Fixed Income

Executive Summary The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% The Fed tightening cycle is likely to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, which is now well anticipated, the Fed will seek to restore its credibility by raising rates to 2% – the lower bound of what it regards as “neutral” – by early next year. The decline in goods inflation over the next 12 months, facilitated by the easing of supply-chain bottlenecks, will allow the Fed to take a break from tightening for most of 2023. Unfortunately, the respite from rate hikes will not last. The neutral rate of interest is around 3%-to-4%, significantly higher than what either the Fed or investors believe. A wage-price spiral will intensify starting in late 2023, setting the stage for the second, and more painful, round of tightening. Trade Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long June 2023 3-month SOFR futures contract (SFRM3) / December 2024 (SFRZ4) -8 bps Feb 17/2022 -30 bps New Trade: Go short the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Investors expect the fed funds rate to be somewhat higher in mid-2023 than at end-2024. They are wrong about that. Bottom Line: The market has priced in the first stage of the Fed’s tightening cycle, which suggests that bond yields will stabilize over the next few quarters. However, the market has not priced in the second stage. Once it starts to do so, the bull market in equities will end. Investors should remain bullish on stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of 2023.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing Russia’s geopolitical outlook over the long run. I hope you will find it insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Who’s the Boss? Who sets interest rates: The economy or the Fed? The answer is both. In the short run, the Fed has complete control over interest rates. In the long run, however, the economy calls the shots. If the Fed sets rates too high, unemployment will rise, forcing the Fed to cut rates. If the Fed sets rates too low, the opposite will happen. Chart 1The Fed's Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Is Still Quite Low By Historical Standards Thus, over the long haul, it all boils down to where the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – happens to be. In the latest Summary of Economic Projections, released on December 15th, 9 out of 17 FOMC participants penciled in 2.5% as their estimate of the appropriate “longer run” level of the federal funds rate. Six participants thought the neutral rate was lower than 2.5%, while two participants thought it was higher (both put down 3%). Back in 2012, when the Fed began publishing its dot plot, the median FOMC participant thought the neutral rate was 4.25%. Investors have revised up their estimate of the neutral rate over the past two months. But at 2.09%, the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield – a widely-used proxy for the neutral rate – is still exceptionally low by historic standards (Chart 1). Desired Savings and Investment Determine the Neutral Rate Chart 2The Savings-Investment Balance Determines The Neutral Rate Of Interest One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If interest rates are above neutral, the economy will suffer from inadequate demand; if interest rates are below neutral, the economy will overheat. As Box 1 explains, the difference between aggregate demand and aggregate supply can be expressed as the difference between how much investment an economy needs to undertake and the savings it has at its disposal. Savings can be generated domestically by deferring consumption or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. Anything that reduces savings or raises investment will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest (Chart 2). With this little bit of theory under our belts, let us consider the forces shaping savings and investment in the United States. Desired Savings Are Falling in the US There are at least six reasons to expect desired savings to trend lower in the US over the coming years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and generous government transfer payments (Chart 3). While some of that money will remain sequestered in bank deposits, much of it will eventually be spent. Household wealth has soared. Personal net worth has risen by 128% of GDP since the start of the pandemic, the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 4). Conservatively assuming that households will spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by 3.8% of GDP. Chart 3Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Chart 4Net Worth Has Soared The household deleveraging cycle is over (Chart 5). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Corporate profit margins are peaking. As a share of GDP, corporate profits are near record-high levels (Chart 6). Despite a tight labor market, wage growth has failed to keep up with inflation over the past two years. Real wages should recover over time. To the extent that households spend more of their income than businesses, a rising labor share should translate into lower overall savings. Chart 5US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 6Corporate Profits Are Near Record Highs... But Wage Growth Has Failed To Keep Up Baby boomers are retiring. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will decline. Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Investment Will Not Decline to Offset the Reduction in Savings A favorite talking point among those who espouse the secular stagnation thesis is that slower trend growth will curb investment demand, leading to an ever-larger savings glut. There are a number of problems with this argument. For one thing, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred, implying less need for incremental cuts to investment spending in the future. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 9). Moreover, US investment spending has been weaker over the past two decades than one would have expected based on the evolution of trend GDP growth. As a consequence, the average age of both the residential and nonresidential capital stock has risen to the highest level in over 50 years (Chart 10). Chart 9Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Chart 10The Aging Capital Stock As the labor market continues to tighten, firms will devote greater efforts to automating production. Already, core capital goods orders have broken out to the upside (Chart 11). On the housing front, the NAHB reported this week that despite rising mortgage rates, foot traffic and prospective sales remain at exceptionally strong levels (Chart 12). Building permits also surprised on the upside. Chart 11The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright Chart 12Homebuilder Confidence Remains Strong Overseas Appetite for US Assets May Wane A larger current account deficit would allow the US to spend more than it earns without the need for higher interest rates to incentivize additional domestic savings. The problem is that the US current account deficit is already quite large, having averaged 3.1% of GDP over the past four quarters. Furthermore, as a result of the accumulation of past current account deficits, external US liabilities now exceed assets by 69% of GDP (Chart 13). It is far from clear that foreigners will want to maintain the current pace of US asset purchases, let alone increase them from current levels. Chart 13The US Has Become Increasingly Indebted To The Rest Of The World The Two-Stage Path to Neutral Chart 14The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% Investors expect the Fed to raise rates seven times by early next year and then stop hiking (and perhaps even start cutting!) in late 2023 and beyond (Chart 14). However, if we are correct that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, the Fed will eventually need to lift rates to a higher level than what is currently being discounted. It is impossible to be certain what this level is, but a reasonable estimate is somewhere in the range of 3%-to-4%. This is about 100-to-200 basis points above current market pricing. The path to the “new neutral” will not follow a straight line. As we have argued in the past, inflation is likely to evolve in a “two steps up, one step down” fashion. We are presently at the top of those two steps. Inflation will decline over the next 12 months as goods inflation falls sharply and services inflation rises only modestly, before starting to move up again in the second half of 2023. Falling Goods Inflation in 2022 Chart 15Goods Inflation Should Fade Chart 15 shows that the current inflationary episode has been driven by rising goods prices, particularly durable goods. This is highly unusual since goods prices, adjusting for quality improvements, usually trend sideways-to-down over time. As economies continue to reopen, the composition of consumer spending will shift from goods to services. At the same time, supply bottlenecks should abate. The combination of slowing demand and increasing supply will cause goods inflation to tumble. Investors are underestimating the extent to which goods inflation could recede over the remainder of the year as pandemic-related distortions subside. For example, used vehicle prices have jumped by over 50% during the past 18 months (Chart 16). Assuming automobile chip availability improves, we estimate that vehicle-related prices will go from adding 1.6 percentage points to headline inflation at present to subtracting 0.9 points by the end of the year – a swing of 2.5 percentage points (Chart 17). Chart 16AVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (I) Chart 16BVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (II) Chart 17Even If Underlying Core Inflation Does Not Change, Inflation Will Fall This Year As Goods Prices Come Back Down To Earth Along the same lines, we estimate that energy inflation will go from raising inflation by 1.7 points at present to lowering inflation by 0.3 points by the end of the year. This is based on the WTI forward curve, which sees oil prices retreating to $80/bbl by the end of 2022 from $91/bbl today. A normalization in food prices should also help keep a lid on goods inflation. Service Inflation Will Rise Only Modestly in 2022 Could rising service inflation offset the decline in goods inflation this year? It is possible, but we would bet against it. While certain components of the CPI services basket, such as rents, will continue to trend higher, a major increase in service inflation is unlikely unless wages rise more briskly. As Chart 18 underscores, the bulk of recent wage growth has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution. That is not especially surprising. Whereas employment among medium-and-high wage workers has returned to pre-pandemic levels, employment among low-wage workers is still 6% below where it was in early 2020 (Chart 19). Chart 18The Bulk Of Recent Wage Growth Has Occurred At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Chart 19Employment Among Low-Wage Workers Still Lagging Chart 20Workers Are Starting To Return To Their Jobs Following The Omicron Wave Looking out, labor participation among lower-paid workers will recover now that enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. A decline in the number of life-threatening Covid cases should also help bring back many lower-paid service workers. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.7 million employees were absent from work in the middle of January either because they were sick or looking after someone with Covid symptoms. Consistent with declining case counts, February data show that fewer employees have been absent from work (Chart 20). Predicting Wage-Price Spirals: The Role of Expectations A classic wage-price spiral is one where self-fulfilling expectations of rising prices prompt workers to demand higher wages. Rising wages, in turn, force firms to lift prices in order to protect profit margins, thus validating workers’ expectations of higher prices. For the time being, such a relentless feedback loop has yet to emerge. Market-based measures of long-term inflation expectations have actually fallen since October and remain below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 21). Survey-based measures have moved up, but not by much (Chart 22). To the extent that US households are reluctant to buy a new vehicle, it is because they expect prices to decline (Chart 23). Chart 21Market-Based Expectations Remain Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Chart 22Survey-Based Measures Of Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Ticked Up, But Not By Much Still, if it turns out that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, then monetary policy must also be more stimulative than widely believed. This raises the odds that, at some point, the economy will overheat and a wage-price spiral will develop. It is impossible to definitively say when that point will arrive. Inflationary processes tend to be highly non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time without this having much impact on inflation, only for inflation to surge once the unemployment rate has fallen below a critical threshold. The Sixties as a Template for Today? The sudden jump in inflation in the 1960s offers an interesting example. The unemployment rate in the US fell to NAIRU in 1962. However, it was not until 1966, when the unemployment rate had already fallen nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, that inflation finally took off. Within the span of ten months, both wage growth and inflation more than doubled. US inflation would end up finishing the decade at 6%, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s (Chart 24). Chart 23The Expectation of Lower Prices Is Keeping Many People From Buying A Car Chart 24Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Our guess is that we are closer to 1964 than 1966, implying that the US economy may still need to overheat for another one or two years before a true wage-price spiral emerges. When the second wave of inflation does begin, however, investors will find themselves in a world of pain. Stay overweight stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of next year. This Week’s Trade Idea Given our expectation that inflation will come down sharply in 2022 before beginning to rise again in late 2023 and into 2024, we recommend shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Current market pricing provides an attractive entry point for the trade, with the implied interest rate for the June 2023 contract 8 bps higher than that of the December 2024 contract. We expect the interest rate spread to eventually widen substantially in favor of higher rates (lower futures contract prices) in 2024. Box 1The Neutral Rate Through The Lens Of The Savings-Investment BalancePeter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. If relative price shocks cause employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. US unit labor costs have been rising rapidly, which indicates that US inflation is becoming pervasive and entrenched (Chart of the week). The Fed is facing an acute dilemma that it has not encountered in the last 35 years or so: It either needs to slow growth materially to contain inflation or allow inflation to proliferate. The Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from the current levels. Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: The Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Feature In a report we published a year ago titled Riding A Tiger, we stated that “the enormous size of US stimulus and overflow of liquidity is creating a thrill akin to riding a tiger… Riding a tiger is fun. The hitch is that no one can safely get off a tiger. Similarly, US authorities are currently enjoying the exuberance from stimulus, but they will not be able to safely and smoothly dismount.” We also contended that “in any system where an explosive money/credit boom persists, the outcome will be one or a combination of the following: inflation, asset bubbles or capital misallocation… Odds are that the US will experience asset bubbles and inflation in the real economy.” Riding a tiger was indeed fun but now it is time for US policymakers to dismount. Yet, exiting the era of super easy monetary and fiscal policies will not be without costs and considerable financial market turbulence. Are the Fed and financial markets heading into a collision in the fog of inflation? Transitory Versus Persistent Inflation Chart 1US Inflation Is Broad Based, As Evidenced By Median And Trimmed-Mean CPIs US inflation has become broad-based.1 Not only is core CPI surging but also trimmed-mean, median and sticky core consumer price inflation have risen substantially (Chart 1).  Median and trimmed-mean price indexes would not be rocketing if inflation was limited to select goods or services. Particularly, the aforementioned measures exclude components with extreme price changes. What might have started as a narrow-based relative price shock has evolved into broad-based genuine inflation. The key to the transition from one-off inflation spikes to persistent genuine inflation is wages, more specifically unit labor costs. Unit labor cost are calculated as nominal wages divided by productivity (the latter is output per hour per employee). As long as unit labor costs are not rising considerably, sharp price increases in several types of goods do not entail genuine inflation and central banks should not tighten aggressively. However, when unit labor costs are escalating, odds are that higher inflation could become entrenched and persistent. The importance of wages stems from the fact that labor compensation makes up the largest share of costs for the majority of industries. Consequently, rising unit labor costs squeeze profit margins. When this transpires, businesses try to pass on rising costs to customers. Provided that robust wage growth propels consumer demand, companies often succeed in raising their prices. Chart 2US Wages Are Rising Rapidly In turn, inflation erodes the purchasing power of wages, and employees demand substantial pay raises. When revenues are strong, employers typically accommodate employees’ claims for higher compensation, and a wage-price spiral emerges. These dynamics are presently unfolding in the US. US wage growth has reached multi-decade highs of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 2). Plus, the high and climbing quit rate points to further wage acceleration (Chart 3). As US productivity cannot rise as fast as the current wage growth of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 4), the ratio of wages to productivity (unit labor costs) is escalating. Unit labor costs are rising faster than they have in the past 38-40 years. Historically, an acceleration in unit labor costs has often heralded higher inflation (Chart 5). Chart 3US Wages Will Continue Accelerating Chart 4Wage Growth Is Outpacing Productivity Gains   Chart 5Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation The only period when US core inflation fell despite rising unit labor costs was during the second half of the 1990s (Chart 5). During this period, EM currency devaluations from China to Mexico and then to Asia unleashed the deflation tsunami in goods prices. US imports prices from Asia collapsed allowing US inflation to drift lower despite rising unit labor costs. The current backdrop is different: US import prices from Asia, including China, are rising (Chart 6). Importantly, US wage growth is presently below headline and core CPI, i.e., real wages are contracting (Chart 7). Provided US employees have experienced a decline in their purchasing power in the past 12 months, they are keen to secure substantial pay raises in the coming months. Chart 6Unlike The Late 1990s, US Import Prices From Asia Are Rising Chart 7US Real Wages Are Shrinking   Employers facing strong demand cannot afford an employee exodus. Businesses will raise salaries and hike selling prices to preserve their profit margins, thereby giving rise to a wage-price spiral. Bottom Line: The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. This is why wages, more specifically unit labor costs, are the most important variable to monitor. If relative price shocks lead employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. The Fed’s Dilemma When inflation becomes pervasive and entrenched, as it is now in the US, the only way to bring it down is to slow the economy. Unless demand decelerates meaningfully, US inflation will not go away because it has already spilled over into consumer and business expectations. Even though US headline and core CPI will likely drop in the coming months, core inflation will remain well above the Fed’s target of 2% (Chart 1 above). To maintain its credibility, the Fed should hike rates continually despite the potential rollover in headline and core CPI measures. Chart 8High Probability Of US Core Inflation Exceeding 4% In The Next 12 Months My colleague, Jonathan Laberge, Managing Editor of the Bank Credit Analyst, has quantitatively estimated that there is a almost 100% probability that in next 12 months core PCE inflation will be above 3%, and a 70% probability that it will be above 4% (Chart 8). All this means that if the Federal Reserve is serious about bringing core inflation closer to 2%, it will have to slow down the economy meaningfully. In short, the Fed cannot both achieve decent growth and bring inflation down to its 2% target in the next 1-2 years. The Fed seemed omnipotent over the past 35 years because inflation was falling or was very low. That allowed US monetary authorities during financial crises/deflationary shocks to cut rates aggressively and flood the system with liquidity. That playbook worked well in a disinflation context and the US central bank has prevented protracted debt deflation. When inflation – rather than deflation – is the problem, authorities can do little without slowing growth. In short, an inflation redux has made US policymakers’ jobs much more difficult. If the Fed tightens too much, the economy will slump. If policymakers drag their feet and do not raise interest rates rapidly and significantly, inflation will hover well above its target and inflation expectations will escalate with negative ramifications for the economy (more on this below). Bottom Line: The Fed is facing an acute dilemma. The Fed will not publicly acknowledge it, but financial markets are gradually waking up to the new reality that the era of an omnipotent Fed might be over, at least for a period of time. Why Not Allow Inflation To Proliferate? Why should authorities tighten policy and slow growth to reduce inflation? Why can’t the US operate with inflation in a range of 3.5-5%? First, there is no guarantee that core inflation will stabilize at 3.5-5% and not rise further. When higher consumer and business inflation expectations set in, they are not easily dislodged. Second, persistent inflation can damage growth itself. High price volatility increases business uncertainty as producers cannot properly plan their costs and selling prices. Higher uncertainty leads companies to abandon expansion projects and new investments. Consequently, economic growth, employment and ultimately productivity suffer. Lower productivity growth creates fertile ground for inflation to thrive. This can lead to stagflation whereby growth slows but inflation remains high. Finally, from a political perspective, inflation can be more damaging to a government’s popularity than modestly high unemployment. For example, if the unemployment rate is at 6-7%, there would be some unhappy voters, but the majority of the population would be employed and their real purchasing power would be rising. Hence, the majority of voters might be content about the incumbent government’s policies.  In an inflation scenario, however, everyone would be unhappy because inflation erodes the purchasing power of household income and wealth. The point is that moderately high unemployment affects a few families who do not have jobs while inflation affects everyone. US politicians and policymakers have forgotten the perils of inflation because rapidly rising prices have not been a problem for decades. Therefore, they have erred on the side of helicopter money assuming that deflationary pressures and higher unemployment are worse than inflation. They have forgotten that inflation is not only worse for the wider population but that it could cause growth to slump resulting in stagflation: a combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Inflation has already become a political problem in the US. With income growth lagging behind inflation, household purchasing power has declined, which has fueled dissatisfaction with the current government. Biden’s popularity has tanked in the past nine months along with the rise of inflation. If inflation is not quelled by this fall, chances are that the Democrats will lose Congress to the Republicans in the midterm elections. Further, if high inflation persists in the next two years, odds of a Republican candidate winning the 2024 presidential elections will be considerable. Recognizing this, the Biden administration will not oppose the Fed’s hawkish policy for now. While we are sympathetic to the view that the Fed will ultimately not raise rates too aggressively, they have no reason not to hike and cannot afford to appear dovish at the current juncture. Even as headline and core inflation measures start falling (which is very likely in the months ahead), the Fed has no excuse to turn dovish. The rationale is that the US core inflation rate, while dropping from 5.5-6%, will still be well above the central bank’s target of 2%. In our opinion, the Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from current levels. Bottom Line: Until panic selling occurs in the equity and credit markets or the economy is materially weaker, the Fed will hike interest rates at every meeting and will start quantitative tightening soon. Thus, US bond yields and the US dollar have more upside for the time being. Overall, the Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: the Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Implications For Financial Markets Chart 9Second Half Of The 1960s: The S&P 500 And US Bond Yields Became Negatively Correlated As long as the Fed maintains its hawkish bias (which is very likely in the coming months), US bond yields will rise and/or the yield curve will flatten, the greenback will be firm, and stocks will struggle. The current environment will be more reminiscent of what occurred in the late 1960s than any other period of the past 40 years. In the second half of the 1960s, when US core CPI spiked, US share prices became negatively correlated with US bond yields (Chart 9). We discussed this topic at great length in a report from a year ago. Hawkish monetary policy amid the inflation overshoot means that the Fed appears to be credible, and this stance is positive for the US dollar. As soon as the Fed makes a dovish pivot however, the US dollar will tank. The basis is that by turning dovish earlier than warranted, odds are that inflation would remain well above its target, i.e., the Fed would fall behind the inflation curve. When a central bank is behind the inflation curve, the currency depreciates. Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator has fallen quite a bit but has not yet reached its 2018, 2016, 2011 and 2010 lows (Chart 10). We believe the macro backdrop is poor enough to justify a pullback on par with those selloffs (17-20% from the peak). In such an environment, EM stocks will outperform DM only if the US dollar weakens (Chart 11). Chart 10More Downside In The S&P 500? Chart 11EM Relative Equity Performance Moves With The US Dollar​​ Chart 12Will The Current Episode Play Out Like Q4 2018? Alternatively, we might be witnessing a replay of Q4 2018 when the S&P 500 sold off hard led by tech stocks, but having underperformed earlier that year EM outperformed (Chart 12). While such a scenario is quite possible, we need to downgrade our view on the US dollar in order to upgrade EM stocks from underweight. We are not ready to do so because we believe the Fed’s hawkish bias will for now support the greenback. On the whole, we continue to recommend underweight allocations to EM equities and credit markets within their respective global portfolios. Absolute-return investors should stay cautious on EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please note this is the view of Emerging Markets Strategy team and does not reflect the view of other BCA services.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Executive Summary Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth The conditions for a major rally/outperformance in Malaysian equities are absent. Profits have been the primary driver of Malaysian equity prices historically, and the corporate earnings outlook is mediocre. Domestic demand is facing headwinds from tightening fiscal policy as well as from impaired credit channels.  Muted wage growth and deflating house prices are sapping consumer confidence. This will dent domestic demand going forward. This backdrop is bullish for bonds. Malaysian bonds offer value, as real bond yields are among the highest in Emerging Asia. The yield curve is far too steep given the growth and inflation outlook.  The Malaysian ringgit is cheap and has limited downside. Bottom Line: We recommend equity investors implement a neutral stance toward Malaysia in overall EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Absolute return investors should avoid this bourse for now. Fixed-income investors, on the other hand, should stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates or bet on yield curve flattening. Feature Chart 1Malaysian Equity Underperformance May Be Late, But It’s Not Yet Time To Overweight Malaysian stocks are still in search of a stable bottom in absolute terms. Relative to their EM and Emerging Asian counterparts however, a bottom has been forming over the past year (Chart 1). So, could Malaysia’s prolonged underperformance be coming to an end?  Our analysis suggests caution. The underlying reasons behind this market’s substantial and protracted underperformance – dwindling earnings both in absolute terms and relative to its peers – are yet to show any signs of a reversal.  While cheap, the ringgit is also negatively impacted by the meager corporate profits generated by Malaysian firms. Investors would do well to stay neutral on this bourse for now in EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Fixed income investors, however, should continue to stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. Also, Malaysia’s yield curve is too steep and offers value given the sluggish cyclical growth outlook. It’s All About Profits Chart 2 shows that the bull and bear markets in Malaysian stocks have been all about the rise and fall in earnings per share (EPS). Stock multiples, the other possible driver of the equity prices, have been remarkably flat over the past two decades, with only brief periods of fluctuations around the GFC and COVID-19 pandemic. The same can be said about Malaysia’s relative performance vis-à-vis EM and Emerging Asian stocks. The trajectory of the relative stock performance was set by the relative earnings (Chart 3). Chart 3Malaysia’s Relative Performance Is Also Dictated By Relative Corporate Profits Chart 2Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth Thus, it is reasonable to expect that for this bourse to usher in a new bull market in absolute terms, Malaysian firms need to grow their earnings sustainably. And in order to outperform the rest of the EM stocks, Malaysian earnings need to grow at a faster clip than their peers. The question therefore is, are there signs of profit recovery in Malaysian companies in absolute and relative terms? The short answer is no. Bottom-up analysts do not expect any change in the downward trend in Malaysia’s relative profits over the coming 12 months. This outlook is corroborated by our macro analysis, as is outlined below. Sluggish Growth  Malaysian profits are languishing in large part because of subdued topline growth. While profit margins are returning to pre-pandemic levels – thanks to cost cutting – subdued sales are causing the corporate profits to stay low. Chart 4Malaysian Domestic Demand Is Subdued Malaysian gross output as of Q4 last year was barely at pre-pandemic levels. The weak recovery is most evident in the dismal level of capital investments. Gross fixed capital formations – in both real and nominal terms – are still a good 15% below their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4, top two panels). Apathy among businesses in ramping up productive capacity indicates a lack of confidence in consumer demand going forward. Consumption is indeed weak: Unit sales for passenger vehicles continue to be sluggish, and commercial vehicle sales are not faring any better. Consumer sentiment has ticked down in the latest survey indicating retail sales might decelerate (Chart 4, bottom two panels) Consistently, industrial production in consumer goods-related industries is struggling to surpass previous highs, even though strong export demand has provided a fillip to sales. In more domestic-oriented industries such as construction goods, the weakness is palpable (Chart 5). Meanwhile, unemployment rates have fallen marginally, but are still higher than they were before the pandemic. As a result, wages remain subdued. The resulting weak household income is contributing to depressed consumption. With mediocre household income growth, demand for houses has also slowed meaningfully. This is reflected in dwindling property unit sales. The advent of the pandemic and the resulting loss of household income have further aggravated the situation. In fact, prices of certain types of dwelling units, such as semi-detached houses and high-rise apartments, are deflating outright (Chart 6, top panel). Falling house prices weigh on consumer sentiment and discourage future consumption. Chart 6Contracting House Prices Is Hurting Real Estate Sector And Denting Consumer Confidence Chart 5Weak Domestic Demand Is A Headwind To Industrial Production What’s more, the housing sector does not expect an early recovery in sales and prices either. This is evident in the very depressed level of new construction starts (Chart 6, bottom panel). As such, this sector is likely to remain a drag on Malaysia’s post-pandemic recovery. Fiscal And Credit Headwinds Going forward, the recovery will face other headwinds worth noting. One of them is a restrictive fiscal policy. This is because the “statutory debt” ceiling of the government – at 60% of GDP – has already been reached (Chart 7, top panel). This ceiling for statutory debts was fixed by lawmakers as part of a stimulus bill (COVID-19 Act) passed in 2020; and leaves little room for additional fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the IMF estimates that the ‘fiscal thrust’ this year will be negative at 2% of GDP (Chart 7, bottom panel). The country’s credit channel is also compromised. The reason is that Malaysian banks are still saddled with unresolved NPLs. These NPLs are a legacy of a very rapid expansion of bank loans following the GFC. In just five years (2009 -2014), bank credit doubled in nominal terms to 1500 billion ringgit or from 95% of GDP to 125% (Chart 8, top panel). Such fast deployment of credit was bound to cause significant misallocation of capital. And yet banks were averse to recognize impaired loans in any good measure. In fact, during the years of rapid credit growth, banks were recognizing ever fewer amounts in absolute terms as impaired loans. They were also setting aside ever lower amounts as loan loss provisions (Chart 8, second panel). Chart 7Fiscal Policy Will Stay Constrained As Statutory Debt Has Hit The Ceiling Chart 8Both Demand And Supply Of Bank Credit In Malaysia Remains Compromised While bad debt recognition and provisions have risen modestly over the past year, Malaysia’s reported NPL ratio remained under 1.5% of loans (Chart 8, third panel). Loan loss provisions have been equally meager. This indicates that banks’ balance sheets are far from clean. In reality, Malaysian borrowers never went through any deleveraging process following their last credit binge. The bank credit-to-GDP ratio remains at around the same level as it was in 2015 (125% of GDP). By comparison, during Malaysia’s previous deleveraging phase, bank credit was shed from 150% of GDP to 90% (1998 - 2008). Borrowers already saddled with large amounts of debt are much less likely to borrow more to invest and/or consume. This is therefore going to cap credit demand. Chart 9Banks Are Piling Up On Government Securities By Shunning Loans As for banks, an increase in impaired loans makes them reticent to engage in further lending. Instead, they seek to accumulate safer assets such as government bonds. In fact, this is what Malaysian banks have been doing. They have ramped up their holdings of government securities materially since 2015 at the expense of loans and advances (Chart 9, top panel).   After the pandemic-related slowdown in the economy, banks’ loan books are now probably more encumbered with impaired loans.  As such, banks are even less likely to ramp up their loan books in any major way. That will be yet another headwind to economic recovery (Chart 9, bottom panel).    Value In Fixed Income The headwinds to growth do not entail a bullish outlook for Malaysian equities. The outlook for Malaysian local currency bonds, however, is promising. A tightening fiscal policy amid weak domestic demand and subdued inflation is a bullish cocktail for domestic bonds. There is a good chance that Malaysian bond yields will roll over. At a minimum, they will rise less than most other EM countries or US Treasuries. Notably, Malaysia offers one of the highest real yields (nominal yield adjusted for core inflation) in Emerging Asia (Chart 10, top panel). Given the country’s mediocre growth outlook, odds are high that Malaysian local bonds will outperform their EM / Emerging Asian peers (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10Malaysian Bonds Offer One Of The Best Values In Emerging Aisa Chart 11Steep Yield Curve Indicate Value In Bond Space; But Spell Trouble For Bank Stocks The Malaysian swap curve is also far too steep given the country’s macro backdrop. Going forward, the 10-year/1-year swap curve is set to flatten from its decade-steep level of 130 basis points (Chart 11, top panel). That means investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. On a related note, a fall in bond yields will not augur well for Malaysian stocks in general, and bank stocks in particular. The middle panel of Chart 11 shows that bank stocks struggle in absolute terms whenever bond yields decline. Incidentally, at 38% of total, banks are by far the largest sector in the MSCI Malaysia Index. And in recent months bank stocks have been propelling the Malaysian market (Chart 11, bottom panel). Should the bourse begin to miss the tailwind from rising bond yields, Malaysian equity performance will be hobbled.    Finally, investors should stay overweight in Malaysian sovereign credit. The country’s orthodox fiscal policy has accorded a defensive nature to this market. As such, periods of global risk-off witness Malaysian sovereign spreads fall relative to their EM counterparts, as they did in 2015 and again in 2020. In the months ahead, rising US inflation and a slowdown in Chinese property markets could cause another such period. That will lead Malaysian sovereign US dollar bonds to continue outperforming their EM peers. What’s With The Ringgit? Chart 12Malaysia Has Not Been Able To Benefit From A Cheap Currency The Malaysian currency is cheap, both in nominal and real terms (Chart 12, top panel). As such, it will likely be one of the most resilient currencies in EM this year. That said, the ringgit has been cheap for a while now (since 2015), and yet the Malaysian economy does not seem to have benefitted much all these years. The inability to take advantage of a cheap currency points to a fundamental malaise in the Malaysian economy: Loss of manufacturing competitiveness, as explained in our previous report on Malaysia. Perhaps equally worryingly, the country has not been able to attract much in the way of capital inflows. What this implies is that global investors did not find Malaysian assets attractive enough despite the benefits of a significantly cheaper currency (Chart 12, bottom panel). A major reason investors have not found the country attractive is because the return on capital on Malaysian assets has continued to deteriorate relative to the rest of the world. The upshot of the above is that, should Malaysian firms be able to improve their profits going forward, Malaysian stocks’ relative performance would get a boost from both higher relative earnings and a stronger currency. However, given the sluggish business cycle outlook as explained above, a sustainable rally in Malaysian stocks or currency is not imminent. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Malaysian Relative Stock Valuations Are On The Cheaper Side Equities: Malaysian stocks have cheapened. Both in terms of P/E ratio and P/book ratio, they are at the lower end of the spectrum relative to their EM counterparts (Chart 13). Yet, given the mediocre growth outlook, we recommend that dedicated EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines in view of the worsening risk outlook in global markets, and wait for a better entry point later in the year. For local asset allocators in Malaysia, it is too early to overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical horizon. Even though the equity risk premium in general has been much higher since the advent of the pandemic, stocks have struggled to outperform bonds in a total return basis over the past two years. That will likely be the case for several more months given the country’s growth outlook and rising global risks. Fixed Income: Malaysian domestic bonds will outperform their overall EM / Emerging Asian peers. So will Malaysian sovereign credit. Fixed income investors should overweight them in their respective EM / Emerging Asian portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. Finally, Malaysian yield curves are set to flatten. Investors should position for a narrowing of the 10-year/1-year yield curve, which is at a decade-high level of 180 basis points. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary The recent 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. As the 30-year T-bond rallies, so too will other long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the S&P 500 versus short-duration stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. If A 26 Percent Overspend On Goods Is Not A Massive Economic Imbalance, Then What Is? Bottom Line: As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Feature My colleague Peter Berezin recently wrote that recessions tend to happen when: “1) the build-up of imbalances makes the economy vulnerable to downturn; 2) a catalyst exposes these imbalances; and 3) amplifiers exacerbate the slump.” Peter is spot on. Using this checklist, I would argue that right now: There is a massive imbalance that makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. Specifically, a 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history – the 26 percent overspend on durables refers to the US, but other advanced economies have experienced similar binges on goods. The catalyst that exposes this massive imbalance is the realisation that durables are, well, durable. They last a long time. So, if you front-end loaded many of this year’s purchases into last year, then you will not buy them this year. If you overspent by 26 percent in 2021, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend by 26 percent in 2022. If central banks hike rates into this demand downturn, they will amplify and exacerbate the slump. A Massive Imbalance In Spending Makes The Economy Vulnerable To A Downturn Much of the recent overspend on goods was spending displaced from the underspend on services which became unavailable in the pandemic – such as eating out, going to the movies, and going to in-person doctor’s appointments. Raising the obvious question, can a future underspend on goods be countered by a future overspend on services? The answer is no. The consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. For example, there is a limit on how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor. If you are used to eating out and going to the movies once a week, and the pandemic prevented you from doing so for a year, that does not mean you will eat out and go to the movies an extra 52 times for the 52 times you missed! Rather, you will quickly revert to your previous pattern of going out once a week. This constraint on services spending means that the underspend will not become a symmetric overspend. In fact, the underspend on certain services will persist. This is because we have made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Additionally, a small but significant minority of people have changed their behaviour, shunning services that require close contact with strangers. To repeat the crucial asymmetry, an overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the recent massive overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn, and the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. These hikes will prove to be overkill, because inflation is set to cool of its own accord. Chart I-1An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend...   Chart I-2...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend   Durables Are Driving Inflation, And Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond The recent binge on goods really comprises three mini-binges, which peaked in May 2020, January-March 2021, and October 2021. With a couple of months lag, these three mini-binges have caused three mini-waves in core inflation. To see the cause and effect, it is best to examine the evolution of inflation granularly – on a month-on-month basis – which removes the distorting ‘base effects.’ The mini-binges in goods lifted the core monthly inflation rate to an (annualised) 7 percent in July 2020, 10 percent in April-June 2021, and 7 percent in January 2022 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Spending On Durables Is Driving Inflation Worryingly, the sensitivity of inflation has increased in each new mini-binge in goods spending, possibly reflecting more pressure on already-creaking supply chains as well as more secondary effects. Nevertheless, the key driver of the mini-waves in core inflation is the demand for durables, and as that demand wanes, so will core inflation. As monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield. What about the 30-year T-bond yield? Although it is a long-duration asset, its yield has recently been tracking the short-term contours of core inflation. So, when monthly inflation reached an (annualised) 10 percent last year, the 30-year T-bond yield reached 2.5 percent. At the more recent 7 percent inflation rate, the yield has reached 2.35 percent. It follows that as monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You’ll Get Most Things Right For the past year, the story of stocks has been the story of bonds. Or to be more precise, the story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. Through this period, the worry du jour has changed – from the Omicron mutation of SARS-CoV-2 to an Evergrande default to Facebook subscriber losses and now to Russia/Ukraine tensions. Yet the overarching story through all of this is that the long-duration Nasdaq index has tracked the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-5). And the connection between S&P 500 and the 30-year T-bond price is almost as good (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The Nasdaq Right Chart I-6Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The S&P 500 Right The tight short-term connection between long-duration stocks and the 30-year T-bond makes perfect sense. The cashflows of any investment can be simplified into a ‘lump-sum’ payment in the future, and the ‘present value’ of this payment will move in line with the present value of an equal-duration bond. So, all else being equal, a long-duration stock will move one-for-one in line with a long-duration bond. The story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. ‘Value’ stocks and non-US stock markets which are over-weighted to value have a shorter-duration. Therefore, they have a much weaker connection with the 30-year T-bond. It follows that if you get the 30-year T-bond right, you’ll get most things right: The performance of other long-duration bonds (Chart I-7). The performance of long-duration growth stocks (Chart I-8). The performance of ‘growth’ versus ‘value’ (Chart I-9). The performance of growth-heavy stock markets like the S&P 500 versus value-heavy stock markets like the FTSE100 (Chart I-10). Of course, the corollary is that if you get the 30-year T-bond wrong, you’ll get most things wrong. Observe that the 1-year charts of long-duration bonds, growth stocks, growth versus value, and S&P 500 versus FTSE100 are indistinguishable. Proving once again that investment is complex, but it is not complicated! Chart I-7Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The 30-Year German Bund Right Chart I-8Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Stocks Right   Chart I-9Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Versus Value Right Chart I-10Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get S&P 500 Versus FTSE100 Right Our expectation is that as the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. Emerging markets (EM) have been a big underperformer through the past year, but it may be time to dip in again, at least relative to value-heavy developed market (DM) indexes. Specifically, MSCI Emerging Markets versus MSCI UK has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long MSCI EM versus UK (dollar indexes), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent.  Chart I-11Time To Dip Into EM Again, Selectively Financials Versus Industrials Is Approaching A Turning-Point CAD/SEK At A Top Awaiting A Major Entry-Point Into Biotech Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations I   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations III    

Executive Summary Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Investors woke up to the Ukraine risk this week. It is not yet resolved. Stay defensive. Market reactions to Ukraine suggest investors will favor defensive sectors and growth stocks in the short term, with the notable exception of the energy sector. External risks will not dissuade the Fed from hiking rates in the face of 6% core inflation. Later the Fed might adjust to foreign crises but the stock market faces more downside in the interim. Polarization is reviving ahead of the midterm elections, which will usher in gridlock. Gridlock is disinflationary, reinforcing a tactically defensive market positioning despite our cyclical House View. Bottom Line: Biden’s external risks are not yet subsiding. The Fed will hike rates even in the face of external supply shocks. Stay tactically defensive. Feature Our three key views for the year are: gridlock, executive power, and foreign policy. First, Congress will become gridlocked even prior to the midterm elections. Second, President Biden will have to shift to executive power to achieve policy objectives. Third, Biden’s focus will be forced to engage in foreign policy more than he would prefer due to rising external risks. The Ukraine crisis – covered extensively in our Geopolitical Strategy – is the most pressing external risk but it is not the only one that we think will trouble markets this year. We expect politically induced volatility to persist all year. The cyclical investment view should be driven by the underlying macroeconomic reality. But that macro reality will change if external risks materialize and cause greater supply disruptions or if they alter the US midterm election outlook. We maintain our tactically defensive positioning for now. Mr. Market Wakes Up To Ukraine Risk The reason for the crisis is the historic Russian military buildup on all sides of Ukraine, in the face of US defense cooperation with Ukraine, not the “hysterical” American propaganda over the risk of war. When and if Russian forces withdraw, the crisis will melt away. But for now, Russia’s reported withdrawal of some troops is contradicted by movements of other troops as well as the fact that the Russian navy has effectively blocked off the Black Sea. Investors must judge by capabilities, not intentions, and Russia still has the capability to stage a limited attack at present so investors should maintain a defensive or cautious approach. In this context investors are rightly bidding up the US dollar and bidding down US equities in absolute terms (albeit not relative to European equities). Bond yields have not responded much to the external risk due to the high rate of inflation, which is pushing yields up (Chart 1). If Russia re-invades, stocks and bond yields will fall at least temporarily and the dollar will rise higher. When Russia initially invaded Ukraine eight years ago, in February 2014, the US stock-to-bond ratio moved sideways for several months but cyclicals outperformed defensives. Energy stocks rallied, until the oil crash in summer 2014. Small caps underperformed large caps, yet value outperformed growth stocks (Chart 2). Small caps likely suffered from risk-off sentiment and expectations of a drag on global growth, while value benefited from gently rising interest rates at that time. Chart 1Ukraine Crisis Escalates Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Comparing the situation today, the difference is that cyclicals are trailing defensives and small caps are trailing large caps even more than they were in 2014. Yet value stocks have performed far better against growth now than then, in accordance with higher inflation and bond yields (Chart 3). Further escalation of the Ukraine crisis should drive investors to favor defensives, large caps, and growth stocks on a tactical time frame, even though this decision runs against our BCA House View on a cyclical time frame. The past week’s market moves reinforce the 2014 experience in general, with the stock-to-bond ratio faltering and cyclicals falling back (Chart 4). Small caps and value have benefited but these charts suggest that a negative hit to global growth will hurt small caps, while value is overextended relative to growth in the short term. The market only really began to discount the risk of a new war in Europe this past week, specifically on Friday, February 11 and Monday, February 14. Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 Chart 4US Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine There is not yet a solid diplomatic solution as we go to press on Tuesday, February 15, but some positive signs are fueling a rebound in risk assets. Fade these improvements in risk appetite until Russia makes its decision on whether to use military force and, if so, until Europe makes its decision on whether to impose crippling sanctions.  Bottom Line: Tactically stay long growth stocks versus value, but prepare to switch back to overweighting value if the Ukraine crisis abates. The Energy Sector Response To Ukraine So Far Commodity prices and the energy sector are naturally benefitting from rising supply risks. But there is a risk that they will suffer later if a war breaks out and generates a supply shock and energy price shock that weigh on European and global growth. Russia will likely maintain energy production to help pay for its military adventures. The Saudis could increase production to prevent demand destruction. It is also possible that a US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market. The global economy can handle gradually rising energy prices but maybe not a sharp supply shock. Oil prices are rising on signs of escalating tensions and energy sector equities are generally outperforming the broad market and other cyclical sectors. Domestically oriented small cap energy stocks are rising relative to large caps, suggesting that the market does not believe that global growth will suffer greatly from any conflict. Apparently investors do believe that US energy companies will benefit from shipping more fossil fuels abroad (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Cyclically stay long small cap energy stocks versus their large cap brethren. Chart 5US Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crises The peak-to-trough equity drawdown amid major geopolitical crises ranges from 11%-15%, depending on the magnitude and nature of the crisis (Chart 6). In this case, the US will not be directly involved in any war in Ukraine, but US NATO allies will be right next door and providing aid to Ukraine. For “limited incursion” scenarios we looked at over a dozen crises, from the Berlin Blockade of 1949 to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. The peak-to-trough drawdown averages 10%. For an unlimited or “full-scale” invasion, we looked at the S&P500 reaction to major invasions at the dawn of World War II as well as significant wars in the twentieth century, down to the US invasion of Iraq and NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011. The peak-to-trough equity drawdown averaged 13%. Chart 6Range Of US Equity Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crisis Given that the S&P500 has fallen by 8% since its peak on January 3, 2022, investors should be prepared for more downside. Health care stocks and consumer staples are outperforming the broad market this year so far, though they are underperforming energy where the supply squeeze is happening (Chart 7). The magnitude of war and sanctions will determine whether energy ultimately falls in expectation of demand destruction. Bottom Line: It is too soon to buy the dip in the S&P 500. Stay long health stocks relative to the broad market. Chart 7Health Care And Consumer Staples Will The Fed Respond To External Risks? No. Over the past year, we have argued with investors who tried to differentiate the current bout of inflation from the inflation of the 1970s by arguing that there is no energy supply shock. We argued that an energy shock could transpire by pointing to external risks such as Russia and Iran. While the Biden administration will likely prove risk-averse, for fear that higher prices at the pump will weigh on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, what about the Federal Reserve? During the Arab oil embargo of late 1973, and the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Federal Reserve continued to hike interest rates, responding to domestic inflation and rising bond yields. Foreign supply shocks threatened to push up inflation, so the Fed was not deterred from hiking rates (Chart 8). When the US itself engages in war, the Fed might react differently (Chart 9). Chart 8The Fed Responds to Oil Shocks by Hiking Rates But... Chart 9... US At War Could Trigger Looser Monetary Policy In 1990, the Fed cut the policy rate once after the US entered the Iraq war, then kept rates flat for a few months before cutting more at the end of the year. Bond yields were falling due to recession. In 2001, the Fed was already cutting rates due to the business cycle and the September 11 terrorist attacks reinforced that process. In 2003, the Fed cut rates after the beginning of the Iraq war and did not start hiking rates until mid-2004 when the initial phase of the war ended. The implication is that Fed Chair Alan Greenspan accommodated both the war and the 2004 presidential election. Most external risks will not prevent the Fed from hiking rates, especially during an inflation bout when the nature of the external risk may be an energy supply disruption that pushes up prices. However, while we do not doubt that the Fed could hike by 50bps in March, we doubt that the consensus of 175bps in hikes in 2022 will pan out. The combination of initial hikes, fiscal drag, and foreign growth shocks would temper the Fed’s enthusiasm. Bottom Line: Stocks face more downside risk in this environment.   Bipartisanship And The Return Of Gridlock Polarization and partisanship are recovering. The Philadelphia Fed “Partisan Conflict Index” is now only 0.6% below its 2020 peaks as the midterm election approaches (Chart 10). Interestingly, one of our key views from last year – bipartisan reform – is still taking place beneath the surface. Our 2022 view of gridlock has not yet fully set in. Congress is stealthily cooperating on fiscal spending, the US Postal Service, women’s issues, public servants’ stock trading, and an attempt to revise the Electoral Count Act. Congress is also passing a bipartisan bill to make the US more economically competitive with China and impose sanctions against Russia. Chart 10Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed The only area where bipartisanship is not happening is Biden’s “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill, which even lacks sufficient support from moderate Democratic senators due to high inflation. Passage is still possible in a partisan, watered-down, and deficit-neutral form. These developments show that Republican lawmakers are demonstrating some pragmatic governing ability and will use their voting records to make a case in the midterms, while pinning the blame for inflation, crime, immigration, and any foreign crises on Democrats. As such they reinforce the market consensus that Republicans are likely to take back Congress this fall. Thus while last year’s bipartisanship is spilling into the current legislative session, gridlock is rapidly approaching. When investors look to the second half of the year and beyond, they should expect to see legislative cooperation dry up, especially if Republicans only take the House and not the Senate. Bottom Line: Gridlock will freeze fiscal policy, which is non-inflationary or disinflationary for 2022-24. As such the midterm election is not fully priced. Midterm dynamics will support an overweight or at least neutral stance toward defensives and growth stocks. Investment Takeaways Tactically stay long defensives, notably health care, and growth stocks. Cyclically remain invested in the bull market – and stay long energy small caps. The chief risks to these views would be a speedy diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine and Iran conflicts or a dramatic revival of the Democratic Party’s popular support ahead of the midterm election. Diplomacy would remove risks to global growth, whereas a Democratic comeback would boost inflation expectations.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (February 15 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Feature This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook – a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the last quarter of 2021 were mixed, with business credit standards easing in the US, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand while remaining mostly unchanged in the euro area and UK (Chart 1). Supply chain disruptions have had a two-pronged effect on borrowing. While they have hurt business confidence and prospects, they have also created loan demand as firms look to replenish depleted inventory stocks. The overall picture is one of solid economic fundamentals that are nonetheless perturbed by inflation concerns and lingering uncertainty regarding Covid-19 infections. Chart 1Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice-versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q4/2021 (Chart 3). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing standards. However, banks did report a slower pace of easing, which correlates with tighter financial conditions on the margin (top panel). While we are still in a period of easy financial conditions in absolute terms, this could soon start to change as hot inflation prints and booming economic data cause the Fed to turn increasingly hawkish. Despite this, banks expect to ease standards further over 2022, indicating confidence that underlying economic fundamentals and corporate health will be able to weather monetary tightening. US banks also reported stronger C&I loan demand from all firms in Q4, marking three consecutive quarters of improvement (middle panel). The picture was optimistic, with banks attributing increased loan demand to inventory financing, mergers & acquisitions, and fixed investment. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 12.5% of banks saw a decrease in internal funds and increasing precautionary demand, respectively, as somewhat important. Inventories accounted for all but 2% of the 6.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. With inventory stocks still depressed in absolute terms, we expect inventory restocking will continue to buoy demand over 2022. Chart 3US Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 4US Loan Demand Outlook For 2022 On the consumer side, banks reported easier standards across the board, with standards easing for credit card, auto, and other consumer loans (bottom panel). However, the pace of easing, which has historically been good at calling turning points in consumer confidence (on a rate-of-change basis), appears to have peaked. Consumer sentiment has already been battered by rampant inflation and falling real wage expectations; tighter credit standards down the road could prove to be a further headwind. As part of the one-off special questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about the reasoning behind their outlook for loan demand over 2022 (Chart 4). Of those that expected higher demand, 70% cited higher spending and investment demand from borrowers as their income prospects improved. Meanwhile, only 33% thought that precautionary demand for liquidity would be a factor. Lenders thought that both, a worsening or an improvement in supply chain disruptions, could contribute to increased demand. 53% expected that continued disruption would create greater inventory financing needs. Meanwhile, 55% expected that easing supply chain troubles would boost demand as product availability concerns faded. Of those that expected weaker loan demand, interest rates were by-and-large the biggest factor, with an overwhelming 96% believing that rising rates would quell loan demand. This was followed by concerns that supply chain disruptions would keep prices high and product availability scarce (70%). On the whole, the responses capture a US economy that is at a tipping point, with market participants watching to see how it weathers an aggressive rate hiking cycle from the Fed. While underlying economic variables such as growth and employment remain strong, it still remains to be seen how much of a tightening in financial conditions the markets can bear. Euro Area In the euro area, banks on net reported a very slight tightening of standards to enterprises for the second consecutive quarter in Q4/2021 (Chart 5). Effectively, standards were unchanged as 96 of the 100 respondents to the survey reported no change from Q3. Slightly lower risk tolerance from banks contributed to tightening while lower risk perceptions related to the general economic outlook and the value of collateral had an easing effect. As in the US, standards in the euro area do show a correlation to overall financial conditions. Those have already tightened noticeably since the February 3rd meeting of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council where President Lagarde set a more hawkish tone. While banks do expect a slight easing of standards over Q1/2022, that is unlikely given high inflation and geopolitical uncertainties which will negatively impact risk perceptions. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions​​​​​​ Chart 6Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies​​​​​​ Loan demand growth from enterprises was remarkably strong in Q4, with 18% of firms reporting increased demand for loans (middle panel). The main driver was increased demand for inventories, followed closely by fixed investment and merger & acquisition needs. Loan demand leads realized growth in inventories, which has been already been picking up. In Q1, banks expect continued growth in loan demand, albeit at a slower pace. On the consumer side, however, loan demand only increased slightly, with the pace of growth slowing from the previous quarter (bottom panel). This was in line with consumer confidence taking a hit from rising inflation and the Omicron variant in the fourth quarter. The generally low level of interest rates had a small positive impact, while durable goods spending had a slight negative impact on consumer credit demand. Lenders expect moderate growth in consumer credit demand in Q1. Moving to the four major euro area economies, demand for loans to enterprises picked up in Germany, France, and Italy, while remaining unchanged in Spain (Chart 6). Fixed investment needs made a positive contribution across the board. This is corroborated by data on total lending, which is still growing on a year-on-year basis, even though the pace of growth is slowing in all the major euro area economies except Spain. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards eased slightly in Q4/2021, marking the fourth straight quarter of easing (Chart 7). However, there was dispersion along firm size. Large private non-financials accounted for all the easing and standards for small and medium firms actually tightened slightly. Going forward, lenders expect a further easing in standards in Q1, about on par with the easing seen in Q4. Chart 7UK Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 8UK Lenders Expect A Robust Growth To Ease Credit Availability​​​​​​ On the demand side, lenders reported slightly weaker corporate demand for lending in Q4. Again, the results were uneven across firm size – loan demand from large firms strengthened moderately, while demand from small and medium firms weakened. On average, lenders expect a slight pickup in corporate demand over Q1. Moving to the UK consumer, demand for unsecured lending continued to rise at a brisk pace, hovering around the highest levels since Q4/2014 (bottom panel). Going forward, lenders expect a continued increase in demand, but at a much slower pace. The strong developments in loan growth are seemingly at odds with the GfK consumer confidence index which has declined a total of 12 points since its July peak. Although the Bank of England does not survey respondents on the factors driving household unsecured lending demand, the divergence between confidence and loan demand suggests that precautionary demand for liquidity is playing a role. This lines up with the GfK survey, where expectations for the general economic situation over the next year are in freefall with consumers bracing for high inflation and further Bank Rate increases. Pivoting back to the drivers of corporate lending, the leading factor behind increased credit availability was an improvement in the overall economic outlook, followed by market share objectives (Chart 8). In contrast to the UK consumer, lenders are bullish on the economic outlook and believe it will continue to drive further easing over Q1/2022. On the demand side, investment in commercial real estate, which has seen steady improvement since Q3/2020, was the leading factor. This was followed by merger & acquisition and inventory financing needs. Capital investment needs, meanwhile, were a drag on demand. Moving forward, real estate investment and inventory restocking needs are expected to drive demand. Japan In Japan, credit standards to firms and households continued to ease in Q4/2021 (Chart 9). However, more than 90% of respondents in each case reported that standards were basically unchanged, and there were no reported instances of tightening among the sample of 50 lenders. Those that did report easier standards cited aggressive competition from other banks and strengthened efforts to grow the business. The vast majority of lenders expect standards to remain unchanged over Q1, but there is a slight easing expected on a net percentage basis. Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Business loan demand on the whole was unchanged in Q4 although small and medium firms did increase demand slightly (middle panel). In contrast to other regions, business loan demand tends to behave counter-cyclically in Japan, with businesses borrowing more on a precautionary basis when they are pessimistic and vice-versa. Those dynamics were at play in Q4, with lenders attributing increased demand to a fall in firms’ internally generated funds. Banks expect a slight net pickup in demand next quarter, in line with business confidence which has fallen from its September peak on the back of concerns about Covid-19 infections, supply chain disruptions, and rising input prices. On the consumer side, loan demand was basically unchanged, with a very small net percentage of banks reporting weaker demand (bottom panel). The key reason for decreased demand was a decrease in household consumption, which is in line with retail sales, where the pace of growth has been falling. Even though core inflation in Japan is low, consumers are still exposed to rising energy prices, which might cause them to tighten other parts of their budgets. Canada Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4/2021 (Chart 10). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing conditions, coming amid booming economic activity, high capacity utilization, and buoyant sentiment. Both, price and non-price lending conditions eased at roughly the same pace. On the consumer side, non-mortgage lending conditions continued to ease, but at a slower pace (middle panel). 1-year ahead consumer spending growth expectations, sourced from the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) Survey Of Consumer Expectations, and non-mortgage lending conditions typically display an inverse correlation, with expected spending growth increasing when standards are getting easier on the margin and vice-versa. The divergence in Q4 is explained in part by excess savings accumulated during the pandemic that have yet to be spent down, and in part by expected price increases over the coming year. In either case, it demonstrates that nominal spending has room to grow even in an environment where consumer credit availability is worsening. We also saw mortgage standards ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4, with both price and non-price lending conditions easing (bottom panel). While the BoC has made a hawkish pivot, underlying conditions are still easy – the conventional 5-year mortgage rate is still flat at 4.79%, the same level as Q3/2020. However, house price growth has peaked, and rate hikes this year will help prices moderate further. New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions In New Zealand, business credit standards eased in the six month period ended September 2021 (Chart 11). However, the real impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) tightening is being felt in the housing market, where actual standards entered tightening territory. More importantly, a net 23.1% of respondents expect mortgage credit availability to erode by the end of March; if realized, this figure would be a series high. Banks reporting less credit availability cited regulatory changes and risk perceptions. On the mortgage loan demand side, banks continued to see increased demand even after the record spike in March 2021 (middle panel). Going forward, demand is expected to moderate and fall from current levels. These dynamics have already made their mark on house prices which have already peaked, indicating that the RBNZ’s push is working as intended. Business loan demand does not appear to have been much affected by higher rates, with demand picking up slightly and expected to increase going forward (bottom panel). However, confidence has been falling since September 2021, with businesses feeling the twin bite of supply chain disruptions and labor shortages.   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1      The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades