequency data show a renewed weakening in floor space sales, particularly in tier-one and tier-two cities, during the first two weeks of June (Chart 11). Chart 10The Slight Improvement In Housing Market Indicators Does Not Signal A Cyclical Recovery Chart 11Renewed Deterioration In Home Sales In June Chart 12Real Estate Developers' Decreased Funding Will Further Dampen Housing Construction Activities Funds to real estate developers have been contracting at the fastest rate since data collection began in 1998. The lack of funding for real estate developers will further depress housing construction activities in the near term (Chart 12). Moreover, new home prices, which tend to lead housing starts, started to decrease on a YOY basis in May. This was the first price contraction since 2016. Our housing price diffusion index suggests that home price growth will continue to shrink in the next six to nine months (Chart 13). Many local cities reduced mortgage rates, by anywhere from 15 to more than 100 basis points, after the PBoC lowered mortgage rate floor and the benchmark rate (5-year LPR) in May. However, the average cost of mortgage loans remains higher than households’ income growth, making mortgage borrowing less attractive to ordinary households (Chart 14). Chart 13Housing Prices Are Set To Decline Further In 2H 2022 Chart 14Mortgage Rates Have Dropped, But Still Higher Than Income And Home Price Growth In addition, the widening gap between the average mortgage rate and the pace of housing price appreciation implies that housing has become much less appealing to residents who purchase homes as investment (Chart 14, bottom panel). In short, property purchases will remain weak given neither “to live in” nor investment demand for properties is likely to recover fast. China's Exports Are Set To Contract In 2H 2022 China’s exports rebounded in May from the April low as supply chain interruptions subsided and logistic disruptions began to ease. However, as US and European consumer spending on goods (excluding autos) declines, Chinese shipments will shrink in the months ahead. May’s improvement in suppliers’ delivery times and product inventory subindexes of China’s official Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) suggests that logistics were less of a drag on economic activity than in April (Chart 15). In addition, Shanghai and China’s exports freight indexes recovered significantly on a month-over-month basis (Chart 16) with the lifting of lockdown measures. Chart 15Chinese Logistics Pressures Have Eased Slightly In May... Chart 16...And Export Freight Indices Have Rebounded Chart 17Global Demand Is Dwindling Meanwhile, global demand for goods has been weakening. Korean exports volume growth, a bellwether for global trade, has been trending down since late 2021 (Chart 17). Moreover, the US and Euro Area manufacturing PMIs have been falling (Chart 17, bottom panel). Spending in developed economies is shifting from manufactured goods to services. Retail inventories in the US are well above their pre-pandemic trend, suggesting that the demand growth for Chinese goods will dwindle when US retailers start to destock their inventories (Chart 18). Falling US and Euro Area real household disposable income will also reinforce the downward trend in external demand (Chart 19). Therefore, China's exports are set to shrink in the second half of this year. Chart 18Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Chart 19A Contraction in US and Euro Area Household Real Disposable Income Deteriorating Labor Market Conditions Will Curb Household Consumption Recovery Although improved from April’s extreme low, Chinese retail sales and service activity remained in contractionary territory in May, highlighting sluggish household demand (Chart 20). In addition, the cinema audience, which is used to gauge the impact of the pandemic on the service sector, indicates a further deterioration in the sector’s activity in June (Chart 20, bottom panel). The lackluster consumer demand is also evidenced by soft core and service consumer prices (CPI) in May (Chart 21). Chart 20Chinese Retail Sales And Service Activity Continued To Contract In May Chart 21Soft Core And Service CPIs Also Reflect Lackluster Household Demand   Labor market conditions have also worsened. Although the nationwide urban survey-based unemployment rate fell moderately in May, the 31-large city surveyed unemployment rate climbed to an all-time high in the 10-year history of this survey. Moreover, employment in the service sector deteriorated to the worst level since mid-2020 (Chart 22). Furthermore, urban new job creation fell into deep shrinkage on a YOY basis, while the unemployment rate among younger workers rose to the highest point since data collection began in 2018 (Chart 23). Chart 22Labor Market Situation Is Worsening Rapidly... Chart 23...Particularly Among Younger Workers Chart 24Weak Sentiment On Future Income Contributes To Households' Unwillingness To Consume The rapidly worsening labor market dynamics and income prospects reinforce households’ downbeat sentiment (Chart 24). The latter will impede household consumption recovery in the second half of this year.   Production Recovery Faces Risks Of Persistent Logistic Bottlenecks   The uptick in industrial activity in May was due to a lifting of Covid-related lockdown restrictions. Although industrial production showed a decent rebound, underlying data suggest that economic fundamentals remained subdued. Chart 25Industrial Activity Improved Only Slightly In May Chart 26Construction Material Production Continues To Shrink On A YOY Basis Electricity output remained in contractionary territory through May (Chart 25). Cement and steel output continued shrinking from the same period last year (Chart 26). Moreover, their prices have been falling even though production growth has been waning, which indicates that demand in the construction sector is depressed (Chart 3, bottom panel). Consumer durable goods production also remains well below their levels from a year ago (Chart 27 & 28). Chart 27Auto And Smartphone Production Keeps Decreasing From A Year Ago... Chart 28… As Well As Production Of Home Appliances Chart 29Prolonged Logistic Bottlenecks Chinese manufacturing investment rebounded in May. However, since exports will likely shrink in the second half of this year, it will create a major headwind for manufacturing investment and output. Moreover, China’s manufacturing production will likely be challenged by persistent logistic bottlenecks in 2H 2022. Chinese road freight was still declining in the first three weeks in June from the same period last year as shown in Chart 29. The risk of renewed Covid-induced lockdowns or mobility restrictions are nontrivial since China will maintain its zero-Covid policy at least through the end of this year.   Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Special Report

Executive Summary High food and fertilizer prices are at risk of morphing into a full-blown food crisis in several developing countries. Some countries were plagued by severe food insecurity even before the Ukraine war broke out. The Ukraine war has upended two crucial aspects of food security: availability of food grains as well as the availability of fertilizers. A few Middle Eastern and African countries, who are dependent on both imported cereals and crude oil, are experiencing the greatest difficulty. The stock-to-use ratio of food grains is alarmingly low in several countries. Some of them also have high twin deficits (i.e., fiscal and current account deficits) – indicating that governments there would be hard-pressed to provide necessary relief. Several Countries Need To Import Over 90% Of Their Cereal Consumption Bottom Line: All aspects considered, we reckon Lebanon, Egypt, Kenya, Peru, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka to be the most at risk of experiencing a food crisis, and consequent socio-political upheaval. Feature Food prices have surged in most parts of the world. In some developing countries however, food inflation is threatening to morph into a food crisis. In the year ahead, high food and fertilizer prices could accentuate food insecurity in several poorer countries − with major socio-political ramifications. In this report, we identify the nations most at risk, especially among countries included in the MSCI Emerging and Frontier Equity Indexes. Our research indicates that Lebanon, Egypt, Kenya, Peru, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are the most vulnerable to a food crisis, and consequent socio-political upheaval. Food Inflation: In The Stratosphere In a few countries such as Lebanon and Venezuela, food inflation is at a mind-boggling 370% and 200%, respectively. It is abnormally high in many other developing countries as well – including Turkey (92%), Argentina (64%), Iran (49%), Sri Lanka (45%), Ghana (30%), and Egypt (28%). In several other countries such as Colombia, Nigeria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Kazakhstan, food prices are rising at about 20% or more. That is also the case in war-torn Ukraine and Russia (Chart 1). Chart 1Food Inflation Has Become Extremely Painful In Some Countries In a few countries such as Turkey, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, currency depreciation could explain part of the rise in food prices. Chart 2Food Prices Began To Surge Well Before The Ukraine Crisis That said, given that only a minor share of all food consumed is imported by these countries, the sharp rise in overall food prices cannot be explained away by currency depreciation alone. Rather, it points to genuine price pressures in domestically grown food. That is also the case in all other countries where food inflation is higher than currency depreciation. Notably, in many of these countries, food inflation was quite high even before the Ukraine war broke out. Indeed, global food grain prices had begun to surge in mid-2020 – well before Russia’s invasion began (Chart 2). And yet, the onset of the Ukraine war and the resulting sanctions and logistics bottlenecks have worsened the situation dramatically. Even though food prices have eased marginally in the past couple of weeks, they are still extremely elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels. More worryingly, many countries are now at risk of experiencing a full-blown food crisis.  Pre-existing Food Insecurity Some developing countries are more susceptible to a food crisis than others. This is because they were already plagued by food insecurity even before the Ukraine war broke out. The x-axis of Chart 3 shows the extent of “severe food insecurity”1 in various developing nations, as per the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Peru stand out in this respect among the countries included in the MSCI EM & Frontier market equity indexes: as high as 18 to 26% of the total population in these countries experienced severe food insecurity between 2018 and 2020. Chart 3Countries With Pre-Existing Food Insecurity Are More At Risk Notably, these countries also happen to have high fiscal deficits; and in some cases, high public debt (Chart 3, y-axis). This leaves their governments with less room to provide necessary relief should an acute food crisis hit their population. Not surprisingly, some of the countries plagued by severe food insecurity are highly dependent on grain imports to meet their domestic demand. The x-axis of Chart 4 shows the cereal import dependency of various countries as a percentage of their cereal intake. Most middle eastern countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman need to import nearly all of their cereal consumptions, as per FAO data. That said, what sets the truly vulnerable cereal importers apart from the rest is that some of them do not have much export earnings to pay for their rising food import bills. For instance, in Lebanon, food imports alone cost two-thirds of its total goods export revenues before the pandemic, according to FAO. For Egypt, Jordan and Kenya, food imports used up over 40% of their export earnings (Chart 4, y-axis). Chart 4Several Countries Need To Import Over 90% Of Their Cereal Consumption These figures must have gone up further as food prices have risen significantly in the past two years. If high food prices persist, the balance of payments of these countries will deteriorate further. That, in turn, will negatively affect their currencies and general inflation.  High Oil Prices Adding To The Woes Many oil and gas producers in the Middle East and Africa are also large net importers of food. Current high crude prices, however, are helping them to foot their food bills. But countries who need to import both food and oil and gas are facing a double whammy. Chart 5 shows that several food importers are indeed large net importers of oil and gas too. On this parameter, Lebanon, Pakistan, Jordan and Kenya appear to be facing the most acute pain − their annual food plus net oil import bills are very high, ranging from 60 to 120% of their goods export revenues. Needless to say, if both food and oil prices remain elevated, these nations could face major socio-economic upheavals. Chart 5Countries Which Need To Import Both Food And Fuel Are The Most Distressed Chart 6Industrial Metals And Ore Producers Will Face More Pain Going Forward On a separate note, many producers of industrial metals/raw materials such as Chile and Peru may also soon experience more difficulties. The reason is that industrial metal prices have recently rolled over relative to food prices (Chart 6). Going forward, slowing global growth will likely push down industrial metal prices further, robbing these nations of a major source of income. Falling income amid high food prices would hurt the population even more, as the former will also limit the authorities’ ability to provide relief. The Implications Of The Ukraine War Could Linger The Ukraine war has upended the two most crucial aspects of food security: availability of food grains and fertilizers. Notably, the exportable surplus of food and fertilizers in the world are concentrated in only a handful of countries. Russia and Ukraine are key among them. In the case of wheat, 28% of global exports (in volume terms) in 2021 came from Russia (18%) and Ukraine (10%),  as per the FAO. In the case of barley, their share was 24%, and for corn (maize) 12%. Chart 7Grain Prices Have Surged Across The Board These two countries are dominant in some oilseed exports as well. Ukraine (37%) and Russia (26%) together held about two-thirds of the global sunflower oil export market share. In the case of rapeseed, Ukraine had about 20% of global export share. Much of these supplies now face severe logistical hurdles. That, in turn, has pushed up grain and edible oil prices globally, hurting all countries whether they are dependent on food imports or not (Chart 7). That said, the countries who are heavily dependent on Russian and Ukrainian supplies are particularly hit hard. Chart 8 shows the import dependency of some countries on Russian and Ukrainian wheat. Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt will have to urgently find alternative suppliers as a very large share of their imports now face uncertainty. The same can be said about Eritrea, Somalia and some former Soviet republics.    In the case of fertilizers, Russia was the largest supplier of nitrogen-based fertilizers2 (the kind that is most heavily used) at 17% of global exports in 2021. The country was also the second largest exporter of potassium-based fertilizer (23%), and the third largest in phosphorus-based fertilizers (16%). Ukraine, however, has not been a big exporter of fertilizers. Just like in the case of wheat, several countries had been highly dependent on Russian fertilizers. Among EM countries, Peru procured 42% of its fertilizer needs from Russia last year. Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia each imported about 22% from Russia. That figure was substantially higher for some other developing countries such as Ghana (37%), Cameroon (47%), and Honduras (50%) (Chart 9). Given the numerous sanctions imposed on a multitude of Russian entities, shipments of Russian fertilizers are now at risk. As such, all these countries need to find substitute suppliers urgently.  Chart 8Russia And Ukraine Supplied Over 80% Of Wheat Imports For Many Countries Chart 9Russia Supplied Over 40% Of Fertilizer Imports For Many Countries   Notably, it’s not just the logistics/availability issues that fertilizer users must contend with. Prices of fertilizers have also surged by a massive 200 to 300% compared to pre-pandemic levels. The reason for that is sky-high natural gas prices, which is the primary feedstock of (nitrogen-based) fertilizers (Chart 10). Chart 10High Natural Gas Prices Will Keep Fertilizers Expensive Since Russia is also a major natural gas producer, the current situation does not bode well for the fertilizer price relief outlook. New western sanctions on Russia and countermeasures by Russia are continuing relentlessly. As such, one can expect that natural gas prices will likely stay elevated for the foreseeable future. That will keep fertilizers expensive. Meanwhile, the scarcity and/or high prices of fertilizers would force farmers in many poor countries to curtail their fertilizer use during the ongoing / upcoming crop season. That in turn would imperil their domestic food production, accentuating overall food scarcity. Where Do Countries’ Food Stocks Stand Now? Chart 11 shows various developing countries’ combined stockpile of food grains (wheat, corn and soybean) relative to their yearly usage (i.e., the stock-to-use ratio). Chart 11The Stock Of Foodgrains Is Precariously Low In Many Countries Among the countries who have high cereal import dependency (and, who are not oil producers), the stock-to-use ratio is particularly low for Lebanon, Jordan, Chile, Peru, and Egypt. Since some of the countries with low food stock-to-use ratio are also dependent on imported food and fertilizers, they are even more susceptible to an outright food shortage this year. Lebanon, Egypt and Peru are three such countries among MSCI included ones. If various countries’ stock-to-use figures are juxtaposed with their twin deficits, their wherewithal to provide necessary relief should their food stocks become inadequate can be demonstrated. Chart 12 shows that several countries with a low food stock-to-use ratio are also plagued by high twin deficits, and therefore low capacity to provide relief. Examples are Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria and Venezuela. Chart 12Some Countries With Low Food Stock Have A Low Capacity To Provide Relief Food Price Shock: Is It Inflationary Or Deflationary? High food prices can sometimes lead to higher general inflation. The starting point of that is usually household inflation expectations: facing higher grocery prices every day, consumer expectations of future prices become unmoored. That said, whether the higher inflation ‘expectations’ will evolve into higher ‘realized’ inflation depends on households’ (labor) power to negotiate wages. If they are successful to gain higher wages, core inflation also begins to rise in tandem with food inflation, which might eventually lead to a wage-inflation spiral. In most developing nations, however, that does not look to be the case. Wages are rising sharply in only a handful of countries. Moreover, since a very high share of consumer spending in developing countries is accorded to food (25% to 55%), higher food bills are eating substantially into households’ real discretionary spending. That does not bode well for (non-food) corporate earnings. In addition, the central banks in many developing economies are raising interest rates in response to high inflation. All these will likely push many developing economies on the brink of a recession.   Investment Conclusions Currently, most emerging and frontier market nations are facing a deteriorating growth outlook – thanks to tight fiscal and tightening monetary policies domestically, a very strong US dollar, rising global interest rates, and a subpar Chinese recovery. High food and/or fuel prices are additional ‘taxes’ on their economies, and especially for the import-dependent ones. As a result, their growth will be stymied further. The consequence could well be socio-political volatility. Incidentally, the last time global food prices witnessed a major surge (about 40%) was back in 2010. That was soon followed by social upheavals in much of the Middle East (known as the ‘Arab Spring’) and elsewhere in the developing world. In the present episode, food prices have risen by 70% in two years. As mentioned, some of the countries facing food and fertilizer scarcity are also plagued by low grains stocks (relative to requirement) and have weak fiscal and external accounts. Considering all the aspects, we reckon that Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Kenya, Peru, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are most-at-risk of slipping into a food crisis this year and beyond. Incidentally, the Emerging Markets Strategy team holds a bearish view on the near-term performances of EM stocks and bonds. Investors should stay underweight EM relative to global equities and bonds. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Sebastian Rodriguez Research Associate sebastian.rodriguez@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Severe food insecurity refers to missing meals and/or reduced food intake because of financial constraints 2     The three main type of chemical fertilizers are nitrogen-based (urea and ammonia), potassium-based (potash), and phosphorus-based (phosphates).

Executive Summary An Optimal Control Policy We could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, but we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession. An optimal control approach to monetary policy tells us that the Fed should be willing to accept a significant increase in the unemployment rate to tame inflation. The implication is that the next recession may not be met with the dramatic easing of monetary policy we have become accustomed to. Short-maturity real yields remain deeply negative, but they will move into positive territory before the end of the economic cycle. Indicators of corporate balance sheet health are not flashing red, but they are moving in the wrong direction.   Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, maintain a defensive posture on corporate bonds and short 2-year TIPS.   The Return Of Optimal Control Bonds rallied into the close last week and, as of Monday morning, their gains have only been partially unwound. The 2-year Treasury yield is down to 3.07% from its recent high of 3.45% and the 10-year yield is down to 3.16% from its recent high of 3.49% (Chart 1). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope remains close to inversion at 9 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Increasingly, the message from the Treasury market is that the Fed is no longer playing catch-up to runaway inflation. Rather, the dominant market narrative is that the Fed may have to moderate its hiking pace to avoid an economic recession. With the unemployment rate at 3.6% and nonfarm payroll growth averaging +408k during the past three months, the US economy is clearly not in a recession today. That said, leading indicators are pointing to increased risk of a downturn within the next 12 months. For example, the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell sharply last week from 57.0 to 52.4 (Chart 2). The more widely tracked ISM Manufacturing PMI remains elevated at 56.1, but regional Fed surveys and trends in financial conditions suggest that the ISM could dip into contractionary territory during the next few months (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Treasury Yields Chart 2Recession Risk Is Rising This is obviously a tricky situation for the Fed as there is a risk that its two mandates of price stability and maximum employment could come into conflict. Not surprisingly, the Fed has a playbook for these sorts of situations, one that was described by Janet Yellen as “optimal control” in a 2012 speech.1 Under an optimal control approach to policymaking the Fed specifies a loss function that is based on deviations of inflation from its 2% target and of the unemployment rate from its estimated full employment level. Understanding that it will be impossible to perfectly achieve both of its objectives, the Fed attempts to set policy so that the output of the loss function is minimized. One example of a simple loss function was given by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard in a speech from 2014.2 That function is as follows: Distance From Goals = (π – π*)2 + (μ - μ*)2 Where: π = inflation π* = The Fed’s target inflation rate μ = the unemployment rate μ* = The Fed’s estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment Chart 3An Optimal Control Policy Let’s apply Bullard’s loss function to the present-day economic situation. The top panel of Chart 3 shows the square root of the function’s output. The Fed’s goal, of course, is to get that line as close to zero as possible. First, let’s see what happens if we input the median FOMC member’s forecast for core PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. That forecast has core PCE inflation falling to 4.3% by the end of this year and it has the unemployment rate edging up to 3.7%. Not surprisingly, this scenario leads to a modest improvement in Bullard’s loss function. Now let’s examine an alternative scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% by the end of the year but we set the loss function to remain at its current level. That outcome can be achieved even with the unemployment rate rising to 6.68%. This scenario is instructive. It tells us that, from an optimal control perspective, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an increase in the unemployment rate all the way up to 6.68% if it meant that inflation would fall back down to 4%. Why is this example important? It’s important because it gives us some perspective on what sort of labor market pain the Fed may be willing to tolerate to tame inflation. More specifically, there is a growing sense among some market participants that the US economy will soon fall into recession and that recessions are usually accompanied by Fed rate cuts. However, the magnitude of the increase in the unemployment rate that is shown in our alternative scenario would almost certainly be classified as a recession, but an optimal control perspective tells us that the Fed shouldn’t back away from tightening if that were to occur. The bottom line is that while we could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession within the next 6-12 months. Given where inflation is today, there are strong odds that the Fed would respond to a rising unemployment rate by simply tempering its pace of rate hikes or perhaps temporarily pausing. Optimal control tells us that we would need to see an extremely large employment shock for the Fed to consider reversing course and cutting rates. Investors should stick with ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration for the time being. A Quick Note On Real Yields   Chart 4Short 2-Year TIPS The 2-year real yield has risen to -0.70% from a 2021 low of -3.05%, but we have high conviction that it has further to run (Chart 4). At the press conference following the June FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Powell hinted that he viewed positive real yields across the entire Treasury curve as a reasonable intermediate-term goal. He then made similar claims when testifying before the Senate last week: It’s really only the very short end of the curve where our rates are still in negative territory from a real perspective. If you look further out, real rates are positive right across the curve and that’s really what you’re trying to achieve in a situation like this where we have 40 year highs in inflation.3 One way or another, we think it is highly likely that the Fed will achieve its goal of positive real yields across the entire curve. This could happen in a benign scenario where falling inflation expectations push short-maturity real yields higher. Or, it could happen in a more dramatic fashion where inflation expectations remain elevated but that only quickens the pace of Fed tightening. In that scenario, rising short-maturity nominal yields would drag real yields with them. Either way, investors should continue to hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Corporate Health Check-Up In prior reports we noted the extremely good condition of corporate balance sheets, while also suggesting that balance sheet health would deteriorate going forward.4  An updated read on the status of corporate balance sheets suggests that conditions are still favorable, but much less so than even a few months ago. We begin with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six financial ratios calculated from the US National Accounts data for the nonfinancial corporate sector. This indicator was deep in “improving health” territory at the end of 2021, but it moved close to neutral in 2022 Q1 (Chart 5). Ratings trends, meanwhile, send a similar message. Through the end of May, upgrades continued to dramatically outpace downgrades in the investment grade space (Chart 5, panel 2), but the rate of net upgrades slowed somewhat in high-yield (Chart 5, bottom panel). Digging deeper, we find that the main culprit behind the CHM’s recent jump is a large drop in the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Total Debt (Chart 6). This drop occurred because after-tax cash flows held roughly flat in Q1 but capital expenditures surged, causing free cash flow to dip (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 5Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Capex Surged In Q1 This trend is confirmed by another important indicator of corporate balance sheet health, the financing gap. The financing gap is the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings. A positive financing gap means that retained earnings are insufficient to cover capital expenditures and firms therefore have an incentive to tap debt markets. We see that the financing gap jumped sharply in Q1, from deeply negative into positive territory (Chart 7). Chart 7The Financing Gap Is Positive A positive financing gap on its own does not send a negative signal for corporate defaults. However, when a positive financing gap coincides with tightening lending standards, then an increase in the default rate becomes likely. For now, lending standards are close to unchanged (Chart 7, bottom panel), but there is a strong chance that continued Fed hiking will push them into ‘net tightening’ territory in the months ahead. Investment Implications Chart 8Attractive Value In HY Corporate balance sheet health isn’t quite flashing red, but it is certainly trending in the wrong direction. With continued Fed tightening likely to weigh on lending standards and interest coverage going forward, a defensive posture toward corporate bonds is warranted. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation (2 out of 5) to investment grade corporate bonds in US fixed income portfolios. We maintain a somewhat higher neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds for the time being. This is because high-yield valuation is quite attractive, and we see potential for some near-term spread tightening as inflation rolls over (Chart 8). That said, the sector’s long-term return prospects are not good, and we will consider turning more defensive should the average high-yield spread narrow to its 2017-19 average or should core inflation move closer to our 4% target.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/bullard/remarks/bullardowensborokychamberofcommerce17july2014final.pdf   3 https://www.c-span.org/video/?521106-1/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-testifies-inflation-economy 4 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns