Euro Area

Highlights Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year.  We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies.  Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere.  China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert.  Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices.  Two-way price risk abounds.  In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts.  Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally.  Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT.  Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise   Footnotes 1     Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth.  Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2     A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness.  It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now.  This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3    Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4    Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy.  The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea.  Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.”   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Global Inflation: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: ILB valuations, however, are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot The global reflation trade over the past year has been highly rewarding to investors. Equity and credit markets worldwide have delivered outstanding returns on the back of highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies implemented to deal with the negative economic effects of COVID-19. The global INflation trade has also paid off for investors in inflation-linked bonds (ILBs), which have outperformed nominal government debt across the developed economies dating back to last spring. The rising trend for global inflation breakevens remains intact, but is approaching some potential resistance points. A GDP-weighted average of 10-year breakeven inflation rates among the major developed economies is just shy of the 2% level that has represented a firm ceiling over the past decade (Chart of the Week). At the same time, the Bloomberg consensus forecast for headline CPI inflation for that same group of countries calls for an increase to only 1.8% by year-end before slowing to 1.7% in 2022. The latest forecasts from the IMF are similar, calling for headline inflation in the advanced economies to reach 1.6% in 2021 and 1.7% in 2022. If those modest forecasts for realized inflation come to fruition, then there is likely not much more upside in inflation breakevens, in aggregate. Country selection within the ILB universe will become more important over the next 6-12 months, as divergences in growth, realized inflation and central bank reactions will lead to a more heterogeneous path for global inflation breakevens. Underlying Inflation Backdrop Still Supports Rising Breakevens On a total return basis, ILBs enjoyed an extended run of success prior to this year. The cumulative total return of the asset class (in local currency terms) between 2012 and 2020 was a whopping 61% in the UK, 25% in Canada, 22% in the US and 21% in the euro area (aggregating the individual countries in the region with inflation-linked bonds). However, the absolute performance of ILBs has been more disperse on a country-by-country basis so far in 2021. ILBs are down year-to-date in Canada (-6.2%), the UK (-5.0%) and the US (-1.4%). On the other hand, euro area ILBs have delivered a positive total return of +0.5% so far in 2021. Real bond yields have climbed off the lows in the US, UK and, most notably, Canada where the overall index yield on the Bloomberg Barclays inflation-linked bond index is now in positive territory for the first time since before the pandemic started (Chart 2). At the same time, real bond yields have been drifting lower in the euro area. These real yield moves are related to shifting perceptions of central bank responses to the global growth upturn. For example, pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves have pulled forward the timing and pace of future interest rate increases in the US and Canada – i.e. real policy rates will become less negative - while there has been comparatively little change in euro zone rate expectations. While the absolute returns for ILBs have become less correlated, the relative trade between nominal and inflation-linked government bonds in all countries remains intact. 10-year breakeven inflation rates have been steadily climbing in the US and UK, while depressed Japanese breakevens have crept modestly higher (Chart 3). Even Europe, where inflation has remained subdued for years, has seen a significant shift higher in inflation breakevens. (Chart 4). The turn in breakevens has occurred alongside a major change in investor perceptions of future inflation, with surveys like the ZEW showing an overwhelming majority of financial professionals expecting higher inflation in the US, Europe and the UK. Chart 2A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 3A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations Chart 4European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize Inflation forecasts have shifted in response to faster global growth expectations on the back of vaccine optimism and aggressive US fiscal stimulus. Yet inflation forecasts remain modest compared to the huge growth figures expected for 2021 and 2022. In its latest World Economic Outlook published last week, the IMF upgraded its global real GDP forecast to 6.0% for 2021 and 4.4% for 2022. This represented an increase of 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively, from the last set of forecasts published back in January. While growth upgrades occurred across all major developed and emerging economies, the biggest upgrades came in the US and Canada, for both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the IMF projects the output gap in both countries to turn positive over 2022 and 2023, and be nearly closed in core Europe, Australia and Japan (Chart 5). The IMF is not projecting a major inflation surge on the back of those upbeat growth forecasts, though. While headline inflation in the US is expected to climb to 2.3% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2022, the same measure in Canada is only projected to rise to 1.7% and 2.0% over the same two years. European inflation is expected to remain subdued, reaching only 1.4% this year and drifting back to 1.2% in 2022 despite real GDP growth averaging 4.1% over the two-year period. The IMF attributes the benign inflation outcomes, even in the face of booming growth rates and the rapid elimination of output gaps, to the structural disinflationary backdrop for so-called “non-cyclical” inflation (Chart 6). The IMF defines this as the components of inflation indices that are less sensitive to changes in aggregate demand. The IMF estimates show that the contribution from non-cyclical components to overall inflation in the advanced economies had fallen to essentially zero at the end of 2020. Chart 5A Big Expected Narrowing Of Output Gaps Chart 6Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation There is considerable upside risk for the more cyclical components of inflation that could result in inflation overshooting the IMF projections (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary For example, in the US, the Prices Paid component of the ISM Manufacturing index remains elevated at post-2008 highs, while the year-over-year change in the Producer Price Index soared to 6% in March. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission business and consumer surveys have shown a big surge in the net balance of respondents expecting higher inflation in manufacturing and retail trade. Previous weakness in the US dollar and surging commodity prices are playing a major role in this rapid pick-up in price pressures seen in many countries. Given the current backdrop of strong global growth expectations, with actual activity accelerating as vaccinations increase and more parts of the global economy reopen, inflation pressures are unlikely to fade in the near term. With realized inflation rates set to spike due to base effect comparisons to the pandemic-fueled collapse one year ago, the upward pressure on global ILB inflation breakevens will persist in the coming months – especially with breakevens still below levels that would prompt central banks to turn less dovish sooner than expected. Bottom Line: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Assessing Value In Developed Market Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 8USD Outlook Now More Mixed Although the current backdrop remains conducive to a continuation of the rising trend in global ILB breakevens, there are factors that could begin to slow the upward momentum. The future path of the US dollar is now a bit less certain (Chart 8). While the DXY index is still down 7.4% compared to a year ago, it is up 2.4% so far in 2021. Shorter-term real interest rate differentials between the US and the other major developed markets remain dollar-bearish. At the same time, longer-term real yield differentials have risen in favor of the US (middle panel). Furthermore, US growth is outperforming other developed economies, typically a dollar-bullish factor (bottom panel). Given the usual negative correlation between the US dollar and commodity prices, a loss of downside dollar momentum could also slow the pace of commodity price appreciation. This represents a risk to additional global ILB outperformance versus government bonds. Our GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year ILB breakevens for the major developed economies is currently just under 2% - levels more consistent with oil prices over $80/bbl than the current price closer to $60/bbl (Chart 9). Chart 9Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Given some of these uncertainties over the strength of any future inflationary push from a weaker US dollar and rising commodity prices, a broad overweight allocation to ILBs across the entire developed market universe may no longer generate the same strong returns versus nominal government bonds seen over the past year. With the “easy money” already having been made in the global breakeven widening trade, country allocation within the ILB universe has now become a more important dimension for bond investors to consider. To assess the relative attractiveness of individual ILB markets, we turn to a few valuation tools. Our regression-based valuation models for 10-year ILB breakevens in the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia are all presented in the Appendix on pages 14-17. The two inputs into the model are the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms (as a measure of shorter-term inflation pressure) and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation (as a longer-term trend that provides a structural “anchor” for breakevens based off actual inflation outcomes). We first presented these models in April 2020, but we have now made a change in response to some of the unprecedented developments witnessed over the past year.1 Despite the strong visual correlation between the level of oil prices and inflation breakevens in most countries, we chose to use the annual growth of oil prices, rather than the level, in our breakeven models. This is because we found it more logical to compare a rate of change concept like inflation (and breakevens) to the rate of change of oil. However, the oil input into our breakeven models could produce nonsensical results during periods of extreme oil volatility that did not generate equivalent swings in breakeven inflation rates. A good example of that occurred in 2016, when the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price briefly surged toward 100%, yet 10-year US TIPS breakevens did not rise above 2% (Chart 10). An even bigger swing in oil prices has occurred over the past year, with oil prices up over +200% compared to the collapse in prices that occurred one year ago. Putting such an extreme move into our US model would have pushed the “fair value” level of the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 4% - an implausible outcome given that the 10-year breakeven has never risen to even as high as 3% in the entire 24-year history of the TIPS market. Chart 10Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits To deal with this problem, we have truncated the rate of change of oil prices in all our breakeven models at levels consistent with past peaks of breakevens. Going back to the US example, we have “capped” the rate of change of the Brent oil price at +40%, as past periods when oil price momentum was greater than 40% did not translate into any additional increase in TIPS breakevens. We then re-estimated the model using this truncated oil price series to generate fair value breakeven levels. Chart 11A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens We did this for all eight of our individual country breakeven models and in all cases, truncating extreme oil moves improved the accuracy of the model. Interestingly, we did not truncate the downside momentum of oil prices, as there was no obvious “cut-off” point where periods of collapsing oil prices did not generate equivalent declines in breakevens. Oil prices remain the most critical short-term variable to determine ILB breakeven valuation. While it is intuitive to think that currency movements should also have a meaningful impact on inflation (both realized and expected), the effect is not consistent across countries. For example, euro area breakevens appear to be positively correlated to the euro, while Japanese breakevens rarely rise without yen weakness (Chart 11). One other factor to consider when evaluating the value of breakevens is the possible existence of an inflation risk premium component during periods of higher uncertainty over future inflation. Such uncertainty could result in increased demand for ILBs from investors driving up the price of ILBs (thus lowering the real yield) relative to nominal yielding bonds, leading to wider breakevens that do not necessarily reflect a true rise in expected inflation. A simple way to measure such an inflation risk premium is to compare market-based breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation forecasts taken from sources like the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters and the Bank of Canada’s Survey Of Consumer Expectations. The assumption here is that the survey-based measures represent a more accurate (or, at least, less biased) depiction of underlying inflation expectations in an economy. We present these simple measures of inflation risk premia, comparing 10-year breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, in Chart 12 and Chart 13. Breakevens had been trading well below survey-based measures of inflation expectations after the negative pandemic growth shock in 2020 in all countries shown. After the steady climb in global breakevens seen over the past year, those gaps have largely disappeared, with breakevens now trading slightly above survey based inflation expectations in the US, UK and Australia. Chart 12No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets Chart 13Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Chart 14Assessing The Value Of Breakevens In Chart 14, we show the valuation residuals from our 10-year ILB breakeven models, along with two other measures of potential breakeven valuation: a) the distance between current breakeven levels and their most recent pre-pandemic peaks; and b) the difference between breakevens and the survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The model results show that breakevens are furthest below fair value in France, Japan and Germany, and the most above fair value in the UK and Australia. The message of undervaluation from our models is confirmed in the other two metrics for France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy. The overvaluation message for Australia is consistent across all three valuation metrics, while the signals are mixed for US and UK breakevens. In Japan, while the combined signals of all three valuation metrics indicate that breakevens are far too low, the very robust positive correlation between Japanese breakevens and the USD/JPY exchange rate implies that a bet on wider breakevens requires a much weaker yen. In Canada, while the 10-year breakeven does appear cheap, the real yield has also climbed faster than any of the other countries over the past several months as markets have rapidly repriced a more hawkish path for the Bank of Canada. Recent comments from Bank of Canada officials have leaned a bit hawkish, hinting at a possible taper of its bond-buying program, as the central bank appears unhappy with the renewed boom in Canadian housing values. An early tightening of monetary conditions would likely cap any additional upside in Canadian inflation breakevens. In Europe, the undervaluation of breakevens is more compelling. The ECB is likely to maintain its dovish policy settings into at least 2023, even if growth recovers later this year as increased vaccinations lead to the end of lockdowns. As shown earlier, European breakevens can continue to rise even if the euro is also appreciating versus the US dollar, especially if growth is recovering and oil prices are rising. Euro area breakevens are likely to continue drifting higher over at least the rest of 2021. Currently in our model bond portfolio, we have allocations to ILBs out of nominal government bonds in the US, France, Canada and Italy, with no allocations in Germany, Japan, Australia or the UK. After assessing our valuation measures, we are comfortable with the ILB exposure in France and Italy and lack of positions in the UK and Australia. We still see the upside case for US breakevens, with the economy reopening rapidly fueled further by fiscal policy, and the Fed likely to maintain its current highly dovish forward guidance until much later in 2021. We are reluctant to add exposure to Japanese ILBs, despite attractive valuations, as we are not convinced that USD/JPY has enough upside potential to help realize that undervaluation of Japanese breakevens. Thus, as a new change to our model portfolio this week that reflects our assessment of ILB breakeven valuations and risks, we are closing out the exposure to Canadian ILBs and adding a new position in German ILBs of equivalent size (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 18-19). Bottom Line: ILB valuations are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart A1Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A2Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A3Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A4Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A5Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A6Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A7Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A8Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The Swiss economy will benefit from the pickup in global growth. The recent weakness in the franc has been a welcome development for the Swiss National Bank, but technicals suggest a coiled spring rally in CHF is likely. However, as a low-beta currency, the Swiss franc will lag the upturn in other pro-cyclical currencies over the longer term. We remain long EUR/CHF as a tactical trade but maintain tight stops at 1.095. Long CHF/NZD and CHF/GBP positions look attractive at current levels. Similar to our short EUR/JPY position, this is an excellent portfolio hedge. Feature Chart I-1The Swiss Economy Is On The Mend The Swiss economy has recovered smartly. As of March, the manufacturing PMI was at 66.3, the highest since 2006. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades (Chart I-1). This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. The Swiss franc has been one of the worst performing currencies this year, but that might be about to change. For one, dollar sentiment has been reset with the rise in the DXY index this year. Second, the global economy is transitioning from disinflationary to a gentle tilt towards inflation. This will lift global prices, including import prices into Switzerland. Rising import prices will ease the need for the SNB to maintain emergency monetary settings. Finally, the weakness in the currency has eased financial conditions for Swiss concerns. The Reopening Trade Most economies are entering into a third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Swiss economy is no exception. However, the Swiss authorities have been able to bring the number of new infections down to levels below the euro area in general and Sweden in particular. Vaccinations are progressing smoothly with almost 20% of the population inoculated as of today. This provides a coiled springboard to lift the Swiss economy into robust growth later this year. Switzerland is one of the most open economies in the G10. Exports of goods and services account for over 65% of Swiss GDP, much higher than the euro area (Chart I-2). The constituent of Swiss exports tends to be defensive (medical goods, gold, watches, jewelry) so the franc does not necessarily outperform in a global growth upswing, but definitely does better than the dollar which anchors a more closed economy. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvement in the private sector. As we show in Chart I-1, employment should remain robust in the months ahead, which will support wages. Import prices in Switzerland are also about to catapult upwards, which will help lift the consumer price basket (Chart I-3). For a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation, and the weakness in the franc has been a beneficial cushion for good prices. The rise in global tradeable prices is also acting as a catalyst. For the first time in many years, the pendulum might be swinging towards a worry about inflation in SNB corridors. Chart I-2Switzerland Has A Huge Exposure To Trade Chart I-3Swiss Inflation Will Rise Particularly, a rise in Swiss inflation will lessen the need for the SNB to keep rates at the -0.75 level in place for over half a decade. It will also lessen to need for the SNB to fight against franc strength.  Global Developments In A CHF Context There are some additional tailwinds to a strong CHF in today’s context. Volatility has collapsed, with the VIX index well below 20. If one could predict with absolute certainty what will happen with global growth, equity prices, bond yields, or even Covid-19, then low volatility makes sense. However, in the current context of elevated valuations, high uncertainty and a precarious health landscape, it almost makes perfect sense that volatility should rise. The franc tends to do well in an environment where volatility is rising (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Swiss Franc Tracks The VIX Chart I-5Long-Term Support On CHF/NZD Has Held In fact, from a broad picture perspective, a rotation from US growth outperformance to other parts of the globe that are also stimulating their domestic economies could be met with higher dollar volatility. This has historically been beneficial for the Swiss franc (Chart I-6). Ergo, being long the franc could constitute a “heads, I win; tails I do not lose too much” proposition. Rising global growth and a lower dollar will help the franc, but so will a rise in volatility. Chart I-6CHF/NZD Tracks Dollar Volatility Our Geopolitical Strategy team has also been recommending long Swiss franc positions since February as they believe the Biden administration faces several imminent and serious foreign policy tests, namely over Russia’s military buildup on the Ukraine border, China’s military pressure tactics against Taiwan, and Middle East tensions ahead of any revived US-Iran nuclear deal. They see a 60% chance of some kind of crisis – if not war – over the Taiwan Strait and any of these other issues could also motivate safe haven demand for the rest of this year.  With regard to CHF/GBP, an upside surprise for the Scottish National Party in the May 6 parliamentary election could also hurt the pound since it would herald a second Scots independence referendum in the not-too-distant future. Trading Dynamics As A Safe Haven Chart I-7CHF And The Copper/Gold Ratio Switzerland ticks off all the characteristics of a safe-haven currency. Its large net international investment position of over 100% of GDP generates huge income inflows. Meanwhile, rising productivity over the years has led to a structural surplus in its trading balance and a rising fair value for the currency. Consequently, the franc has tended to have an upward bias over the years, supercharged during periods of risk aversion. This makes the franc a useful constituent of any currency portfolio. More specifically, the franc has tracked the gold-to-copper ratio in recent years. Copper is a good barometer for global economic health while gold is a good proxy for the demand for safety. If the overarching theme is that complacency reigns across markets, a nudge towards safety will benefit flows into the franc (Chart I-7). The current interest-rate regime could also affect the franc-dollar relationship. Global yields have risen. To the extent that we are due for some reprieve, the franc will benefit, given its “low beta” status. Meanwhile, net portfolio flows into Switzerland suffered from the Trump tax cuts that pushed US affiliates in Switzerland to repatriate investments. President Biden’s tax reform will halt and/or reverse this process. SNB Action And Market Implications The past weakness in the franc has been a welcome development for the SNB. In fact, since the start of this year, Swiss central bankers have not had to ramp up asset purchases. Both the dollar and the euro have been relatively strong (Chart I-8). In other words, global dynamics have eased monetary conditions for the Swiss authorities. The latest Article IV report from the IMF also justifies the SNB’s monetary stance. Currency intervention was cited as a viable tool should the SNB do a policy review, especially given the potential inefficacies from QE due to the small bond market in Switzerland. Herein lies the key takeaway for the franc – while it could appreciate in an environment where the dollar resumes its downtrend, it will likely lag other pro cyclical currencies over the longer term. This is because the SNB will be loath to see the franc unanchor inflation expectations. We are long EUR/CHF on this basis, but are keeping tight stops at 1.095. Three key factors suggest this trade could still work well in the coming 12-18 months. Rising interest rates benefit EUR/CHF (Chart I-9). With interest rates in Switzerland well below other countries, the Swiss franc rapidly becomes a funding currency for carry trades. Carry trades, especially towards peripheral bonds in Europe hurt the franc. Chart I-8A Weaker Franc Is Doing The Heavy Lifting For The SNB Chart I-9EUR/CHF Tracks German ##br## Yields The Swiss trade balance has suffered in the face of a global slowdown. It will also lag the European rebound (Chart I-10). In a downturn, commoditized goods prices are the first to drop and recover, while more specialized goods prices eventually gain ground later. Swiss goods are not easily substitutable which is a benefit, but prices are also slower to adjust. Our models suggest the franc is still about 5% overvalued versus the euro. Over the history of the model, this has been a modest premium, but allows the euro to outperform the Swiss franc (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Structural Appreciation In The Swiss Franc Chart I-11EUR/CHF Is Still Cheap Economically, the SNB has to walk a fine line between a predominantly deflationary backdrop in Switzerland and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio that pins it among the highest in the G10 (Chart I-12). Too little stimulus and the economy runs the risk of entering a debt-deflation spiral, as inflation expectations are revised downwards. Too much stimulus and the result will be a build-up of imbalances, leading to an eventual bust. Chart I-12Lots Of Private Debt In Switzerland Today, the SNB is in a sweet spot. Almost every other G10 country is providing the fiscal and monetary stimulus necessary to lift Switzerland from its deflationary paradigm. Investment Conclusions Chart I-13Structural Appreciation In The Franc Still Possible Our long-term fair value models suggest the Swiss franc is currently cheap versus the dollar (Chart I-13). This makes it attractive from a strategic perspective. Usually, the Swiss franc tends to be more of a dormant currency, gently appreciating towards fair value but periodically interspersed with bouts of intense volatility. Interestingly, we may be entering such a riot point. The VIX is low and countries are reintroducing lockdowns, yet overall sentiment remains unequivocally bullish. Finally, Switzerland ticks off all the characteristics of a safe-haven currency. As such, while the dollar has benefited from its reserve status, the franc remains an appropriate hedge in any currency portfolio. In a nutshell, our recommendations are as follows: USD/CHF will stay under parity. EUR/CHF can hit 1.2. NZD/CHF is a sell in the short-term. So is GBP/CHF. The Scandinavian currencies will outperform the franc on a 12-18 month horizon.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 US economic data has been spectacular this week: Starting with the jobs report, the US added 916K jobs in March versus a consensus of 660K jobs. The unemployment rate fell from 6.2% to 6% and wages increased by 4.2% year-on-year. The boost to domestic demand dented the trade balance. The deficit widened from $68.2bn to $71.1bn in February. The FOMC minutes were a non event for markets. The DXY index is giving back some of the gains it accumulated this year, rising over 1% this week. With the US 10-year yield now facing strong resistance near the 1.7% level, the case for a stronger USD is fading. As consensus forecasts coagulate towards a stronger USD, positioning has also been reset towards USD long positions auguring for some volatility in the months ahead. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area are mending: The Sentix investor index catapulted from 5 to 13.1 in April. The Eurozone remains the unsung hero in this recovery. PPI increased to 1.5% year-on-year in February from 0% last month. The euro rose by 1.2% against the dollar this week. To be clear, there are still stale euro longs among more fundamental holders of the currency. This suggests the flushing out of weak hands has more to go. However, the balance of evidence suggests euro area data could reward long positions later this year.  Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan has been improving: PMI indices remain under 50, but reflect a possible coiled-spring rebound underway. Consumer confidence rebounded from 33.8 to 36.1 in March. The Eco Watchers survey was also encouraging. Sentiment rebounded from 41.3 to 49 in March. The Japanese yen rose by 1.24% against the US dollar this week, and remains the strongest G10 currency in recent trading days. Falling yields have seen Japanese investors retreat from overseas markets such as the UK, pushing up the yen. Speculative positioning is also net yen bearish, which is constructive from a contrarian standpoint. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data out of the UK have been positive: Car registrations are picking up smartly, suggesting durable demand might be returning to the UK. Registrations rose 11.5% year-on-year in March versus -35.5% the year before. The UK construction PMI hit a high of 61.7, the highest since 2014. The pound fell by almost 2% versus the euro this week. The violent correction in EURGBP might be a harbinger of the rotation brewing for both UK and US assets versus their global counterparts. Stay tuned. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia was robust: The RBA kept rates unchanged at 0.1%. Both the services and manufacturing PMIs remained at an expansionary 55.5 level. The Aussie rose by 0.4% this week. We like the AUD, and are long AUD/NZD as a trade. However, the outperformance of the US economy is also handsomely rewarding AUD/MXN shorts. Mexico benefits a lot more from a pick-up in the US economy than Australia. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data out of New Zealand have been positive: The ANZ commodity price index ticked up by 6.1% in March. ANZ Business confidence deteriorated in March. The activity outlook fell from 16.6 to 16.4 and confidence fell from -4.1 to -8.4. The New Zealand dollar rose by 60bps against the US dollar this week. New Zealand will start taking the back seat in the coming economic rotation as other economies play catch up. The improvement in kiwi terms of trade has been a boon for the currency, and will limit downside on NZD. However, shorting the NZD at the crosses remains an attractive proposition. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Canada this week: The Bloomberg Nanos confidence index continues to suggest that Canadian GDP will surprise to the upside. The index rose from 63.7 to 64.1 last week. Demand for Canadian goods remains robust. The trade surplus came in at C$1.04bn in February. The Ivey purchasing managers’ index catapulted to 72.9 from 60 in March. The Canadian dollar was flat against the US dollar this week. While this might come as a surprise, three reasons explain this performance. First, the loonie is one of the best-performing G10 currencies this year and some specter of rotation was in play this week. Second, the correction in oil prices hurt the loonie. Finally, should US economic optimism become more widespread, other currencies could benefit. Report Links: Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: Sight deposits were relatively flat at CHF700bn last week. The Swiss Franc rose by 2% against the US dollar this week. This week’s piece is dedicated to the possibility that the franc has a coiled-spring rebound in the near term. Safe-haven currencies are now benefitting from the drop in yields, while the franc has underperformed other currencies this year. This is welcome news for the SNB.  We have been long EUR/CHF on this expectation, and recommend investors stick with this trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: The March DNB manufacturing PMI came in at 56.1 from 57.5. Industrial production rose by 5.9% year-on-year versus expectations of a 1.5% increase. The NOK rose by 0.75% against the dollar this week. Norway has handled the Covid-19 crisis admirably and it is an added boon that oil prices, a key export and income valve for Norway, are rising smartly. This has prompted the Norges bank to rapidly bring forward rate hike expectations. This leaves little scope for the NOK to fall durably. We are long the Norwegian krone as a high-conviction bet against both the dollar and the euro. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data releases were above expectations: The Swedbank manufacturing PMI came in at 63.7 in March versus expectations of 62.5. Industrial orders came in at 8.5% year-on-year versus expectations of 5.3% in February. The Swedish krona rose by 2% this week ranking it as the best performing G10 currency. Sweden needs to do a better job at containing the Covid-19 crisis, which will unlock tremendous value in the krona. As a positive, the global manufacturing cycle continues humming and will buffeting Swedish industrial production. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Q1/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +55bps during the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +68bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (+63bps). Spread product allocations underperformed by -11bps, primarily due to an overweight on UK corporates (-8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral. Feature The first quarter of 2021 saw a sharp sell-off in global bond markets on the back of rising growth expectations, fueled by US fiscal stimulus and vaccine optimism. The US was near the front of the pack, with 10-year Treasuries having their biggest first quarter sell-off since 1994. Accommodative financial conditions, fueled by a highly stimulative mix of monetary and fiscal policies and improving sentiment, have lit a fire under a global economy set to reopen from pandemic lockdowns. Going forward, we expect US growth to continue leading the way, with implications for the dollar, commodity prices, and the expected path of policy rates. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the first quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2021 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Steering Clear Of Duration Chart 1Q1/2021 Performance: Bearish UST Bets Pay Off The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -1.83%, dramatically outperforming the custom benchmark index by +55bps (Chart 1).1 This follows modest outperformance in 2020 which was driven largely by overweights on spread product initiated after the pandemic shock to markets. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +68bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -11bps. Our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the US, Canada and Europe - which were a source of outperformance in 2020 - modestly underperformed this quarter (-2bps) as global real yields finally began to pick up. Our outperformance this quarter was driven overwhelmingly by our decision to go significantly underweight US Treasuries, and to position for a bearish steepening of the Treasury curve, ahead of last November’s US presidential election (Table 2). That resulted in the US Treasury allocation generating a massive +63bps of excess return in Q1/2022 as longer-term US yields surged higher. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Overall Return Attribution The size of the US underweight was unusually large as we maintained only a neutral exposure to the other “high beta” markets that are typically positively correlated to US yield moves, Canada and Australia. Although the returns for those two government bond markets were very similar to that of US Treasuries in Q1, so the choice to stay neutral even with a bearish directional view on US yields did not impact the overall portfolio performance. Overweights to the more defensive “low beta” markets of Germany, France and Japan contributed a combined +4bps. We did see some losses on nominal government bonds in peripheral Europe (Italy: -0.6bps; Spain: -1.9bps), however, with the narrowing in spreads thrown off by a botched vaccine rollout. In spread product, underperformance came from overweights to UK investment grade corporates (-8bps), US CMBS (-4bps), and EM USD-denominated corporates (-2bps). This was despite the fact that spreads for UK corporates remained flat while US CMBS spreads actually narrowed. These losses were slightly offset by the overweight to lower-rated US high-yield (+3bps) and underweight to US agency MBS (+2bps). Our spread product losses, in total return terms, highlight the importance of considering duration risk when making a call on spread product, especially at a time when sovereign yields are rising and spreads offer little “cushion”. Duration also played a big part in nominal government bond outperformance, with a whopping +43bps of our total +55bps outperformance concentrated in just US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years. In other words, overweighting overall global spread product and underweighting government bonds still generated major portfolio outperformance, even if there was a more mixed bag of returns within that credit overweight. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+43bps), maturity between 7 and 10 years (+11bps), and with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (+7bps) Overweight US high-yield (+3bps) Underweight US agency MBS (+2bps) Overweight Italian inflation-indexed BTPs (+2bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight UK investment grade corporates (-8bps) Overweight US agency CMBS (-4bps) Overweight Spanish government bonds (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. On that front, our portfolio allocations performed exceptionally well in Q1. In total return terms, the global bond market sell-off was a disaster for both government bonds and spread product. US high-yield, one of our longer-standing overweights, was the only sector to emerge unscathed, delivering a positive return of +42bps. Within our government bond allocation, the “defensive” markets—Japan (-44bps), Germany, (-261bps) and France (-371bps)—were nevertheless shaken by rising yields. On the other hand, we limited our downside by maintaining a neutral stance on the higher beta markets such as Canada (-406bps), New Zealand (-415bps), and the UK (-1389bps). Gilts sold off especially sharply as the UK outperformed global peers on COVID-19 vaccinations while inflation expectations continued to pick up. Our two underweights, US Treasuries (-426bps) and European high-yield (-426bps), were prescient. The latter market was one we chose to underweight given that spreads didn’t offer nearly enough compensation on a default-adjusted and breakeven basis. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the first quarter of the year by +55bps – a positive result driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market and overall below-benchmark global duration stance. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Chart 5More Growth-Driven Upside For Global Yields Ahead Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven predominantly by the future moves of global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored leading indicators for global bond yields continue to signal more upside over at least the next six months (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of measures of future economic sentiment and momentum, remains at an elevated level. The ongoing climb in the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, suggests that the recent uptick in real yields can continue into the second half of 2021. We are still maintaining a bias towards bearish yield curve steepening across all the countries in the model bond portfolio. It is still far too soon to see bearish flattening of yield curves given the dovish bias of global central banks, many of which are actively targeting an overshoot of their own inflation targets. The US will be the first central bank to see any bearish flattening pressure, as the market more aggressively pulls forward the liftoff date of the next Fed tightening cycle in response to strong US growth, but that is an outcome we do not expect until well into the second half of 2021. With regards to country allocations within the government bond segment of the model bond portfolio, we continue to focus our maximum underweight on the US, while limiting exposure to the markets that are more sensitive to changes in US interest rates (Chart 6). Those “lower yield beta” markets (Germany, France and Japan) will continue to outperform the higher beta markets (Canada, Australia) over the latter half of 2021. We currently have Canada on “downgrade watch”, as economic momentum is accelerating and the housing bubble looks to be reflating, both of which will make the Bank of Canada turn more hawkish shortly after the Fed does. We are more comfortable keeping Australia at neutral, as Australian inflation is likely to remain too underwhelming for the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish and risk a surge in the Australian dollar. UK Gilts are a more difficult case, atypically acting like a lower beta market over the past few years. As we discussed in a Special Report published last month, we attribute the declining Gilt yield beta to the rolling shocks the UK has suffered over the past thirteen years – the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2012 euro area debt crisis, Brexit and, now, COVID-19 – that have hamstrung the Bank of England’s ability to try even modest interest rate hikes.2 With the impact of those shocks on UK growth now diminishing, we see the central bank under greater pressure to begin normalizing UK monetary policy over the couple of years. We downgraded our cyclical stance on UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight in that Special Report and, this week, we are making the same reduction in UK weightings in our model bond portfolio (see the portfolio tables on pages 20-21). After that change, the overall duration of the model bond portfolio remains below that of the custom benchmark index, now by -0.75 years (Chart 7). Chart 6Low-Beta Markets Will Continue To Outperform USTs Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark We continue to see the dovish bias of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt (Chart 8). Yes, the “easy money” has been made betting on a recovery of inflation expectations from the bombed-out levels seen after the COVID-19 recession in 2020. However, within the major developed economies with inflation-linked bond markets, 10-year breakevens have already climbed beyond the pre-pandemic levels of early 2020 (Chart 9). The next targets are the previous cyclical highs seen in 2018 (and 2019 for the UK). Chart 8Dovish Central Banks Still Positive For Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 9Inflation Breakevens Returning To Past Cyclical Peaks Chart 10Still A Supportive Backdrop For Global Corporates The 10-year US TIPS breakeven is already past that 2018 peak of 2.18%, and with the Fed showing no sign of concern about US growth and inflation accelerating, the 10-year US breakeven should end up moving into the high end of our expected 2.3-2.5% target range before the Fed begins to turn less dovish. Thus, we are maintaining a core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy, France and Canada. The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy that has been good for relative inflation-linked bond performance continues to benefit global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England remains an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 55% pace, corporate bonds are still likely to continue to outperform government debt over the remainder of 2021. Much of that expected return outperformance of corporates will come via carry rather than spread compression, though. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads, the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, shows that only US high-yield spreads are above the bottom quartile of their history among the credit sectors in our model portfolio (Chart 11). Given the absence of spread cushion in those other markets, we are maintaining an overweight stance on US high-yield in the model bond portfolio – especially versus euro area high-yield where we are underweight - while staying neutral investment grade credit in the US and Europe. Chart 11US High-Yield: The Last Bastion Of Attractive Spreads Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds over investment grade corporates, given the European Central Bank’s more explicit support for the former through quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect Italian yields and spreads to converge down to Spanish levels, likely within the next 6-12 months, while there is limited downside for euro area investment grade spreads given tight valuations. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area IG We are not only looking at relative valuation considerations in developed market credit. Emerging market (EM) USD-denominated credit has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD credit, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, with the Chinese credit impulse likely to slow in the latter half of 2021 as Chinese policymakers look to rein in stimulus, a slower pace of Chinese economic growth represents a risk to EM credit (Chart 13). The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating with US bond yields rising and the markets questioning the Fed’s dovish forward guidance on future rate hikes (Chart 14). A strong US dollar would also be a risk to the commodity price rally that has supported EM financial assets. Chart 13Global Policy Mix Becoming Less Supportive For EM Chart 14A Stronger USD Is A Risk For EM Corporates Vs Sovereigns Chart 15A Moderate Overweight To Spread Product Vs Government Debt In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop, we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to neutral from overweight. We are maintaining our relative preference for EM investment grade corporates over sovereigns, however, within that overall neutral allocation. Summing it all up, we are sticking with a moderately overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt in the model portfolio, equal to four percentage points (Chart 15). That overweight comes entirely from the US high-yield allocation. After the changes made to our UK and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 41bps (Chart 16). This is an unsurprising outcome given that the current positioning is focused so heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral. That will change as 2021 progresses but, for now, our highest conviction views are in US fixed income. One final point – the relatively concentrated positioning leaves the portfolio “flat carry”, with a yield roughly equal to that of the benchmark index (Chart 17). Chart 16Limited Use Of Portfolio 'Tracking Error' Chart 17Model Portfolio Yield Close To Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the UK and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Base case: Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy reopening over the summer, with excess savings built up during the pandemic – augmented by ongoing fiscal support – starting to be spent. US economic growth will be most robust out of the major economies, given the additional boost from fiscal stimulus, while China implements actions to slow credit growth and the euro area lags on vaccinations. The Fed stands its ground and maintains no rate hikes until at least 2023, and US TIPS breakevens climb to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (2.3-2.5%). The US Treasury curve continues to bear-steepen, with the 10-year US yield rising to 2%. The VIX falls to 15, the US dollar is flat, the Brent oil price rises +5%, and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0%. Optimistic case: A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a reopening euro area. Chinese policymakers tighten credit by less than expected. Markets begin to pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US but also in the other countries like Canada and the UK. Real bond yields continue to climb globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated. The steepening trend of the US Treasury curve ends, and mild bear flattening begins with the 10-year reaching 2.2% and the 2-year yield climbing to 0.4%. The VIX stays unchanged at 18, the US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price climbs +2.5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Pessimistic case: Setbacks on the pandemic, either from struggles with vaccine distribution or a surge in variant cases, lead to a slower pace of global growth momentum. Europe cannot reopen, China tightens credit policy faster than expected, and US households hold onto to excess savings amid lingering virus uncertainty. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.5%. The VIX rises to 25, the US dollar falls -2.5% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 18 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 19. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 18Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 19US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case and +54bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -27bps in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 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

Special Report

Highlights The Eurozone economy and assets remain beholden to the global manufacturing cycle. This sensitivity reflects the large share of output generated by capex and exports. Yet, the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022 could see euro area growth follow the beat of its own drum. This is a consequence of the unique role of consumption in the COVID-19 recession. European growth will therefore outperform expectations, even if economic momentum slows outside of Europe. Consequently, the euro and Eurozone equities will outperform for the coming 12 to 18 months. Feature For the past 20 years, investors have used a simple rule of thumb to understand European growth and markets. Europe is a derivative of global growth because of its large manufacturing sector and torpid domestic economy. A reductionist approach would even argue that China’s economy is what matters most for Europe. Is this model still valid to analyze Europe? In general, this approach still holds up well. However, the nature of the 2020 COVID-19 recession suggests that the European economy could still accelerate in the second half of the year, despite a small slowdown in the Chinese economy and global manufacturing sector. The Origin Of The Pro-Cyclicality Narrative Investors in European markets have long understood that Eurozone equities outperform when the global manufacturing cycle accelerates. This pro-cyclicality of European stocks is a consequence of their heavy weighting toward cyclical and value stocks, such as industrials, consumer discretionary and financials. Chart 1German/US Spreads: Global Manufacturing Cycle Historically, European yields have also moved in a very pro-cyclical fashion. Over the past 30 years, periods when German 10-year yields rose relative to that of US Treasury Notes have coincided with an improvement in the global manufacturing sector as approximated by the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart 1). Investors also understand that the euro is a pro-cyclical currency. Some of this behavior reflects the counter-cyclicality of the US dollar. However, if German yields rise more than US ones when global growth improves and European equities outperform under similar conditions, the euro naturally attracts inflows when the global manufacturing sector strengthens. Chart 2China Is A Key Determinant Of European Activity Ultimately, the responsiveness of the euro and European assets to global growth is rooted in the nature of the European economy. Trade and manufacturing account for nearly 40% and 14% of GDP, respectively, compared to 26% and 11% for the US. This economic specialization has made Europe extremely sensitive to the gyrations of the Chinese economy, the largest contributor to fluctuation in the global demand for capital goods. As Chart 2 highlights, European IP and PMI outperform the US when China’s marginal propensity to consume (as approximated by the growth in M1 relative to M2) picks up. Is The Pro-Cyclical Narrative Still Valid? Despite the euro area debt crisis and the slow health and fiscal policy response of European authorities to COVID-19, evidence suggests that the Eurozone’s pro-cyclicality is only increasing. Chart 3Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World A simple statistical analysis confirms this hypothesis. A look at the beta of European GDP growth against the Global PMI reveals that the sensitivity of Eurozone growth and German growth to the Global PMI has steadily increased over the past 20 years (Chart 3, top panel). Moreover, the beta of euro area growth to the global PMI is now higher than that of the US, despite a considerably lower potential GDP growth, which means that a greater proportion of the Eurozone’s GDP growth is affected by globally-driven fluctuations. The bottom panel of Chart 3 shows a more volatile but similar relationship with Chinese economic activity. Correlation analysis confirms that Europe remains very sensitive to global factors. Currently, the rolling correlation of a regression of Eurozone GDP growth versus that of China stands near 0.7, which is comparable to levels that prevailed between 2005 and 2012. The correlation between German and Chinese GDP growth is now higher than at any point during the past two decades. Chart 4The Declining Role Of Consumption The increasing influence of global economic variables on the European economy reflects the evolution of the composition of the Eurozone’s GDP. Over the past 11 years, the share of consumption within GDP has decreased from 57% to 52%. For comparison’s sake, consumption accounts for 71% of US GDP. The two sectors that have taken the primacy away from consumption are capex and net exports, whose combined share has grown from 22% to 26% of GDP (Chart 4). This shift in the composition of GDP echoes the structural forces facing the Eurozone. An ageing population, a banking system focused on rebuilding its balance sheet, and the tackling of the competitiveness problems of peripheral economies have hurt wage growth, consumption and imports. Meanwhile, exports have remained on a stable trend, thanks to both the comparative vigor of the euro area’s trading partners and a cheap euro. Therefore, net exports expanded. Capex benefited from the strength in European exports. A Granger causality test reveals that consumption has little impact on fixed-capital formation in the euro area. However, the same method shows that fluctuations in export growth cause changes in investment. This makes sense. The variance in exports is an important contributor to the variability of Eurozone profits (Chart 5). Thus, rising exports incentivize the European corporate sector to expand its capital stock to fulfill foreign demand. The expanding share of output created by exports and capex along with the role of exports as a driver of capex explains why Europe economic activity is bound to remain so sensitive to the fluctuations in global trade and manufacturing activity. Moreover, the capex/exports interplay even affects consumption. As Chart 6 shows, the growth of euro area personal expenditures often bottoms after the annual rate of change of the new orders of capital goods has troughed, which reflects the role of exports as a driver of European income. Chart 5Profits And Exports Chart 6Consumption Doesn't Move In A Vacuum Bottom Line: European economic activity remains a high beta play on global and Chinese growth. The decrease in consumption to the benefit of exports and capex explains why this reality will not change anytime soon. 2021, An Idiosyncratic Year? In 2021, consumption will be the key input to the European economic performance, despite the long-term relationship between European GDP and foreign economic activity. This will allow European growth to narrow some of its gap with the US and the rest of the world in the second half of this year and the first half of 2022, even if the global manufacturing sector comes off its boil soon. The 2020 recession was unique. In a normal recession, capex, real estate investment, spending on durable goods and the manufacturing sector are the main contributors to the decline in GDP. This time, consumption and the service sector generated most of the contraction in output. These two sectors also caused the second dip in GDP following the tightening of lockdown measures across Europe last winter. Once the more recent wave of lockdowns is behind us, consumption will most likely slingshot to higher levels. More than the US, where the economy has been partially open for months now, Europe remains replete with significant pent-up demand. Obviously, fulfilling this demand will require further progress in the European vaccination campaign, something we recently discussed. Chart 7The Money Supply Forecasts A Rapid Recovery The surge in M1 also points to a sharp rebound in consumption once governments lift the current lockdowns (Chart 7). M1 is a much more reliable predictor of economic activity in Europe than in the US, because disintermediation is not as prevalent in the Eurozone, where banks account for 72% and 88% of corporate and household credit, respectively, compared to 32% and 29% in the US. We cannot dismiss the explosion in the money supply as only a function of the ECB’s actions. European banks are in much better shape today than they were 10 years ago. Non-performing loans have been steadily decreasing. A rise in delinquencies is likely in the coming quarters due to the pandemic; however, the EUR3 trillion in credit guarantees by governments will limit the damages to the private sector’s and banking system’s balance sheets. Moreover, the Tier-1 capital ratio of the banking system ranges between 14% for Spain and 17% for Germany, well above the 10.5% threshold set by Basel-III (Chart 8). In this context, the pick-up in money supply mirrored credit flows. Thus, even if some of that credit reflects precautionary demand, the likelihood is high that a significant proportion of the built-up cash balances will find its way into the economy. Another positive sign for consumption comes from European confidence surveys. Despite tighter lockdown measures, consumer confidence has sharply rebounded, which historically heralds stronger consumption. Moreover, according to the ECB’s loan survey, stronger consumer confidence is causing an improvement in credit demand, which foreshadows a decline in savings intentions, especially now that wage growth is stabilizing (Chart 9). Nonetheless, there is still a risk that the advance in wages peters off. The recent wage agreement reached by Germany’s IG Metall union in North Rhine Westphalia was a paltry 1.3% annual pay raise, and once the Kurzarbeit programs end, the true level of labor market slack will become evident. However, for consumption to grow, all that we need to see now is stable wage growth, even if at a low rate.  Chart 8European Banks Are Feeling Better Chart 9Confidence Points To Stronger Consumption Beyond consumption, Europe’s fiscal policy will be positive compared to the US next year. The NGEU plan will add roughly 1% to GDP in both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the Eurozone’s net fiscal drag should be no greater than 1% of GDP next year. This compares to a fiscal thrust of -7% in the US in 2022, even after factoring in the new “American Jobs Act” proposed by the Biden Administration last week, according to our US Political Strategy team. Bottom Line: The revival in European consumption in the second half of 2021 and the first half of 2022 will allow the gap between European and global growth to narrow. This dynamic will be reinforced next year, when the fiscal drag will be lower in Europe than in the US. These forces will create a rare occasion when European growth will improve despite a deceleration (albeit a modest one) in global manufacturing activity. Investment Conclusions The continued sensitivity of the euro area economy to the global industrial and trade cycle indicates that over the long-term, European assets will remain beholden to the gyrations of global growth. In other words, the euro and European stocks will outperform in periods of accelerating global manufacturing activity, as they have done over the past 30 years. The next 12 to 18 month may nonetheless defy this bigger picture, allowing European assets to generate alpha for global investors. Chart 10The Euro Will Like Idiosyncratic European Growth First, the gap between US and euro area growth will narrow over the coming 12 to 18 months, thus the euro will remain well bid, even if the maximum acceleration in global industrial activity lies behind. As investors re-assess their view of European economic activity and the current period of maximum relative pessimism passes, inflows into the euro area will accelerate and the euro will appreciate (Chart 10). Hence, we continue to see the recent phase of weakness in EUR/USD as transitory. Second, European equities have scope to outperform US ones over that window. Some of that anticipated outperformance reflects our positive stance on the euro. However, a consumption-driven economic bounce will be positive for European financials as well. Such a recovery will let investors ratchet down their estimates of credit losses in the financial system. Moreover, banks are well capitalized, thus the ECB will permit the resumption of dividend payments. Under these circumstances, European banks have scope to outperform US ones temporarily, especially since Eurozone banks trade at a 56% discount to their transatlantic rivals on a price-to-book basis. An outperformance of financials will be key for Europe’s performance. Chart 11German/US Spreads Near Equilibrium? Finally, we could enter a period of stability in US/German yield spreads over the coming months. The ECB remains steadfast at limiting the upside in European risk-free rates, as Christine Lagarde reiterated last week. However, BCA’s US bond strategist, Ryan Swift, believes US yields will enter a temporary plateau, as the Federal Reserve will not adjust rates until well after the US economy has reached full employment. Hence, the Fed is unlikely to let the OIS curve bring forward the date of the first hike currently priced in for August 2022 on a durable basis, which also limits the upside to US yields. Thus, looking at core CPI and policy rate differences, US yields have reached a temporary equilibrium relative to Germany (Chart 11).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The Biden Administration's $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan rolled out yesterday will, at the margin, boost global demand for energy and base metals more than expected later this year and next.  Global GDP growth estimates – and the boost supplied by US stimulus – once again will have to be adjusted higher (Chart of the Week). Energy and metals fundamentals continue to tighten. OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production management strategy will keep the level of supply just below demand, which will keep Brent crude oil on either side of $60/bbl. Base-metals output will struggle to meet higher demand from the ongoing buildout of renewables infrastructure and growing electric-vehicle sales. Of late, concerns that speculative positioning suggests prices will head lower – or, at other times, higher – are entirely misplaced: Spec positioning conveys no information on price levels or direction.  Energy and metals prices, on the other hand, do convey useful information on spec positioning, demonstrating specs do not lead the news or prices, they follow them. Short-term headwinds caused by halting recoveries and renewed lockdowns – particularly in the EU – will fade in 2H21 as vaccines roll out, if the experience of the UK and US are any guide.  Continued USD strength, however, would remain a headwind. Feature If the Biden administration is successful in getting its $2.25 trillion infrastructure-spending bill through Congress, the US will join the rest of the world in the race to re-build – in some cases, build anew – its long-neglected bridges, roads, schools, communications and high-speed transportation networks, and, critically, its electric-power grid.  There's a lot of game left to play on this, but our Geopolitical Strategy group is giving this bill an 80% of passage later this year, after all the wrangling and log-rolling in Congress is done. In and of itself, the infrastructure-directed spending coming out of Biden's plan will be a catalyst for higher US industrial commodity demand – energy, metals and bulks.  In addition, it will support the lift in the demand boost coming out of higher GDP growth globally, which will be pushed higher by US fiscal spending, as the Chart of the Week shows.  Of note is the extremely robust growth expected in India, China and the US, which are among the largest consumers of industrial commodities globally.  Overall growth in the G20 and globally will be expansive in 2022 as well. Chart of the WeekBiden's $2.25 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Will Boost Global Commodity Demand Higher GDP growth translates directly into higher demand for commodities, all else equal, as can be seen in the relationship between EM and DM GDP, supply and inventories and Brent crude oil prices in Chart 2.  While we have reduced our Brent forecast for this year to $60/bbl on the back of renewed demand-side weakness in the EU due to problems in acquiring and distributing COVID-19 vaccines, we expect this to be reversed next year and into 2025, with prices trading between $60-$80/bbl (Chart 3).  OPEC 2.0, the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, has done an excellent job of keeping the level of oil supply below demand over the course of the pandemic, which we expect to continue to the end of 2025.1 Chart 2Higher GDP Growth Presages Higher Commodity Demand Chart 3Brent Crude Oil Prices Will Average - / bbl to 2025 As the Biden plan makes its way through Congress, markets will get a better idea of how much diesel fuel, copper, steel, iron ore, etc., will be required in the US alone.  What is important to note here that the US is just moving to the starting line, whereas other economies like China and the EU already have begun their investment cycles in renewables and EVs.  At present, key markets already are tight, particularly copper (Chart 4) and aluminum (Chart 5).  In both markets, we expect physical deficits this year and next, which inclines us to believe the metals leg of this renewables buildout is just beginning – higher prices will be required to incentivize the development of new supply.2  Chart 4Copper Will Post Physical Deficit... Chart 5...As Will Aluminum This is particularly important in copper, where growth in mining output of ore has been flat for the past two years.  Copper is the one metal that spans all renewables technologies, and is a bellwether commodity for global growth.  We expect copper to trade to $4.50/lb (up ~ $0.50/lb vs spot) on the COMEX in 4Q21 on the back of increasing demand and tight supplies – i.e., falling mining supply and refined copper output growth (Chart 6). Worth noting also is steel rebar and hot-rolled coil prices traded at record highs this week on Chinese futures markets.  Stronger steel markets continue to support iron ore prices, although the latter is trading off its recent highs and likely will move lower toward the end of the year as Brazilian supply returns to the market.3  We use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices – steel leads copper prices by ~ 9 months.  This makes sense when one considers steel is consumed early in infrastructure and construction projects, while copper consumption occurs later as airports and houses are fitted with copper for electric, plumbing and communications applications. Chart 6Copper Ore Output Flat   Does Speculative Positioning Matter? Of late, media pundits and analysts have cited an unwinding of speculative positions in oil and metals markets following sharp run-ups in net long positions as a harbinger of weaker prices in the near future (Chart 7).4  At other times, speculation has been invoked as a reason for price surges – e.g., when oil rocketed  toward $150/bbl in mid-2008, which was followed by a price collapse at the start of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).5 Brunetti et al note, "The role of speculators in financial markets has been the source of considerable interest and controversy in recent years. Concern about speculative trading also finds support in theory where noise traders, speculative bubbles, and herding can drive prices away from fundamental values and destabilize markets." (p. 1545) Chart 7Speculative Positioning Lower In Brent Than WTI We recently re-tested earlier findings in our research, which found that knowledge of how specs are positioned – either on the long or the short side of the market – conveys no information on the level of prices or the change that should be expected given that knowledge.  However, knowledge of the price level does convey useful information on how speculators are positioned in futures markets.6 In cointegrating regressions of speculative positions in crude oil, natural gas and copper futures on price levels for these commodities, we find the level of prices to be a statistically significant determinant of spec positions. We find no such relationship using spec positions as an explanatory variable for prices.7 On the other hand, Chart 2 above is an example of statistically significant relationships for Brent and WTI price as a function of supply-demand fundamentals displaying coefficients of determination (r-squares) of close to 90% in the post-GFC period (2010 to now).  This supports our earlier findings regarding spec behavior: They follow prices, they don't lead them.8 We are not dismissive of speculation.  It plays a critical role in markets, by providing the liquidity that enables commodity producers and consumers to hedge their price exposures, and to investors seeking to diversify their portfolios with commodity exposures that are uncorrelated to their equity and bond holdings.  Short-Term Headwinds Likely Dissipate COVID-19 remains the largest risk to markets generally, commodities in particular.  The mishandling of vaccine rollouts in the EU has pushed back our assumption for demand recovery deeper into 2H21, but it has not derailed it.  We expect COVID-related deaths and hospitalizations to fall in the EU as they have in the UK and the US following the widespread distribution of vaccines, which should occur in the near future as Brussels organizes its pandemic response (Chart 8).  Making vaccines available for other states in dire straits will follow, which will allow the global re-opening to progress as lockdowns are lifted (Chart 9). Chart 8EU Vaccination Rollouts Will Boost Global Economic Recovery Chart 9Global Re-Opening Has Slowed, But Will Resume In 2H21 The other big risk we see to commodities is persistent USD strength (Chart 10).  The dollar has rallied for the better part of 2021, largely on the back of improving US economic prospects relative to other states, and success in its vaccination efforts.  The resumption of the USD's bear market may have to wait until the rest of the world catches up with America's public-health response to the pandemic, and the global economy ex-US and -China enters a stronger expansionary mode. Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities expecting demand to improve as the EU rolls out vaccines and begins to make progress in arresting the pandemic and removing lockdowns.  Global fiscal and monetary policy, which likely will be bolstered by a massive round of US infrastructure spending beginning in 4Q21 will catalyze demand growth for oil and base metals.  This will prompt another round of GDP revisions to the upside.  The dollar remains a headwind for now, but we expect it to return to a bear market in 2H21. Chart 10The USD's Evolution Remains Important   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Going into the April 1 meeting of OPEC 2.0 today, we are not expecting any increase in production.  OPEC earlier this week noted demand had softened, mostly due to the slow recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU, which, based on their previous policy decisions, suggests the producer coalition will not be increasing production.  The coalition led by KSA and Russia will have to address Iran's return as a major exporter to China this year, which appears to have been importing ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian crude this month (Chart 11).  This puts Iran in direct competition with KSA as a major exporter to China, in defiance of the US re-imposition of sanctions against Iranian exports.  China and Iran over the weekend signed a 25-year trade pact that also could include military provisions, which could, over time, alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf if Chinese military assets – naval and land warfare – deploy to Iran under their agreement.  Details of the deal are sparse, as The Guardian noted in its recent coverage.  Among other things, government officials in Tehran have come under withering criticism for entering the deal, which they contend was signed with a "politically bankrupt regime."  The Guardian also noted US President Joe Biden " is prepared to make a new offer to Iran this week whereby he will lift some sanctions in return for Iran taking specific limited steps to come back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, including reducing the level to which it enriches uranium," in the wake of the signing of this deal. Base Metals: Bullish Copper fell this week, initially on an inventory build, and has now settled right under the $4/lb mark, as investors await details on the US infrastructure bill unveiled in Pittsburgh, PA, on Wednesday.  According to mining.com, a major chunk of the proposed bill will be devoted to investments in infrastructure, which will be metals-intensive.  Precious Metals: Bullish Gold fell further this week, as US treasury yields rose, buoyed by the increased US vaccine efforts and President Biden’s proposed spending plans (Chart 12). USD strength also worked against the yellow metal, which has been steadily declining since the beginning of this year.  COMEX gold fell below the $1,700/oz mark for the third time this month and settled at $1,683.90/oz on Tuesday. Chart 11 Chart 12     Footnotes 1     Please see Five-Year Brent Forecast Update: Expect Price Range of $60 - $80/bbl, which we published 25 March 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, which we published 4 March 2021 for additional discussion, particularly regarding the need for additional capex in energy and metals markets. 3    Please see UPDATE 1-Strong industrial activity, profit lift China steel futures, published by reuters.com 29 March 2021. 4    See, e.g., Column: Frothy oil market deflates as virus fears return published 23 March 2021. 5    Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), " Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74, for further discussion. 6    Please see Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil, which we published 26 April 2018, and Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility published 10 May 2018.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7     We group money managers (registered commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and unregistered funds) and swap dealers (banks and trading companies providing liquidity to hedgers and speculators) together to test these relationships. 8    In our earlier research, we also noted our results generally were supported in the academic literature.  See, e.g., Fattouh, Bassam, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva (2012), "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

In the decade following the global financial crisis, investor concerns that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation have been mostly overblown. But today, it is now true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid near bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. A gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but in the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that the neutral rate of interest (or “r-star”) was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, we expect the narrative of secular stagnation to be challenged and for investor expectations for the neutral rate to move closer to trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, and possibly as high as 4% or more. Such a shift would push the US equity risk premium back to 2002 levels based on current stock market pricing. This is not necessarily negative for equities, but it is also not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. A low ERP that is technically not as low as that of the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, as T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” may not prevail. Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. While they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. Chart II-1Equity Valuation Concerns Have Persisted For The Past Decade... For the better part of the last decade, many investors have argued that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation. Based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio metric originated by Robert Shiller, stocks reached pre-global financial crisis (GFC) multiples in late 2014 and early 2015 (Chart II-1). Based on metrics such as the price-to-sales ratio, stocks rose to pre-GFC valuation in late 2013, and are now even more richly valued than they were at the height of the dotcom bubble. These concerns have mostly occurred in response to absolute changes in stock multiples, but equity valuation cannot be divorced from the prevailing level of interest rates. Relative to bond yields, stocks were extraordinarily cheap for many years following the GFC. Measured by one simple approach to calculating the equity risk premium, the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year Treasury yield, stocks were the cheapest following the GFC that they had been since the mid 1980s, and remain reasonably priced today (Chart II-2). Chart II-2...But Stocks Have Actually Been Cheap Versus Bonds The fact that stocks have appeared to be expensive for several years but quite cheap (or reasonably priced) relative to bonds underscores the fact that longer-term bond yields have been extraordinarily low following the global financial crisis. Still, equities were not dependent on low bond yields prior to the pandemic, as illustrated in Chart II-3. The chart highlights the range of 10-year Treasury yields that would be consistent with the pre-GFC equity risk premium range (measured from 2002-2007), alongside the actual 10-year yield and trend nominal GDP growth. The chart shows that for years following the financial crisis, bond yields could have risen to levels well above trend rates of economic growth and stocks would still have been priced in line with pre-crisis norms. This “normal pricing” range for the 10-year declined as the expansion continued, but remained consistent with trend growth rates and above the actual 10-year yield up until the beginning of the pandemic. Chart II-3 also highlights, however, that the circumstances changed last year. The equity risk premium briefly rose at the onset of the pandemic as stocks initially sold off sharply, but then quickly fell as stock prices recovered in response to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. Today, it is true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Chart II-3Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Prior to the pandemic, most fixed-income investors would have viewed the risk of bond yields rising to trend nominal GDP growth, let alone above it, as minimal. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) that show a substantial gap between the natural rate and trend real growth (Chart II-4). This view has manifested itself in a decline in surveyed estimates of the long-run Fed funds rate, but at present the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has pushed well above this survey-derived fair value range (Chart II-5). It is possible that the fiscal response to the pandemic will cause investor views about r-star to evolve even further over the coming 12-24 months, and in this report we explore the potential headwind that such an evolution could present to stock prices at some point – potentially as early as next year. Chart II-4Investors Have Accepted Secular Stagnation, And The View That R-star Is Well Below Trend Rates Of Growth Chart II-5The Market's Views About R-star May Be Shifting   R-star: A Brief Primer Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. From the perspective of macro theory, the neutral rate of interest is determined by the supply of and demand for savings. But in practical terms, this implies that the neutral rate should normally be closely linked to the trend rate of economic growth. For example, if interest rates – and thus the cost of capital – were persistently below aggregate income growth, then demand for capital (and thus credit and likely labor demand) should increase as firms seek to profit from the gap between the interest rate and the expected rate of return from real investment. As such, the trend rate of growth acts as a good proxy for the interest rate that will balance the supply and demand for credit during normal economic circumstances. Empirically, academic estimates of r-star closely followed estimates of trend real GDP growth prior to the global financial crisis, as shown in Chart II-4 above. In addition, we noted in our January report that the stance of monetary policy, as defined by the difference between nominal GDP growth and the 10-year Treasury yield, has generally done a good job of explaining the US output gap prior to 2000. This supports the notion that monetary policy is stimulative (restrictive) when bond yields are below (above) trend growth rates. However, in the years following the GFC, investors’ estimates of r-star collapsed, as evidenced by the sharp decline in 5-year / 5-year forward Treasury yields (Chart II-6). This was followed by a decline in primary dealer and FOMC expectations for the long-term Fed funds rate, which investors took as validating their view that the neutral rate of interest has permanently declined. Chart II-6Investors Led The Fed And Others In Expecting A Lower Nominal Neutral Rate R-star And Trend Growth: Is A Gap Between The Two Really Justified? Chart II-7R-star Likely Did Decline Following The GFC (For A Time) It seems clear that r-star did indeed decline for a time after the GFC. The US and select European economies suffered a balance sheet recession in 2008/2009 that impacted credit demand for an extended period of time (Chart II-7), and extraordinarily low interest rates for several years did not fuel major credit excesses (at least in the household sector). But as we detailed in a Special Report last year,1 we doubt that the decline in r-star was permanent, for several reasons. The first, and most important, is that there have been at least four deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies since 2008 that magnified the impact of prolonged household deleveraging and help explain the disconnect between growth and interest rates during the last economic cycle: The euro area sovereign debt crisis Premature fiscal austerity in the US, the UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs beginning in 2018, impacting China but also other developed market economies. Chart II-8Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Except for the oil price shock of 2014 (which was driven by technological developments and a price war among producers), all of these non-monetary shocks were caused or exacerbated by policymakers – often for political reasons or due to regulatory failures. Second, the trend in US private sector credit growth last cycle does not suggest that r-star fell permanently. Chart II-8 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it started growing again in 2013 and had largely closed the gap with income growth prior to the pandemic. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector clearly leveraged itself over the course of the last expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. Third, we disagree with a common view in the marketplace that the 2018-2019 period supported the validity of low academic estimates of the neutral rate. Chart II-9 highlights that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative in 2019 according to the Laubach & Williams r-star estimate, which some investors have argued explains the late 2018 equity market selloff, the 2019 slowdown in the US housing market, the inversion of the yield curve, and the global manufacturing recession. Chart II-9Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative In 2019, According To The LW R-star Estimate But this narrative ignores other important factors that contributed to the slowdown. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that this period of economic weakness exactly coincided with the most intense phase of the Sino-US trade war, as well as a significant slowdown in Chinese credit growth. The chart highlights that the selloff in the US equity market began almost immediately after a surge in the effective tariff rates levied by the two countries against each other, and after the Chinese credit impulse fell three percentage points (from 30% to 27% of GDP). Chart II-10The 2018 Stock Market Selloff Occurred Once Sino-US Tariffs Exploded Chart II-11 highlights that interest rates did likely impact the housing market, but that it was the speed at which rates rose that was damaging rather than their level. The chart shows that the rise in mortgage rates from late 2016 to late 2018 was among the largest 2-year increases that has occurred since the early 1980s, so it is unsurprising that the growth in home sales and real residential investment slowed for a time. Additionally, Chart II-12 highlights that the rise in mortgage rates during this period did not cause a downtrend in mortgage credit growth, which only occurred in Q4 2018 in response to the impact of the sharp selloff in the equity market on household net worth. Chart II-11Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late 2016 To Late 2018 Chart II-12A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   In short, the late 2018 / 2019 period saw a major global aggregate demand shock occur following an already-established slowdown in Chinese credit growth and a rapid rise in interest rates in the DM world. It is these factors that were likely responsible for the 2019 slowdown in economic growth, not the fact that interest rates reached levels that restricted economic activity on their own. R-star In A Post-Pandemic World Charts II-7 – II-12 above suggest that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in r-star only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand. In the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that r-star was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. But that is now a counterfactual assertion, as the pandemic has transformed the outlook for interest rates and bond yields in conflicting ways. A 10% decline in the level of real output was the most intensely negative non-monetary shock to aggregate demand since the 1930s (Chart II-13), and we agree that another depression would have occurred without extraordinary government assistance. The economic damage caused by the pandemic certainly does not work in favor of a higher neutral rate, and we highlighted in Section 1 of our report that the Fed expects there to be some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart II-13Without Major Monetary And Fiscal Policy Support, The Pandemic Would Probably Have Caused A Depression Chart II-14A Huge Increase In Government Transfers And Spending Is Underway On the other hand, Larry Summers, the chief proponent of the theory of secular stagnation, has argued for several years that increased fiscal spending was warranted in order to address an imbalance between private sector savings and investment. Summers himself now characterizes US fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that he has seen over the past 40 years, because of too-large government spending that risks overheating the economy (Chart II-14). Summers’ critique rests in large part on the fact that new government spending has not occurred in the form of investment (to balance out the existence of excess savings), but is instead providing transfers to households that in many cases have already accumulated significant excess savings. But the key point for investors is that the pandemic has completely shifted the narrative about fiscal spending, from “arguably insufficient for several years following the global financial crisis” to now “risking a dramatic overheating of the economy.” Some elements of Summers’ criticism of the Biden administration’s fiscal policy are justified, particularly the policy of large direct transfer payments to workers who have suffered no loss in employment or income as a result of the pandemic. Despite this, as detailed in Section 1 of our report, we are more sanguine about the risks of aggressive overheating for three reasons: it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return or will be slow to return, some of the excess savings that have accumulated will not be immediately (or ever) spent, and the rise in consumer inflation expectations that has occurred over the past year has happened from an extremely low starting point and has yet to even rise above its post-GFC range. The low odds that we assign to dangerously above-target inflation over the coming 12-24 months does not, however, mean that investors’ expectations for r-star will stay low. For right or for wrong, the US government has aggressively dis-saved over the past year, in an environment where low expectations for the neutral rate were anchored by a view of excessive private sector savings and insufficient demand from governments. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation will be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate will converge towards trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, possibly as high as 4% or more. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions A rise in the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield does not, in and of itself, suggest that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to levels that would threaten a significant decline in stock prices. The Fed does not control the long-end of the Treasury curve, but it does exert a very strong influence on the short-end. For example, were the Fed to follow the median current projection of FOMC participants and refrain from raising interest rates until sometime after 2023, it would limit how high current 10-year Treasury yields could rise. But it is not difficult to envision plausible scenarios where the 10-year Treasury yield rises above the range consistent with the pre-GFC US equity risk premium. Chart II-15 presents three hypothetical fair value paths for the 10-year yield assuming a mid-2022 liftoff date and a 4% terminal Fed funds rate for the following three scenarios: Chart II-1510-Year Yields Could Rise Meaningfully Further If Investors Shift Their Expectations For R-star The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 10 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1.5% (6 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points In the first scenario, based on the current US 12-month forward P/E ratio, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield would rise above the range consistent with a reasonable ERP in the middle of 2022, the liftoff point assumed in all three scenarios. In the second and third scenarios, the US equity ERP would already be quite low. When using the late 1999 / early 2000 bubble period as a reference point, even the scenarios shown in Chart II-15 are not very threatening to stock prices. Given current equity market pricing, the third scenario would take the US equity risk premium back to mid 2002 levels, which were still meaningfully higher than during the peak of the bubble. And that is assuming an earlier liftoff than the market currently expects, a faster pace of rate hikes than experienced during the last economic cycle, and a very meaningful increase in the market’s expectations for the neutral rate. But it is not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. For example, equity investors are today faced with a riskier policy environment than existed 20 years ago in the US and in other developed economies that is at least partially driven by populist sentiment, potentially impacting earnings via lower operating margins or higher taxes. These or other risks existed at several points over the past decade and T.I.N.A. (“There Is No Alternative”) prevailed, but that occurred precisely because the equity risk premium was very elevated. A low ERP that is technically not as low as what prevailed during the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, raising the specter of negative absolute returns from stocks and nominal government bonds for a period of time, beginning potentially at or in the lead-up to the first Fed rate hike. Chart II-16There Are Alternatives To A Traditional 60/40 Portfolio In A Rising Rate Environment Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. Chart II-16 provides some perspective on the question, by comparing the total return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio to a strategy involving the opportunistic redeployment of cash into stocks. The strategy rule maintains a 50/50 stock/cash allocation during normal market conditions, but it then shifts the entire cash allocation into equities following a 15% selloff in the stock market. The portfolio is shifted back to a 50/50 allocation once stocks rise to a new rolling 1-year high. The chart highlights that 60/40 balanced portfolio-style returns may be achievable with cash as the diversifier without a significant reduction in the Sharpe ratio. In fact, the strategy has the effect of lowering average volatility due to prolonged periods of comparatively lower equity exposure, although this occurs at the cost of higher volatility during periods of high market stress (precisely when investors most want protection from volatility). But the bottom line for investors is that while they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. As noted above, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but we will continue to monitor the potential threat posed to stock prices as the pandemic draws to a decisive close later this year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  2020-03-20 GIS SR “Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis.”

Highlights Extremely accommodative fiscal policy and a rapid pace of vaccination puts the US on track to close its output gap by the end of the year. The situation is different in Europe, and the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Investors are now unusually more hawkish than the Fed, whose caution is driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. The Fed’s rate projections, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. For inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. We expect a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, and overweight US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds. The fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar over the coming 0-3 months. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to favor global ex-US vs. US stocks, and expect the dollar to be lower than it is today. A Brighter Light At The End Of The Tunnel Chart I-1Even Better Than Some Optimists Would Have Predicted Over the past 4-6 weeks, the US has continued to make incredible progress in vaccinating its population against COVID-19. Chart I-1 highlights that the pace of vaccination is now well within the range required for herd immunity to be in place by the end of the third quarter. If this pace continues at an average of 2.5 million doses per day, the US will have vaccinated 90% of its population by the end of September (if it is determined that the vaccine is safe to give to children). And these calculations assume the continuation of a two-dose regime, meaning that the eventual rollout of Johnson & Johnson's Janssen vaccine – which requires only one dose and has shown to be extremely effective at preventing severe illness and death – could shorten the time to herd immunity rates of vaccination among adults even further. The situation is clearly different in Europe. The vaccination progress in several European countries is woefully behind that of the US and the UK (Chart I-2), and per capita cases in the euro area have again risen significantly above that of the US (Chart I-3). This reality motivated last week’s news that the European Union is reportedly planning on banning exports of the AstraZeneca vaccine for a period of time, as European policymakers grow increasingly concerned about the potential economic consequences of lengthened or additional pandemic control measures over the coming few months. Chart I-2Europe Is Badly Lagging The Vaccine Race… There was at least some positive economic news from Europe this month, as reflected by the flash manufacturing and services PMIs (Chart I-4). The euro area manufacturing PMI surpassed that of the US this month, reflecting that the prospects for goods-producing companies in Europe remain solidly linked to the strong global manufacturing cycle. Services, on the other hand, have been the weak spot in Europe, having remained below the boom/bust line since last summer (in contrast to the US). The March services PMI highlighted that this gap is now starting to narrow, although the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Chart I-3...And It Is Starting To Show Chart I-4Some Closure Of The Services Gap, But Still A Ways To Go   The underperformance of the European services sector over the past nine months has been due in part to more severe pandemic control measures, but also a comparatively timid fiscal policy. The IMF’s October Fiscal Monitor highlighted that the US had provided roughly eight percentage points more of GDP in above-the-line fiscal measures versus the European Union as a whole, and that was before the US December 2020 relief bill and this month’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) act were passed. The CBO estimates that the ARP will result in about US$1 trillion in outlays in 2021, which is roughly 5% of nominal GDP. Consequently, Chart I-5 highlights that consensus expectations now suggest that the output gap will be marginally positive by the end of the year, with the Fed’s most recent forecast implying that real GDP will be more than 1% above the CBO’s estimate of potential output. Chart I-5The US Output Gap Will Likely Be Closed By The End Of This Year The Fed Versus The Market Despite this, the Fed held pat during this month’s FOMC meeting and did not validate market expectations of rate hikes beginning in early 2023. Chart I-6 highlights the Fed funds rate path over the coming years as implied by the OIS curve, alongside the Fed’s median projection of the Fed funds rate. This means that investors are now more hawkish than the Fed, which is the opposite of what has typically prevailed since the global financial crisis. Chart I-6The Market Is Now, Unusually, More Hawkish Than The Fed Fed Chair Jerome Powell implied during the March 17 press conference that some FOMC participants were unwilling to change their projections for the path of interest rates based purely on a forecast, which argues that the median dot in the Fed’s “dot plot” will shift higher in the second half of the year if participants’ growth and inflation forecasts come to fruition. But Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the Fed’s caution is also driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart I-7AA Positive Output Gap Implies… Chart I-7B…An Unemployment Rate Below NAIRU   The charts highlight the historical relationship between the output gap and the deviation of NAIRU from the unemployment rate, from 2000 and 2010. In both cases, the charts show that the unemployment rate would be below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU at the end of this year (roughly 4.5%) given the CBO’s estimate for potential (i.e. full employment) GDP and the Fed's forecast for growth. However, the Fed is forecasting that the unemployment rate will essentially be at NAIRU, which is itself above the Fed’s longer-run unemployment rate projection of 4%. As such, the Fed does not see the unemployment rate falling to “full employment” levels this year, a precondition for the onset of rate normalization. Investors should note that the relationships shown in Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the unemployment rate will be closer to 3-3.5% at the end of this year if the Fed’s growth forecast is correct, which would constitute full employment based on the Fed’s 4% unemployment rate target. The difference between a 3-3.5% unemployment rate and the Fed’s estimate of 4.5% translates to a gap of roughly 1.5-2.5 million jobs at the end of this year, which underscores that the Fed expects either a significant shift in temporary to permanent unemployment or an influx of unemployed workers back into the labor force who don’t quickly find jobs once social distancing ends and pandemic restrictions are no longer required. Chart I-8The Full Employment Level Of GDP Has Not Been Significantly Revised There are three possible circumstances that would resolve this seeming contradiction. The first is that the Fed’s estimate for growth this year is simply too high, and that the output gap will be close to zero at the end of the year (i.e., more in line with consensus market expectations). The second is that the CBO is understating the level of GDP that is consistent with full employment, namely that potential GDP is higher than what they currently project. But Chart I-8 shows that the CBO’s current estimate for potential output at the end of this year is only 0.4% below what it had estimated prior to the pandemic, which is smaller than the positive gap implied by the Fed’s growth estimate for this year (roughly 1.2%). The third possibility is that the Fed is overestimating the extent to which the pandemic will cause permanent damage to the labor market. As we noted in our February report, even once social distancing is no longer required, it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return. While it seems reasonable to expect that the gap in spending on hospitality and travel will close quickly once the health situation allows, it also seems reasonable to expect that some service areas, particularly retail, will experience a permanent loss in demand owing to durable shifts in consumer behavior that occurred during the pandemic (greater familiarity and use of online shopping, a permanent reduction of some magnitude in commuting, etc). A gap of 1.5-2.5 million jobs accounts for roughly 10-15% of pre-pandemic employment in retail trade, or 4-7% of the sum of retail trade, leisure & hospitality, and other services. It is possible that permanent job losses or significantly deferred job recovery of this size will occur, but it is far from clear that it will. Were job losses / deferred jobs recovery of this magnitude to not materialize, it would suggest that the US will reach full employment earlier than the Fed is currently projecting, and would significantly increase the odds that the Fed will begin to taper its asset purchases and/or raise interest rates at some point next year – which is earlier than investors currently expect. For Now, Dangerously Above-Target Inflation Is Unlikely Fed projections of a 0% Fed funds rate for the next 2 1/2 years, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have understandably stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. Larry Summers’ recent interview with Bloomberg was emblematic of the concern, during which he criticized the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 It is true that the Federal Reserve is explicitly aiming to generate a temporary overshoot of inflation relative to its target, the Biden administration’s fiscal plan is legitimately large, and there is a tremendous pool of excess savings that could be deployed later this year once the pandemic is essentially over. Clearly, the risks of overheating must be higher than they have been in the past. But from our perspective, out-of-control inflation over the coming 12-24 months would very likely necessitate one of two things to occur, and possibly both: US consumers decide to spend an overwhelmingly large amount of the excess savings that have been accumulated. Main street expectations for consumer prices rise sharply, prompted by a public discussion about the likelihood of a shifting inflation regime. Our view is rooted in the examination of the modern-day Phillips Curve that we presented in our January report, which considers both the impact of economic/labor market slack and inflation expectations as a driver of actual inflation. The modern-day Phillips Curve posits that expectations act as the trend for inflation, and slack in the economy determines whether actual inflation is above or below that baseline. Chart I-9 highlights that the output gap worked well prior to the global financial crisis at explaining the difference between actual and exponentially-smoothed inflation, the latter acting as a long-history proxy for expectations. Pre-GFC, the chart highlights that there have been only two exceptions to the relationship that concerned the magnitude rather than the direction of inflation. Post-GFC, the relationship deviated substantially, but in a way that implied that actual inflation was too strong during the last expansion, not too weak – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. This likely occurred because expectations initially stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, but ultimately declined due to a persistently negative output gap as well as in response to the 2014 collapse in oil prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Pre-GFC, The Output Gap Generally Explained Inflation Surprises Chart I-10Inflation Expectations Eventually Succumbed Post-GFC To Collapsing Energy Prices Thus, for inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. Chart I-11 highlights that the amount of excess savings that have accumulated as a percentage of GDP does indeed significantly exceed the magnitude of the output gap, but some of those savings have been and will be invested in financial markets (boosting valuation), some will be used to pay down debt, some will eventually be spent on international travel (boosting services imports), and some will likely be permanently held as deposits in anticipation of future tax increases. And while long-term household expectations for prices have risen since the passing of the CARES act last year, the rise has merely unwound the decline that took place following the 2014 oil price collapse (Chart I-12). Chart I-11A Huge Pool Of Savings Exists, But Not All Of It Will Be Spent Chart I-12Long-Term Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Risen From A Very Low Base   For now, this framework points to a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Investment Conclusions Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. While the Fed is likely to shift in a hawkish direction compared with its current projections, it is highly unlikely to become meaningfully more hawkish than current market expectations unless economic growth and the recovery in the labor market is much stronger than the Fed or the market is projecting. In fact, even if the market’s expectations for the first Fed rate hike shift to mid-2022 over the coming several months, Chart I-13 highlights that the impact on the equity market is likely to be minimal unless investors shift up their expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate. The chart presents a fair value estimate for the 10-year Treasury yield based on the OIS-implied path of the Fed funds rate out to December 2024, and assumes that short rates ultimately rise to the Fed’s long-term Fed funds rate projection of 2.5%. The second fair value series assumes that the shape of the OIS curve stays the same, but shifts closer by 6 months. Chart I-13The Market’s Assumed Rate Hike Path And Terminal Rate Are Not Threatening For Stocks The chart underscores that the 10-year yield will rise to at most between 2-2.2% by the end of the year based on these scenarios. A shift forward in the timing of Fed rate hikes will impact the short end of the curve, but the long end will remain relatively unchanged if terminal rate expectations stay constant and the term premium on long-term bonds remains near zero. These levels would in no way be economically damaging nor threatening to stock market valuation. It is possible, however, that investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest (“r-star”) will shift higher once the pandemic is over, and we explore this risk to stocks in Section 2 of our report. For now, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but it is likely to remain an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Within fixed income, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration even though investors are already pricing in a more hawkish path for the Fed funds rate. First, Chart I-13 highlighted that yields at the long end of the curve are likely to continue to move modestly higher this year even if the projected path for the Fed funds rate remains relatively unchanged. But more importantly, barring a substantially negative development on the health or vaccine front that prolongs the pandemic, the risk appears to be clearly to the upside in terms of the timing of the first Fed rate hike and the terminal Fed funds rate. As such, from a risk-reward perspective, a long duration stance remains unattractive. We would also recommend overweighting US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds, as spreads are not as historically depressed for the former than the latter (Chart I-14). Finally, in terms of the dimensions of equity market performance and the dollar, we recommend that investors overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, overweight value vs. growth, overweight cyclicals vs. defensives, and overweight small vs. large caps. We are also bearish on the dollar on a 12-month time horizon. However, there are two caveats that investors should bear in mind. First, global cyclicals versus defensives (especially in equally-weighted terms) as well as small versus large caps have already mostly normalized not just the impact of the pandemic but as well that of the 2018-2019 Trump trade war (Chart I-15). We would expect, at best, modest further gains from both positions this year. Chart I-14Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Are Less Expensive Than Investment-Grade Chart I-15Going Forward, Expect More Modest Gains From Cyclicals And Small Caps   Second, the fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar on a 0-3 month time horizon. The US dollar is typically a counter-cyclical currency, but there have been exceptions to that rule. And historically, exceptions have tended to revolve around periods when US growth has been quite strong, as is currently the case (Chart I-16). A continued counter-trend rally in the dollar is thus possible over the course of the next few months, but we would expect USD-EUR to be lower than current levels 12 months from now. Chart I-16A Short-Term Counter-Trend Dollar Move Is Possible A counter-trend dollar move could also correspond with a period of US outperformance versus global ex-US, or at a minimum, a period of flat performance when global ex-US stocks would normally outperform. Our China strategists expect that the Chinese credit impulse will decelerate later this year (Chart I-17), which would weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. Chart I-18 highlights that euro area equity underperformance versus the US last year was mostly a tech story, but today there is little difference between the relative performance of euro area stocks overall versus indexes that exclude the broadly-defined technology sector. In both cases, the euro area index is roughly 10% below its US counterpart relative to pre-pandemic levels, which exactly matches the extent to which euro area financials have underperformed. Chart I-17A Slowing Chinese Credit Impulse Means EM Equities Will Struggle To Outperform Chart I-18Euro Area Financials Need To Outperform For Europe To Outperform   Euro area financials have demonstrated very poor fundamental performance over the past decade, but they are likely to outperform for some period once the European vaccination campaign gains enough traction to alter the disease’s transmission and hospitalization dynamics. Chart I-19 highlights that euro area bank 12-month forward earnings have further room to recover to pre-pandemic levels than for banks in the US, and Chart I-20 highlights that euro area banks trade at their deepest price-to-book discount versus their US peers since the euro area financial crisis. Chart I-19Euro Area Bank Earnings Have Catch-Up Potential Chart I-20Euro Area Banks Are Extremely Cheap Versus The US   Thus, while euro area and global ex-US equities may not outperform on the back of rising global stock prices over the coming few months, investors focused on a 6-12 month time horizon should respond by increasing their allocation to European stocks and to further reduce dollar exposure. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 31, 2021 Next Report: April 29, 2021 II. R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks In the decade following the global financial crisis, investor concerns that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation have been mostly overblown. But today, it is now true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid near bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. A gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but in the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that the neutral rate of interest (or “r-star”) was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, we expect the narrative of secular stagnation to be challenged and for investor expectations for the neutral rate to move closer to trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, and possibly as high as 4% or more. Such a shift would push the US equity risk premium back to 2002 levels based on current stock market pricing. This is not necessarily negative for equities, but it is also not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. A low ERP that is technically not as low as that of the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, as T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” may not prevail. Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. While they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. Chart II-1Equity Valuation Concerns Have Persisted For The Past Decade... For the better part of the last decade, many investors have argued that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation. Based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio metric originated by Robert Shiller, stocks reached pre-global financial crisis (GFC) multiples in late 2014 and early 2015 (Chart II-1). Based on metrics such as the price-to-sales ratio, stocks rose to pre-GFC valuation in late 2013, and are now even more richly valued than they were at the height of the dotcom bubble. These concerns have mostly occurred in response to absolute changes in stock multiples, but equity valuation cannot be divorced from the prevailing level of interest rates. Relative to bond yields, stocks were extraordinarily cheap for many years following the GFC. Measured by one simple approach to calculating the equity risk premium, the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year Treasury yield, stocks were the cheapest following the GFC that they had been since the mid 1980s, and remain reasonably priced today (Chart II-2). Chart II-2...But Stocks Have Actually Been Cheap Versus Bonds The fact that stocks have appeared to be expensive for several years but quite cheap (or reasonably priced) relative to bonds underscores the fact that longer-term bond yields have been extraordinarily low following the global financial crisis. Still, equities were not dependent on low bond yields prior to the pandemic, as illustrated in Chart II-3. The chart highlights the range of 10-year Treasury yields that would be consistent with the pre-GFC equity risk premium range (measured from 2002-2007), alongside the actual 10-year yield and trend nominal GDP growth. The chart shows that for years following the financial crisis, bond yields could have risen to levels well above trend rates of economic growth and stocks would still have been priced in line with pre-crisis norms. This “normal pricing” range for the 10-year declined as the expansion continued, but remained consistent with trend growth rates and above the actual 10-year yield up until the beginning of the pandemic. Chart II-3 also highlights, however, that the circumstances changed last year. The equity risk premium briefly rose at the onset of the pandemic as stocks initially sold off sharply, but then quickly fell as stock prices recovered in response to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. Today, it is true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Chart II-3Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Prior to the pandemic, most fixed-income investors would have viewed the risk of bond yields rising to trend nominal GDP growth, let alone above it, as minimal. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) that show a substantial gap between the natural rate and trend real growth (Chart II-4). This view has manifested itself in a decline in surveyed estimates of the long-run Fed funds rate, but at present the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has pushed well above this survey-derived fair value range (Chart II-5). It is possible that the fiscal response to the pandemic will cause investor views about r-star to evolve even further over the coming 12-24 months, and in this report we explore the potential headwind that such an evolution could present to stock prices at some point – potentially as early as next year. Chart II-4Investors Have Accepted Secular Stagnation, And The View That R-star Is Well Below Trend Rates Of Growth Chart II-5The Market's Views About R-star May Be Shifting   R-star: A Brief Primer Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. From the perspective of macro theory, the neutral rate of interest is determined by the supply of and demand for savings. But in practical terms, this implies that the neutral rate should normally be closely linked to the trend rate of economic growth. For example, if interest rates – and thus the cost of capital – were persistently below aggregate income growth, then demand for capital (and thus credit and likely labor demand) should increase as firms seek to profit from the gap between the interest rate and the expected rate of return from real investment. As such, the trend rate of growth acts as a good proxy for the interest rate that will balance the supply and demand for credit during normal economic circumstances. Empirically, academic estimates of r-star closely followed estimates of trend real GDP growth prior to the global financial crisis, as shown in Chart II-4 above. In addition, we noted in our January report that the stance of monetary policy, as defined by the difference between nominal GDP growth and the 10-year Treasury yield, has generally done a good job of explaining the US output gap prior to 2000. This supports the notion that monetary policy is stimulative (restrictive) when bond yields are below (above) trend growth rates. However, in the years following the GFC, investors’ estimates of r-star collapsed, as evidenced by the sharp decline in 5-year / 5-year forward Treasury yields (Chart II-6). This was followed by a decline in primary dealer and FOMC expectations for the long-term Fed funds rate, which investors took as validating their view that the neutral rate of interest has permanently declined. Chart II-6Investors Led The Fed And Others In Expecting A Lower Nominal Neutral Rate R-star And Trend Growth: Is A Gap Between The Two Really Justified? Chart II-7R-star Likely Did Decline Following The GFC (For A Time) It seems clear that r-star did indeed decline for a time after the GFC. The US and select European economies suffered a balance sheet recession in 2008/2009 that impacted credit demand for an extended period of time (Chart II-7), and extraordinarily low interest rates for several years did not fuel major credit excesses (at least in the household sector). But as we detailed in a Special Report last year,2 we doubt that the decline in r-star was permanent, for several reasons. The first, and most important, is that there have been at least four deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies since 2008 that magnified the impact of prolonged household deleveraging and help explain the disconnect between growth and interest rates during the last economic cycle: The euro area sovereign debt crisis Premature fiscal austerity in the US, the UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs beginning in 2018, impacting China but also other developed market economies. Chart II-8Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Except for the oil price shock of 2014 (which was driven by technological developments and a price war among producers), all of these non-monetary shocks were caused or exacerbated by policymakers – often for political reasons or due to regulatory failures. Second, the trend in US private sector credit growth last cycle does not suggest that r-star fell permanently. Chart II-8 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it started growing again in 2013 and had largely closed the gap with income growth prior to the pandemic. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector clearly leveraged itself over the course of the last expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. Third, we disagree with a common view in the marketplace that the 2018-2019 period supported the validity of low academic estimates of the neutral rate. Chart II-9 highlights that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative in 2019 according to the Laubach & Williams r-star estimate, which some investors have argued explains the late 2018 equity market selloff, the 2019 slowdown in the US housing market, the inversion of the yield curve, and the global manufacturing recession. Chart II-9Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative In 2019, According To The LW R-star Estimate But this narrative ignores other important factors that contributed to the slowdown. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that this period of economic weakness exactly coincided with the most intense phase of the Sino-US trade war, as well as a significant slowdown in Chinese credit growth. The chart highlights that the selloff in the US equity market began almost immediately after a surge in the effective tariff rates levied by the two countries against each other, and after the Chinese credit impulse fell three percentage points (from 30% to 27% of GDP). Chart II-10The 2018 Stock Market Selloff Occurred Once Sino-US Tariffs Exploded Chart II-11 highlights that interest rates did likely impact the housing market, but that it was the speed at which rates rose that was damaging rather than their level. The chart shows that the rise in mortgage rates from late 2016 to late 2018 was among the largest 2-year increases that has occurred since the early 1980s, so it is unsurprising that the growth in home sales and real residential investment slowed for a time. Additionally, Chart II-12 highlights that the rise in mortgage rates during this period did not cause a downtrend in mortgage credit growth, which only occurred in Q4 2018 in response to the impact of the sharp selloff in the equity market on household net worth. Chart II-11Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late 2016 To Late 2018 Chart II-12A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   In short, the late 2018 / 2019 period saw a major global aggregate demand shock occur following an already-established slowdown in Chinese credit growth and a rapid rise in interest rates in the DM world. It is these factors that were likely responsible for the 2019 slowdown in economic growth, not the fact that interest rates reached levels that restricted economic activity on their own. R-star In A Post-Pandemic World Charts II-7 – II-12 above suggest that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in r-star only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand. In the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that r-star was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. But that is now a counterfactual assertion, as the pandemic has transformed the outlook for interest rates and bond yields in conflicting ways. A 10% decline in the level of real output was the most intensely negative non-monetary shock to aggregate demand since the 1930s (Chart II-13), and we agree that another depression would have occurred without extraordinary government assistance. The economic damage caused by the pandemic certainly does not work in favor of a higher neutral rate, and we highlighted in Section 1 of our report that the Fed expects there to be some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart II-13Without Major Monetary And Fiscal Policy Support, The Pandemic Would Probably Have Caused A Depression Chart II-14A Huge Increase In Government Transfers And Spending Is Underway On the other hand, Larry Summers, the chief proponent of the theory of secular stagnation, has argued for several years that increased fiscal spending was warranted in order to address an imbalance between private sector savings and investment. Summers himself now characterizes US fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that he has seen over the past 40 years, because of too-large government spending that risks overheating the economy (Chart II-14). Summers’ critique rests in large part on the fact that new government spending has not occurred in the form of investment (to balance out the existence of excess savings), but is instead providing transfers to households that in many cases have already accumulated significant excess savings. But the key point for investors is that the pandemic has completely shifted the narrative about fiscal spending, from “arguably insufficient for several years following the global financial crisis” to now “risking a dramatic overheating of the economy.” Some elements of Summers’ criticism of the Biden administration’s fiscal policy are justified, particularly the policy of large direct transfer payments to workers who have suffered no loss in employment or income as a result of the pandemic. Despite this, as detailed in Section 1 of our report, we are more sanguine about the risks of aggressive overheating for three reasons: it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return or will be slow to return, some of the excess savings that have accumulated will not be immediately (or ever) spent, and the rise in consumer inflation expectations that has occurred over the past year has happened from an extremely low starting point and has yet to even rise above its post-GFC range. The low odds that we assign to dangerously above-target inflation over the coming 12-24 months does not, however, mean that investors’ expectations for r-star will stay low. For right or for wrong, the US government has aggressively dis-saved over the past year, in an environment where low expectations for the neutral rate were anchored by a view of excessive private sector savings and insufficient demand from governments. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation will be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate will converge towards trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, possibly as high as 4% or more. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions A rise in the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield does not, in and of itself, suggest that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to levels that would threaten a significant decline in stock prices. The Fed does not control the long-end of the Treasury curve, but it does exert a very strong influence on the short-end. For example, were the Fed to follow the median current projection of FOMC participants and refrain from raising interest rates until sometime after 2023, it would limit how high current 10-year Treasury yields could rise. But it is not difficult to envision plausible scenarios where the 10-year Treasury yield rises above the range consistent with the pre-GFC US equity risk premium. Chart II-15 presents three hypothetical fair value paths for the 10-year yield assuming a mid-2022 liftoff date and a 4% terminal Fed funds rate for the following three scenarios: Chart II-1510-Year Yields Could Rise Meaningfully Further If Investors Shift Their Expectations For R-star The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 10 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1.5% (6 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points In the first scenario, based on the current US 12-month forward P/E ratio, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield would rise above the range consistent with a reasonable ERP in the middle of 2022, the liftoff point assumed in all three scenarios. In the second and third scenarios, the US equity ERP would already be quite low. When using the late 1999 / early 2000 bubble period as a reference point, even the scenarios shown in Chart II-15 are not very threatening to stock prices. Given current equity market pricing, the third scenario would take the US equity risk premium back to mid 2002 levels, which were still meaningfully higher than during the peak of the bubble. And that is assuming an earlier liftoff than the market currently expects, a faster pace of rate hikes than experienced during the last economic cycle, and a very meaningful increase in the market’s expectations for the neutral rate. But it is not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. For example, equity investors are today faced with a riskier policy environment than existed 20 years ago in the US and in other developed economies that is at least partially driven by populist sentiment, potentially impacting earnings via lower operating margins or higher taxes. These or other risks existed at several points over the past decade and T.I.N.A. (“There Is No Alternative”) prevailed, but that occurred precisely because the equity risk premium was very elevated. A low ERP that is technically not as low as what prevailed during the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, raising the specter of negative absolute returns from stocks and nominal government bonds for a period of time, beginning potentially at or in the lead-up to the first Fed rate hike. Chart II-16There Are Alternatives To A Traditional 60/40 Portfolio In A Rising Rate Environment Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. Chart II-16 provides some perspective on the question, by comparing the total return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio to a strategy involving the opportunistic redeployment of cash into stocks. The strategy rule maintains a 50/50 stock/cash allocation during normal market conditions, but it then shifts the entire cash allocation into equities following a 15% selloff in the stock market. The portfolio is shifted back to a 50/50 allocation once stocks rise to a new rolling 1-year high. The chart highlights that 60/40 balanced portfolio-style returns may be achievable with cash as the diversifier without a significant reduction in the Sharpe ratio. In fact, the strategy has the effect of lowering average volatility due to prolonged periods of comparatively lower equity exposure, although this occurs at the cost of higher volatility during periods of high market stress (precisely when investors most want protection from volatility). But the bottom line for investors is that while they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. As noted above, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but we will continue to monitor the potential threat posed to stock prices as the pandemic draws to a decisive close later this year. 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. The indicator 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 ticked slightly lower from their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, US stocks have recently risen versus global ex-US, reflecting a countertrend rise in the US dollar and a lagging vaccination campaign in Europe. We expect a deceleration in the Chinese credit impulse later this year, which will weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has risen well above its 200-day moving average. Long-dated yields are technically stretched to the upside, but our valuation index highlights that bonds are still extremely expensive and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. The recent bounce in the US dollar has reflected improved relative US growth expectations, but also previously oversold levels. The dollar may continue to strengthen on a 0-3 month time horizon, but we expect it to be lower in 12 months’ time than it is today. Commodity prices have recovered not just back to pre-pandemic levels, but also back to 2014 levels. This underscores that many commodity prices are extended, and may be due for a breather once the Chinese credit impulse begins to decline. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. This underscores 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-4Revealed Preference Indicator 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  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2  2020-03-20 GIS SR “Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis.”