Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Executive Summary This report looks back at seven recent Fed tightening cycles and summarizes evidence concerning how the US Treasury curve behaves relative to the length and magnitude of the tightening cycle. We document a few consistent relationships. For example, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the tightening cycle. We also notice that the Treasury slope is usually inverted by the time it troughs and that the 5-year/30-year slope tends to trough before the 2-year/5-year slope. Given our view that the peak fed funds rate may not occur until the second half of 2023, we expect another leg higher in bond yields before we reach the cyclical peak. We also anticipate further flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury curve.   Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being and should position in 5-year/30-year curve flatteners by selling the 10-year bullet versus a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. While we maintain neutral portfolio duration for now, our bias is to be short duration on a medium-to-long run horizon and we may re-evaluate our recommended duration positioning after this month’s important CPI release and September FOMC meeting. Feature BCA’s Annual Investment Conference was held last week, and we heard a wide variety of views about the outlook for US bonds. Unsurprisingly, the main difference between those with bond-bullish and bond-bearish views was that the bullish panelists anticipated a much quicker end to the Fed’s tightening cycle prompted by a US recession starting late this year or early next year. This week’s report takes a more formal look at the historical linkages between Fed tightening cycles and trends in US Treasury yields. Our goal is to provide some firm evidence that investors can use to translate their views about the length and magnitude of the Fed tightening cycle into concrete positions across the US Treasury curve. Specifically, we look at seven Fed tightening cycles – the five most recent cycles and the two periods of tightening that occurred during the inflationary surge of the early-1980s. The 1977-80 Cycle Chart 1The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The Fed raised the funds rate by 11.75% between August 1977 and March 1980 in response to sky-high inflation. Then, despite core CPI inflation still running at 12%, it cut rates by 5.5% in 1980 in response to an unemployment rate that had climbed above 6%. This proved to be only a brief reprieve from monetary tightening. With inflation still a problem, the Fed pivoted back to rate hikes later in 1980 even as the unemployment rate continued its ascent. Turning to markets, we see that the Treasury index lost 22% versus a position in cash during the 1977-80 tightening cycle and that index returns troughed in March 1980, around the same time as the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked one month before the last rate hike at 12.72%, 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate that would be attained one month later (Chart 1). As for the shape of the yield curve, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope troughed at -201 bps one month before the last rate hike of the cycle (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year Treasury slope troughed at -132 bps in the same month as the peak in the funds rate and the 5-year/30-year slope troughed at -123 bps, one month before the last hike (bottom panel). The 1980-81 Cycle After a brief period of cuts in mid-1980, having still not conquered inflation the Fed changed course and lifted the funds rate to a new high in 1981. It did this even with the unemployment rate above 7%. One interesting aspect of this tightening cycle is that the bond market continued to sell off even after the Fed delivered its last rate increase. While the period of Fed tightening spanned from October 1980 until May 1981, excess Treasury index returns versus cash continued to fall until September 1981, losing 20% in the process (Chart 2). The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months after the last rate hike at 15.84%, 316 bps below the peak funds rate that was attained four months earlier. Chart 2The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle Looking at the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed at -132 bps three months after the last rate hike (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed three months after the last rate hike, at -62 bps and -133 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1988-89 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 6.5% in March 1988 to 9.8% in May 1989. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 7.7% versus cash during this period but returns did trough two months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 9.32%, 48 bps below the peak fed funds rate (Chart 3). Chart 3The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -43 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at -20 bps and -42 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1994-95 Cycle The Fed doubled the funds rate from 3% in February 1994 to 6% in February 1995. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 9.4% versus cash during this period but returns did trough three months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 7.91%, 191 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 4). Chart 4The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at +15 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at +14 bps and +6 bps, respectively (bottom panel). In contrast to earlier cycles, it’s notable that the yield curve never inverted during the 1994-95 tightening cycle and that the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at a level significantly above the fed funds rate. The most likely reason for this is that the Fed’s pivot from rate hikes to cuts in early 1995 occurred abruptly and came as a surprise to market participants. A quick look at the economic data makes it easy to see why. The core PCE and core CPI inflation rates were elevated at the time, at 2.3% and 3.0% respectively, and the unemployment rate was significantly down from a year earlier. The 1999-2000 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 4.75% in June 1999 to 6.5% in May 2000. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 8.2% versus cash during this period but returns did trough four months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months before the last rate hike at 6.68%, 18 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 5). Chart 5The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -47 bps (panel 4). The 5-year/30-year slope troughed one month before the last rate hike at -59 bps but the 2-year/5-year slope didn’t trough until three months after the last rate hike at -15 bps (bottom panel). The 2004-06 Cycle The Fed lifted rates in steady increments of 25 bps per meeting from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 5.3% versus cash during this period and returns troughed around the same time as the funds rate reached its peak. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred at the same time as the peak in the funds rate, though the peak 10-year was 10 bps below the peak funds rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed five months after the last rate hike of the cycle at -16 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed five months after the last rate hike at -20 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, four months before the last rate hike at -10 bps (bottom panel). The 2015-18 Cycle Finally, in the most recent tightening cycle before the current one, the Fed lifted rates off the zero-lower-bound in December 2015, went on hold for 12 months and then delivered a string of rate hikes bringing the funds rate up to 2.5% by December 2018. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 6.7% versus cash during this period and returns troughed two months before the peak in the fed funds rate. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred two months before the last rate hike at 3.15%, 65 bps above the peak funds rate (Chart 7). Chart 7The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed eight months after the last rate hike of the cycle at 0 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed eight months after the last rate hike at -17 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, five months before the last rate hike at +23 bps (bottom panel). Summarizing The Evidence Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data from the seven tightening cycles that we examined. Four main points jump out. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Table 2Fed Tightening Cycles: Peak And Trough Levels A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles First, both the level of the 10-year Treasury yield and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Excess Return Index tend to hit inflection points around the time of the last rate hike of the cycle. On average, the 10-year Treasury yield peaks 1.3 months before the last rate hike of the cycle, and it has always hit its peak within a window spanning four months before the last hike and four months after. The timing of the trough in index excess returns versus cash looks similar. Second, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope also tends to trough near the end of the Fed tightening cycle, but the timing of this inflection point varies a lot more than the timing of the peak in yields. In fact, during the last two cycles the 2-year/10-year slope didn’t trough until well after the last rate hike. Third, the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope always troughs at the same time or earlier than the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope. This is consistent with our intuition that the long end of the yield curve will respond more quickly to changes in the economic outlook than the front end of the curve, which remains more tied to the current policy rate. Fourth, there isn’t much consistency in where the 10-year Treasury yield peaks relative to the peak fed funds rate. On average, the 10-year yield tops out 120 bps below the peak fed funds rate, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 10-year yield peaked 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate in the 1977-80 tightening cycle and it peaked 65 bps above the peak fed funds rate in the 2015-18 cycle. The same holds true for the slope of the Treasury curve. The trough in the slope exhibits a wide range of outcomes, though it is fair to say that we typically expect the slope to be negative when it bottoms. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope only failed to invert in two tightening cycles (1994-95 and 2015-18) and in both of those cases the Fed was not expected to deliver a large number of rate cuts. In fact, it could have easily been argued that rate cuts were unnecessary based on the inflation and employment data at the time. Investment Implications In applying the lessons from this analysis to the current environment, the first conclusion we reach is that we should only look to extend portfolio duration to above-benchmark when we think that the last rate hike of the cycle will occur in 1-2 months. Currently, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to peak in June 2023 and we expect that peak could occur even later (Chart 8). For this reason, we anticipate another significant leg higher in Treasury yields before the cyclical peak is reached. Chart 8Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Our historical analysis of past tightening cycles also supports our recommended short 10-year bullet, long 5-year/30-year barbell positioning along the Treasury curve.1 Given that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope has always troughed within a window spanning five months before the last rate hike and three months after, it makes sense to position for another leg down. This is a particularly attractive trade on the 5-year/30-year portion of the curve because that slope remains in positive territory.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1A Hot Labor Market A Hot Labor Market A Hot Labor Market The balance of data that’s come out during the past month points to a labor market that is not cooling very quickly. In fact, it is cooling much more slowly than we anticipated. First, nonfarm payroll growth of +315k in August is well above the +79k that is needed to maintain the unemployment and participation rates at current levels (Chart 1). Second, what had initially looked like a significant drop in job openings was revised away with the July JOLTS report. While the ratio of job openings to unemployed has leveled-off just below 2.0, it is no longer showing any signs of falling (bottom panel). Finally, the employment component of August’s ISM Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 and even initial unemployment claims have reversed their nascent uptrend. The conclusion we draw from this spate of strong employment data is that the Fed’s tightening cycle is not close to over. This means that the average fed funds rate that is priced into markets for 2023 is almost certainly too low. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -267 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month, and it currently sits at 145 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked up to its 56th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see some modest spread narrowing during the next couple of months as inflation heads lower. That said, spread compression will be limited by the inverted yield curve and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -519 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 15 bps on the month and it currently sits at 494 bps, 125 bps above the 2017-19 average and 43 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – increased modestly in August. It currently sits at 6.6% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, high-yield spreads could stage a relief rally during the next few months as inflation falls and recession fears abate. However, the inverted yield curve will likely prevent spreads from moving much below the average level seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). All that said, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to a roughly 7% excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This return potential is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to our 4% estimate of its underlying trend.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 100 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -144 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4 We noted that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is over. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have an incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. With the duration extension trade over, the only thing preventing us from increasing exposure to the Agency MBS space is that spreads still aren’t sufficiently attractive. The average index spread versus duration-matched Treasuries is roughly midway between its post-2014 minimum and post-2014 mean (panel 4). Meanwhile, the option-adjusted spread has moved above its post-2014 mean (bottom panel), but at just 42 bps, it still offers less compensation than a Aa-rated corporate bond or a Aaa-rated consumer ABS. At the coupon level, we moved to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack last month, but this month we initiate a recommendation to favor high-coupon (3%-4.5%) securities over low coupon (1.5%-2.5%) ones. Given the lower duration of high coupon MBS, this position will profit from rising bond yields on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 156 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -563 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 117 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -677 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed by 180 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -491 bps. The EM Sovereign index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 111 bps in August. Meanwhile, the yield differential between EM sovereigns and US corporates moved deeper into negative territory (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 168 bps in August. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. China is the most important trading partner for most EM countries and thus represents a major source of economic growth. Consequently, Chinese import volumes are a useful gauge for the outlook of EM economies. The persistent contraction of Chinese import volumes (bottom panel) therefore sends a negative signal for EM bond performance. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 126 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire (Chart 6).5 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (bottom panel) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates since last year. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 82%, up from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 80%. The same measure for Revenue bonds is 94%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5/30 Barbell Versus 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in August as investors significantly marked up their 12-month rate expectations. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the market’s expected 12-month change in the funds rate – rose from 78 bps to 175 bps during the month and this caused the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to flatten by 8 bps and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope to flatten by 33 bps (Chart 7). We initiated a position in 5/30 flatteners (short 10-year bullet versus duration-matched 5/30 barbell) in our August 9th report.6 The main reason for this recommendation is our view that the Fed tightening cycle is not close to over. Therefore, it is too soon to position for a steepening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope. An analysis of past Fed tightening cycles shows that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope tends to trough earlier than other segments of the yield curve. However, that trough has always occurred within a window spanning five months before the last Fed rate hike and three months after.7 On average, the 5-year/30-year slope troughs 1-2 months before the last Fed rate hike. Given our view that the Fed tightening cycle still has a lot of room to run, we think it makes sense to bet on a further flattening of the 5-year/30-year slope. This trade looks particularly attractive when you consider that a position short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell provides a yield pick-up of 12 bps (bottom panel). TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +264 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month, moving back into the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are close to fairly valued versus nominals. In a recent report we unveiled our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing.8 In that report we showed that TIPS of all maturities tend to outperform equivalent-maturity nominal bonds whenever headline CPI inflation exceeds the 1-year CPI swap rate during a 12-month period. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.77%, and we think this will turn out to be too low based on our modeling of headline CPI. While we see value in TIPS relative to nominals, especially at the front-end of the curve, we also suspect that more value will be created during the next few months as CPI prints come in soft. Therefore, we are reluctant to immediately upgrade TIPS to overweight. Instead, we recommend that investors initiate a 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flattener. The 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve has recently jumped into positive territory (bottom panel), but an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the current macro environment where the Fed is battling above-target inflation. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -25 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 76 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -28 bps. Substantial federal government support caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings during the past two years. This year, consumers are starting to draw down that savings and are even starting to take on more debt. The amount of outstanding credit card debt is still low relative to household income, but it is rising quickly in absolute terms (Chart 9). Elsewhere, consumers are still paying down their credit card balances at high rates (panel 4), but banks are no longer easing lending standards on auto loans or credit cards (panel 3). To us, the prevailing evidence suggests that it will be a long time before delinquencies are a serious problem for consumer ABS. This justifies our overweight recommendation. That said, given that the trend toward consumer re-leveraging is in full swing, it makes sense to turn more cautious at the margin. We therefore close our prior recommendation to favor non-Aaa over Aaa-rated consumer ABS and move to a neutral allocation across the consumer ABS credit curve. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -150 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 20 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -103 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 41 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -280 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently close to their historic averages. However, the most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey showed tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (Chart 10). This suggests a more negative back-drop for CRE prices and CMBS spreads and causes us to reduce our recommended allocation from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). At 55 bps, the average Agency CMBS spread continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 175 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -7 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 7 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3    For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 6    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 7     In our analysis we examined seven Fed tightening cycles. The five most recent cycles and the two cycles that occurred during the inflation spike of the early 1980s. 8    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

A message for Foreign Exchange Strategy clients, There will be no report next week, as we take a summer break. We will be joining our clients and colleagues for our annual investment conference to be held in New York, on September 7 & 8. We will resume our publication the following week, with a Special Report on the Hong Kong dollar, together with our China Investment Strategy colleagues. Looking forward to seeing many of you in person. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist Executive Summary No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy The biggest medium-term threat for Japan remains deflation, rather than inflation. This suggests that the BoJ will be loathe to abandon yield curve control anytime soon. That said, inflation is still accelerating globally, and has meaningfully picked up in Japan. Betting on a hawkish BoJ policy shift could therefore be a significant macro trade. We have identified five conditions that need to be met for the BoJ to begin removing accommodation. None are currently indicating an imminent need to alter monetary policy settings, particularly with the Japanese economy softening alongside subdued inflation expectations. The yen will soar on any hawkish BoJ policy shift. Currently, BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is short EUR/JPY. That said, the historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in yen selling pressure, before placing fresh bets on selling USD/JPY. Longer-term bond yields in Japan, for maturities beyond the BoJ yield target, are already moving higher, while speculative interest in shorting JGBs has increased.  We recommend fading these trends for now – shorting JGBs outright will remain a “widowmaker trade”. Bottom Line: The yen has undershot and longer-term investors should buy it - our preferred way to express that view in the near-term is to be short EUR/JPY.  Bond investors should be underweight “low-beta” JGBs in fixed-income portfolios on a tactical basis, not as a hawkish BoJ bet, but because global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges than break to new highs. Feature Chart 1The BoJ Is A Lonesome Dove When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? Almost every G10 central bank has raised rates over the last 12 months, even the perennially dovish banks like the ECB and Swiss National Bank, in response to soaring inflation.  The one exception has been the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The BoJ has kept policy rates unchanged throughout the year (Chart 1), while also maintaining its Yield Curve Control policy of capping 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yields at 0.25%. There has been interest from the macro investor community on Japan in recent months, betting on the BoJ eventually succumbing to the global monetary tightening trend.  If the BoJ were to shift gears and turn less accommodative, then the yen would surely soar, while JGBs will go on a fire sale. In this report, jointly published by BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we explore the necessary conditions that need to be in place for the BoJ to meaningfully shift policy, most likely starting with the end of Yield Curve Control before interest rate hikes. We see five such conditions, which will form a “checklist” to be monitored in the months ahead. Condition 1: Overshooting Inflation Expectations The BoJ has a policy mandate on inflation and most measures of underlying Japanese inflation are still well below its 2% target. For example, the weighted median and mode CPI inflation rates are only at 0.5%, even as headline CPI inflation has climbed to 2.6% on the back of two primarily non-domestic factors – rapidly rising prices for energy and goods (Chart 2). With such low baseline inflation, it has been hard to lift market-based Japanese inflation expectations like CPI swap rates above 1%, even as far out as ten years (Chart 3). CPI swaps have tended to provide a more realistic assessment of underlying Japanese inflation, adhering more closely to trends in realized core CPI inflation, and thus deserve the most attention from the BoJ.  This is in stark contrast to the BoJ’s own consumer survey of inflation expectations, that has consistently overestimated inflation over the years, which is currently showing both 1-year-ahead and 5-year-ahead inflation expectations at a startling, yet highly inaccurate, 5%.  Chart 2Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Chart 3No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan The BoJ is likely to side with the more subdued read on market-based inflation expectations in determining if monetary policy needs to turn less dovish – especially with the BoJ’s own estimate of the output gap now at -1.2%, indicating spare capacity in the economy and a lack of underlying inflation pressures (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Condition 2: Excessive Yen Weakness Our more comprehensive measure of determining the pressure to change monetary policy is captured in our central bank monitor for Japan, a.k.a. the BoJ Monitor.  The Monitor includes economic, inflation and financial variables. This measure suggests that the BoJ should not be tightening monetary policy today (Chart 5). One of the variables that goes into our BoJ Monitor is the yen. The yen impacts monetary conditions through two ways. First, import prices tend to rise as the yen weakens, feeding into domestic inflation. In short, it eases monetary conditions. That has been the story over the last year with the yen falling -15% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 6). The second impact is through profit translation effects. Overseas earnings for Japanese exporters are buffeted in yen terms as the currency depreciates. Both impacts would tend to put more pressure to tighten monetary policy, on the margin. Chart 5No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy Chart 6Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation However, the impact of yen weakness in boosting profit translation costs for Japanese concerns has eased over the years. As many Japanese companies have offshored production, lower wages in Japan have been offset by higher costs abroad. As a result, profit margins for multinational Japanese corporations are not rising meaningfully relative to their G10 peers, despite yen weakness (Chart 7). That puts the central bank in a quandary regarding how to interpret yen weakness vis-à-vis future policy moves. On the one hand, soaring global inflation and a weak yen should be allowing the BoJ to declare victory on rising inflation expectations in Japan. On the other hand, domestic wage growth will not reach “escape velocity” (Chart 8), and inflation will fail to overshoot on a sustainable basis, if corporate profit margins are not rising meaningfully. Chart 7No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness Chart 8No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese ##br##Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages Of course, Japanese authorities care about excessive moves in the yen, but they also understand their limited ability to alter the path of the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998. That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. A BoJ monetary tightening designed solely to stabilize the yen, before inflation expectations stabilize at the BoJ target, is a recipe for failure on both fronts. The bottom line is that yen weakness is giving a lift to inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year just to generate a one percentage point increase in Japanese inflation. As such, the current bout of yen weakness is unlikely to alter the longer-term goals of BoJ policy, unless a wave of selling undermines financial stability. Condition 3: Continually Rising Energy Costs Chart 9Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Policy makers in the eurozone have told us that even in the face of a recession, a threat to their credibility on price stability – like the energy-fueled overshoot of European inflation - is worth defending through monetary tightening. Thus, a continued external energy shock could also cause the BoJ to shift. Our Chief Commodity Strategist, Robert Ryan, expects the geopolitical risk premium on oil to increase in the near term. Japan imports almost all its energy and has structurally been more dependent on fossil fuels than Europe (Chart 9). A rise in energy costs that unanchors inflation expectations is a threat worth monitoring for the BoJ, one that could drag it into monetary tightening as has been the case in Europe. That said, adjustments are already underway. Japanese and European LNG imports from the US are rising. As a result, the price arbitrage between US Henry Hub prices and the Dutch TTF equivalent is likely to soften, assuaging energy import costs (Chart 10). Japan is also ramping up nuclear power production, which can help provide alternative sources to imported energy (Chart 11). Chart 10An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage Chart 11Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? The BoJ would likely not consider an early exit from accommodative monetary policy based solely on energy-fueled inflation.  After all, the current surge in global energy prices, compounded by yen weakness, has barely pushed headline inflation above the BoJ 2% target – with little follow-through into core inflation or wage growth. Condition 4: An Economic Revival In Japan A burst in Japanese growth that absorbs excess capacity and tightens labor market conditions could convince the BoJ that a policy adjustment is due. This could result in higher Japanese interest rates and bond yields.  The yen also tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is improving (Chart 12). Unfortunately, Japanese growth momentum is going in the wrong direction for that outcome. Chart 12The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy Domestic demand has been under siege from the lingering effects of the pandemic, including an unprecedented collapse in tourism. As the pandemic effects have faded, however, Japan’s economy faces new threats from slowing global growth, waning export demand, and declining consumer confidence (Chart 13). It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains nearly three percentage points below the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. While Japan’s unemployment rate is 2.6% and falling, it remains above the low reached just before the start of the pandemic. Chart 13A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth What Japan needs now is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Stronger fiscal spending could lift animal spirits in Japan and cause the BoJ to shift. Yet even on that front, the evidence does not point to a direct link from fiscal stimulus to rising inflation expectations – a necessary catalyst for the BoJ to turn more hawkish. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that there was no boost to depressed Japanese inflation expectations from the massive Japanese government fiscal programs during the worst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shock. Waning Japanese economic momentum is not putting any pressure on the BoJ to begin considering a shift to less accommodative monetary settings. Condition 5: More Hawkish Members At The BoJ There are important transitions occurring within the BoJ’s nine-member board that could change the policy bias in a less dovish direction.  In July, two new board members – Hajime Takata and Naoki Tamura – were appointed to the BoJ board. Both brought up the notion of the need for an “exit strategy” from current easy monetary policies at their introductory press conference, although both were also careful to state that they did not think the conditions were in place yet for that to occur. Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyWhat To Do About The Yen? Nonetheless, the two new appointees represent a marginally hawkish shift in the policy bias of the BoJ board, especially Takata who replaced one of the more vocal advocates for maintaining aggressive monetary easing, economist Goushi Kataoka.  Of course, the big change at the top of the BoJ will come next April when Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s current term ends. This will follow the departures of the two deputy governors, Masayoshi Amamiya and Masazumi Wakatabe in March. That means five of nine board members would be changed in less than one year, including the most senior leadership. That would be a huge change for any central bank, but especially for the BoJ where Governor Kuroda has overseen the introduction of all the current aggressive monetary policies, from negative interest rates to massive quantitative easing to Yield Curve Control. A growing constraint for the future of Yield Curve Control As outlined earlier, underlying inflation and growth trends in Japan are nowhere close to justifying an end to Yield Curve Control or even a mere upward tweak of the current 0.25% yield target on 10-year JGBs. However, there are negative spillover effects from the BoJ’s bond market manipulation that could make the current policies less sustainable over the medium term for the new incoming BoJ leadership. We addressed one of those issues earlier with the extreme yen weakness, which is largely a product of the BoJ keeping a lid on Japanese interest rates while almost the entire rest of the world is in a monetary tightening cycle. But another issue to be addressed is the impaired liquidity of the JGB market. After years of steady, aggressive bond buying, the BoJ has essentially “cornered” the JGB market.  The central bank now owns roughly 50% of all outstanding JGBs, doubling its ownership share since Yield Curve Control started in 2016 (Chart 14).  The numbers are even more extreme when focusing on the specific maturity targeted by the BoJ under Yield Curve Control, with the central bank now owning nearly 80% of all 10-year JGBs (Chart 15). Chart 14The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market Chart 15BoJ Now Owns 80% Of 10yr JGBs When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? By absorbing so much supply of the main risk-free asset in the Japanese financial system, the BoJ has made life more difficult for Japanese commercial banks, insurance companies and pension funds that require JGBs for regulatory and risk management purposes. In the most recent BoJ survey of bond market participants, 68 of 69 firms surveyed described the JGB market as having poor liquidity conditions, with an equal amount stating that JGB trading conditions were as bad or worse than three months earlier. The change in BoJ leadership could also bring about a change in policymakers’ desire to continue manipulating the JGB market via Yield Curve Control.  Although the BoJ would have to be very careful in how it signals and executes any change to Yield Curve Control.  There is currently a very wide gap between a 10-year JGB yield at 0.25% and a 30-year JGB yield at 1.25% (Chart 16). If the BoJ completely ended Yield Curve Control, the 10-year yield would converge rapidly towards that 30-year yield, likely reaching 1%. That would create a major negative total return shock to the Japanese banks and institutional investors that still own nearly 40% of JGBs. Chart 1610yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control A more likely outcome would be the BoJ raising the yield target on the 10-year to something like 0.50%, or perhaps shifting to a different maturity target where the BoJ owns a smaller share of outstanding JGBs like the 5-year sector. Yet without an actual trigger for such a move coming from faster economic growth or core inflation hitting the 2% BoJ target, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ would dare tinker with its yield curve policy, and risk a JGB market blowup, solely over concerns about bond market liquidity. Investment Conclusions None of the items in our newly constructed “BoJ Checklist” are currently indicating that a shift in Japanese monetary policy is imminent.  We therefore see it as being too early to put on the legendary “widowmaker trade” of shorting JGBs, although a case can be made to go long the yen based on longer-term valuation considerations. Japanese yen The carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase, but the BoJ is unlikely to rescue the yen in the near term. As such, short-term traders should be on the sidelines. For longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 17). Meanwhile, according to our PPP models (and a wide variety of others), the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around -41% (Chart 18). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is currently long the yen versus the euro and the Swiss franc. Chart 17The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale Chart 18The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap JGBs Chart 19Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs In the absence of a bearish domestic monetary policy trigger, JGBs should be treated by global bond investors as a risk management tool as much as anything else. The relative return performance of JGBs versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury Index of government bonds is highly correlated to the momentum of global bond yields (Chart 19). Thus, increasing the exposure to JGBs in a global bond portfolio is akin to reducing the interest rate duration of a bond portfolio – both positions will help a portfolio outperform its benchmark when global bond yields rise. On a tactical basis (3-6 month time horizon), an underweight allocation to JGBs in government bond portfolios seems appropriate, even with JGBs offering relatively attractive yields on a currency-hedged basis, most notably for USD-based investors.  Global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges, capped by slowing global growth and decelerating goods inflation but floored by stickier non-goods inflation and hawkish central banks. Thus, the defensive properties of JGBs as a “duration hedge” in global bond portfolios are less necessary in the near-term. Beyond the tactical time horizon, the uncertainty over the potential makeup of new BoJ leadership in 2023, along with some easing of global inflation pressures from the commodity space, could justify lower JGB exposure on a more structural basis - if it appears that a new wave of more hawkish policymakers is set to take over in Tokyo. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers ​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market ​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure ​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) ​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Tactical Overlay Trades

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Home prices in the US are set to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike in past episodes, the impact on construction from a drop in home prices should be limited, given that the US has not seen pervasive overbuilding. The drag on US consumption should also be somewhat muted. In contrast to what happened during the mid-2000s, outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit declined during the pandemic housing boom. US banks are on a strong footing today. This should limit the collateral damage from falling home prices on the financial system. Outside the US, the housing outlook is more challenging. This is especially the case in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden. It is also the case in China, where the property market may be on the verge of a Japanese-style multi-decade slide. ​​​​​ Bottom Line: Softening housing markets around the world will weigh on growth. However, against the backdrop of high inflation, that may not be an unambiguously bad thing. We expect global equities to rise into year end, and then retreat in 2023. The Canary in the Coalmine On the eve of the Global Financial Crisis, Ed Leamer delivered a paper at Jackson Hole with the prescient title “Housing IS the Business Cycle.” Leamer convincingly argued that monetary policy primarily operates through the housing market, and that a decline in residential investment is by far the best warning sign of a recession. Table 1 provides supporting evidence for Leamer’s conclusion. It shows that residential investment is not a particularly important driver of GDP growth during non-recessionary quarters but is the only main expenditure component that regularly turns down in the lead-up to recessions. Table 1A Decline In Residential Investment Typically Precedes Recessions The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing US real residential investment was essentially flat in Q1 but then contracted at an annualized pace of 16% in Q2, shaving 0.83 percentage points off Q2 GDP growth in the process. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model forecasts that real residential investment will shrink by 22% in Q3, largely reflecting the steep drop in housing starts and home sales observed over the past few months. Chart 1Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year The recent decline in construction activity is a worrying indicator. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to think that the downturn in housing may not herald an imminent recession. First, the lag between when housing begins to weaken and when the economy falls into recession can be quite long. For example, residential investment hit a high of 6.7% of GDP in Q4 of 2005. However, the Great Recession did not start until Q4 of 2007, when residential investment had already receded to 4.2% of GDP. The S&P 500 peaked during the same quarter. Second, recent weakness in housing activity largely reflects the lagged effects of the spike in mortgage rates earlier this year. To the extent that mortgage rates have been broadly flat since April, history suggests that housing activity should start to stabilize by the end of this year (Chart 1). Third, unlike in the mid-2000s, there is no glut of homes in the US today: Residential investment reached 4.8% of GDP last year, about where it was during the late 1990s, prior to the start of the housing bubble (Chart 2). The construction of new homes has failed to keep up with household formation for the past 15 years (Chart 3). As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate stands at 0.8%, the lowest on record (Chart 4). Chart 2Residential Investment Is Well Below Levels Seen During The Housing Bubble Residential Investment Is Well Below Levels Seen During The Housing Bubble Residential Investment Is Well Below Levels Seen During The Housing Bubble Chart 3Home Construction Has Fallen Short Of Household Formation For The Past 15 Years Home Construction Has Fallen Short Of Household Formation For The Past 15 Years Home Construction Has Fallen Short Of Household Formation For The Past 15 Years Chart 4The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is At Record Lows The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is At Record Lows The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is At Record Lows While new home inventories have risen, this mainly reflects an increase in the number of homes under construction. The inventory of finished homes is still 40% below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The inventory of existing homes available for sale is also quite low, which suggests that a rising supply of new homes could be depleted more quickly than in the past. Chart 5While The Number Of Homes Under Construction Increased, The Inventory Of Newly Built And Existing Homes Remains Low While The Number Of Homes Under Construction Increased, The Inventory Of Newly Built And Existing Homes Remains Low While The Number Of Homes Under Construction Increased, The Inventory Of Newly Built And Existing Homes Remains Low Why Was Housing Supply Slow to Rise? In real terms, the Case-Shiller index is now 5% above its 2006 peak (Chart 6). Why didn’t housing construction respond more strongly to rising home prices during the pandemic? Part of the answer is that the memory of the housing bust curtailed the homebuilders’ willingness to expand operations. Supply shortages also limited the ability of homebuilders to construct new homes in a timely fashion. Chart 7 shows that the producer price index for construction materials increased by nearly 50% between January 2020 and July 2022, outstripping the rise in the overall PPI index. Chart 6Real House Prices Are Above Their 2006 Peak Real House Prices Are Above Their 2006 Peak Real House Prices Are Above Their 2006 Peak Chart 7Producer Prices For Construction Materials Shot Up During The Pandemic Producer Prices For Construction Materials Shot Up During The Pandemic Producer Prices For Construction Materials Shot Up During The Pandemic Chart 8Constraints On Home Building Caused The Housing Market To Clear Mainly Through Higher Prices Rather Than Increased Construction The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing The lack of building materials and qualified construction workers caused the supply curve for housing to become increasingly steep (or, in the parlance of economics, inelastic). To make matters worse, pandemic-related lockdowns probably caused the supply curve to shift inwards, prompting homebuilders to curb output for any given level of home prices. As Chart 8 illustrates, this meant that the increase in housing demand during the pandemic was largely absorbed through higher home prices rather than through increased output.   A Bittersweet Outcome Chart 9Unlike During The Great Recession, Prices For New And Existing Homes Should Fall In Tandem This Time Around Unlike During The Great Recession, Prices For New And Existing Homes Should Fall In Tandem This Time Around Unlike During The Great Recession, Prices For New And Existing Homes Should Fall In Tandem This Time Around The discussion above presents a good news/bad news story about the state of the US housing market. On the one hand, with seasonally-adjusted housing starts now below where they were in January 2020, construction activity is unlikely to fall significantly from current levels. On the other hand, as the supply curve for housing shifts back out, and the demand curve shifts back in towards pre-pandemic levels, home prices are bound to weaken. We expect US home prices to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike during the Great Recession, when a wave of foreclosures caused the prices of existing homes to fall more than new homes, the decline in prices across both categories is likely to be similar this time around (Chart 9).   The Impact of Falling Home Prices To what extent will lower home prices imperil the US economy? Beyond the adverse impact of lower prices on construction activity, falling home prices can depress aggregate demand through a negative wealth effect as well as by putting strain on the banking system. The good news is that both these channels are less operative today than they were prior to the GFC. Perhaps because home prices rose so rapidly over the past two years, homeowners did not get the chance to spend their windfall. The personal savings rate soared during the pandemic and has only recently fallen below its pre-pandemic average (Chart 10). Households are still sitting on about $2.2 trillion in excess savings, most of which is parked in highly liquid bank accounts. Outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit actually fell during the pandemic, sinking to a 21-year low of 1.3% of GDP in Q2 2022 (Chart 11). All this suggests that the coming decline in home prices will not suppress consumption as much as it did in the past. Chart 10Household Savings Surged During The Pandemic Household Savings Surged During The Pandemic Household Savings Surged During The Pandemic Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Are Not Using Their Homes As ATMs Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Are Not Using Their Homes As ATMs Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Are Not Using Their Homes As ATMs The drop in home prices during the GFC generated a vicious circle where falling home prices led to more foreclosures and fire sales, leading to even lower home prices. Such a feedback loop is unlikely to emerge today. As judged by FICO scores, lenders have been quite prudent since the crisis (Chart 12). The aggregate loan-to-value ratio for US household real estate holdings stands near a low of 30%, down from 45% in the leadup to the GFC (Chart 13). Banks are also much better capitalized than they were in the past (Chart 14). Chart 12FICO Scores For Residential Mortgages Have Improved Considerably Since The Pre-GFC Housing Bubble The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing Chart 13This Is Not 2007 This Is Not 2007 This Is Not 2007 Chart 14US Banks Are Better Capitalized Than Before The GFC US Banks Are Better Capitalized Than Before The GFC US Banks Are Better Capitalized Than Before The GFC The final thing to note is that home prices tend to fall fairly slowly. It took six years for prices to bottom following the housing bubble, and this was in the context of a severe recession. Thus, the negative wealth effect from falling home prices will probably not become pronounced until 2024 or later. A Grimmer Picture Abroad The housing outlook is more challenging in a number of economies outside of the US. While home prices have increased significantly in the US, they have risen much more in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden (Chart 15). My colleague, Jonathan LaBerge, has also argued that overbuilding appears to be more of a problem outside the US (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets Chart 16Canada And Several Other DM Countries Have Overbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Canada And Several Other DM Countries Have Overbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Canada And Several Other DM Countries Have Overbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Chart 17Slightly More Than Half Of Canadians Opted For Variable Rate Mortgages Over The Past 12 Months Slightly More Than Half Of Canadians Opted For Variable Rate Mortgages Over The Past 12 Months Slightly More Than Half Of Canadians Opted For Variable Rate Mortgages Over The Past 12 Months The structure of some overseas mortgage markets heightens housing risks. In Canada, for example, more than half of homebuyers chose a variable-rate mortgage over the last 12 months (Chart 17). At present, about one-third of the total stock of mortgages are variable rate compared to less than 20% prior to the pandemic. Moreover, unlike in the US where 30-year mortgages are the norm, fixed-rate mortgages in Canada typically reset every five years. Thus, as the Bank of Canada hikes rates, mortgage payments will rise quite quickly.   China: Following Japan’s Path? In the EM space, China stands out as having the most vulnerable housing market. The five major cities with the lowest rental yields in the world are all in China (Chart 18). Home sales, starts, and completions have all tumbled in recent months (Chart 19). The bonds of Chinese property developers are trading at highly distressed levels (Chart 20). Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Shows Vulnerabilities… The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing Chart 19...Activity And Prices Have Been Falling... ...Activity And Prices Have Been Falling... ...Activity And Prices Have Been Falling... Chart 20...And the Bonds of Property Developers Are Trading At Distressed Levels ...And the Bonds of Property Developers Are Trading At Distressed Levels ...And the Bonds of Property Developers Are Trading At Distressed Levels In many respects, the Chinese housing market resembles the Japanese market in the early 1990s. Just as was the case in Japan 30 years ago, Chinese household growth has turned negative (Chart 21). The collapse in the birth rate since the start of the pandemic will only exacerbate this problem. The number of births is poised to fall below 10 million this year, down more than 30% from 2019 (Chart 22). Chart 21China Faces A Structural Decline In The Demand For Housing China Faces A Structural Decline In The Demand For Housing China Faces A Structural Decline In The Demand For Housing Chart 22China's Baby Bust China's Baby Bust China's Baby Bust A few years ago, when inflation was subdued and talk of secular stagnation was all the rage, a downturn in the Chinese property sector would have been a major cause for concern. Things are different today. Global inflation is running high, and to the extent that investors are worried about a recession, it is because they think central banks will need to raise rates aggressively to curb inflation. A weaker Chinese property market would help restrain commodity prices, easing inflationary pressures in the process. As long as the Chinese banking system does not implode – which is highly unlikely given that the major banks are all state-owned – global investors might actually welcome a modest decline in Chinese property investment. Investment Conclusions The downturn in the US housing market suggests that we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. However, given the long lags between when housing begins to weaken and when a recession ensues, it is probable that the US will only enter a recession in 2024. To the extent the stock market typically peaks six months before the outset of a recession, equities may still have further to run, at least in the near term. As we discussed last week, we recommend a neutral allocation on global stocks over a 12-month horizon but would overweight equities over a shorter-term 6-month horizon. In relative terms, the US housing market is more resilient than most other housing markets. We initiated a trade going long Canadian government bonds relative to US bonds on June 30, when the 10-year yield in Canada was 21 basis points above the comparable US yield. Today, the yield on both bonds is almost the same. We expect Canadian bonds to continue to outperform, given the more severe constraints the Bank of Canada faces in raising rates. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on     LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Risks From Housing The Risks From Housing      

Executive Summary More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI The BCA global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still in a downtrend, but its diffusion index – which tends to lead the overall global LEI at major cyclical turning points – has crept higher since bottoming in January. The diffusion index is rising in part because of very marginal increases in the LEIs of a few countries, but there have been more decisive increases in the LEIs of two major countries outside the developed world – China and Brazil. There is not yet enough evidence pointing to a true bottoming of the BCA global LEI anytime soon, but an improvement in the LEI diffusion index above 50 (i.e. a majority of countries with a rising LEI) would be a more convincing signal that global growth momentum is set to rebound. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure. Feature Investors can be forgiven for being a bit confused by some conflicting messages in recent global economic data. For example, US real GDP contracted in both the first and second quarter of this year – a so-called “technical recession” – and consumer confidence is at multi-decade lows, yet the US unemployment rate fell to 3.5%, the lowest level since 1969, in July. A similar story is playing out across the Atlantic, where a historic surge in energy prices was supposed to have already tipped the euro area into recession, yet real GDP expanded in both Q1 and Q2 at an above-trend pace and unemployment continues to decline. At times like the present, when market narratives do not always line up with hard data, we always believe it important to look within our vast suite of indicators to help clear the fog. One of our most trusted growth indicators, the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), is still falling and, thus, signaling a continued deceleration of global growth over at least the next 6-9 months. However, there are some signs of more optimistic news embedded within our global LEI stemming from outside the developed economies, which could be a potential early sign of a bottoming in global growth momentum. In this report, we dig deeper into the guts of our global LEI to assess the odds of an imminent turning point in the LEI and, eventually, global growth. This has important implications for global bond yields, which are likely to remain rangebound until there is greater clarity on global growth momentum (and inflation downside momentum). What Leads The Leading Indicator? The BCA global LEI is a composite index that combines the LEIs of 23 individual countries using GDP weights. The underlying list of countries differs from that of the widely followed OECD LEI, which is comprised of data from 33 countries but with a heavy weighting on developed market economies. The overall OECD LEI excludes important exporting countries such as Taiwan and Singapore, which are highly sensitive to changes in global growth. Most importantly, the OECD LEI omits the world’s largest economy, China. For our global LEI, we prefer to use a smaller set of countries but one that includes China and a bigger weighting on emerging market (EM) economies. For most of the nations in our global LEI, we do use the country-level LEIs produced by the OECD.1 That also includes several large and important non-OECD EM countries for which the OECD calculates LEIs - a list that includes China, Brazil, India, Russia, Indonesia and South Africa. For a few selected countries, however, we use the following data: US, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore: LEIs produced by national government data sources or, in the case of the US, the Conference Board. Argentina, Malaysia and Thailand: LEIs are produced in-house at BCA, a necessary step given the lack of domestically-produced LEIs in those countries at the time our global LEI was first constructed. We find that our global LEI leads global real GDP growth by around six months, and leads global industrial production growth by around twelve months (Chart 1). Chart 1A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI The latest reading on the global LEI from July is pointing to a further deceleration of global GDP into a “growth recession” where GDP is expanding slower than the pace of potential global GDP growth (less than 2%). The global LEI is also pointing to an outright contraction of global industrial production, a path also signaled by the JPMorgan global manufacturing PMI index which hit a two-year low of 51.1 – closing in on the 50 level that signifies expanding industrial activity – in July. Chart 2A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? The momentum of our global LEI is largely influenced by its breadth. Specifically, we have found that when a growing share of countries within the global LEI have individual LEIs that are rising, the overall LEI will eventually follow suit. Thus, the diffusion index of our global LEI, which measures the percentage share of countries with rising individual LEIs, is itself a fairly good leading indicator of the global LEI at major cyclical turning points. We may be approaching such a turning point, as our global LEI diffusion index has increased from a low of 9 back in January of this year to the level of 30 in July (Chart 2). In past business cycles, the diffusion index has tended to lead the global LEI by around 6-9 months, which suggests that a bottom in the actual global LEI could occur sometime in the next few months – although that outcome is conditional on the magnitude of the rise in the diffusion index. In the top half of Table 1, we list previous episodes since 1980 where the global PMI diffusion index followed a similar path to that seen in 2022 – bottoming out below 10 and then rising to at least 30. We identified nine such episodes. In the table, we also show the subsequent change in the level of the global LEI after the increase in the diffusion index. Table 1Global LEI Diffusion Index Greater Than 50 Typically Signals LEI Uptrend A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The historical experience shows that an increase in the diffusion index to 30 was only enough to trigger a decisive rebound in the global LEI over a 6-12 month horizon in the 2000-01 and 2008 episodes. In several episodes, the global LEI actually contracted despite the pickup in the diffusion index. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think In the bottom half of Table 1, we run the same analysis but define the episodes as when the diffusion index rose from a low below 10 to at least 50. Unsurprisingly, periods when at least half of the countries have a rising LEI tend to result more frequently in the overall global LEI entering an uptrend within one year – although the two most recent episodes in 2010 and 2018-19 were notable exceptions. Bottom Line: After looking at past experience, the latest pickup in the global LEI diffusion index has not been by enough to confidently forecast a rebound in the LEI – and, eventually, faster global growth. No Broad-Based Improvement In Our Global LEI When grouping the countries within our global LEI by geographical region, it is clear that there is still no sign of improvement in North America or Europe, but some signs of bottoming in Asia and Latin America (Chart 3). Typically, the regional LEIs tend to be very positively correlated during major cyclical moves in the overall LEI, with no one region being particularly better than the others at consistently leading the global business cycle. Chart 3More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI ​​​​​ Table 2Country Weightings In Our Global LEI A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? Of course, the global LEI is a GDP-weighted index that is dominated by the US and China (Table 2). When looking at individual country LEIs, the recent improvement in the LEI diffusion index looks less impressive. Some countries, like the UK and Korea, have only seen a tiny fractional uptick in the most recent LEI reading – moves small enough to qualify as statistical noise, even though the tiniest of positive moves still register as an “increase” when calculating the diffusion index. When looking at all the individual country LEIs within our global LEI, only two countries stand out as having meaningful increases over the past few months – China and Brazil (Chart 4). In the case of China, the idea that there could be signs of improving growth runs counter to the broad swath of recent data that highlight slowing momentum of Chinese consumer spending, business investment and residential construction. However, the production-focused components of the OECD’s China LEI, which we use in our global LEI, have shown some improvement of late (Chart 5). For example, motor vehicle production grew at a 32% year-over-year rate in July according to the OECD’s data, while total construction activity (based on OECD aggregates of production by industry) rose 9% year-over-year. Chart 4LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere ​​​​​ Chart 5Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI ​​​​​ The OECD’s LEI methodology is designed to include the minimum number of data series to optimize the fit of the LEI to the growth rate of each country’s industrial production index, which does lead to some peculiar series being included in the LEIs. However, there are signs of a potential rebound in Chinese economic growth evident in indicators preferred by our emerging market strategists, like the change in overall credit and fiscal spending as a share of GDP, a.k.a. the credit and fiscal impulse (Chart 6). The latter has shown a modest improvement that is hinting at faster Chinese growth in 2023, similar to the OECD’s China LEI. Turning to Brazil, the improvement in the OECD’s LEI there is focused on more survey-based data, like confidence among manufacturers and expectations on the demand for services. However, some hard data that the OECD includes in its Brazil LEI, namely net exports to Europe, have also shown clear improvement (Chart 7). Chart 6China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound Bottom Line: The modest improvement in our global LEI diffusion index is even less than meets the eye, as only China and Brazil have seen LEI increases that are meaningfully greater than zero. Chart 7Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI ​​​​​ Investing Around The Global LEI Chart 8Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Investors spend a sizeable chunk of their time focused on the future growth outlook to make investment decisions. This would, presumably, give leading economic indicators a useful role in any investment process. However, when looking at the relationship between our global LEI and the returns on risk assets like equities and corporate credit, the correlation is highly coincident (Chart 8). In other words, risk assets are themselves leading indicators of future economic growth – so much so that equity indices are often included as a component of the leading indicators of individual countries. On that front, the recent rebound in global equity markets, and the pullback in global credit spreads from the mid-June peak, could be signaling a more stable growth outlook that would be reflected in a bottoming of our global LEI. However, the monetary policy cycle matters, as evidenced by the correlation between the shape of government bond yield curves and our global LEI (bottom panel). That relationship is less strong than that of the LEI and equity/credit returns, but there are very few examples where yield curves are flat, or even inverted as is now the case in the US, and leading indicators are rising. Chart 9Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure In the current environment where more central banks are worrying more about overshooting inflation than slowing growth, a turnaround in our global LEI will be difficult to achieve until inflation is much closer to central bank target levels, allowing policymakers to loosen policy and steepen yield curves. We do not expect such a scenario to unfold over at least the next 12-18 months, given broad-based entrenched inflation pressures in global services and labor markets. While leading indicators may not be of much value in forecasting risk assets, we do find value in using them to forecast moves in government bond yields. Regular readers of BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy will be familiar with our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of growth-focused measures that have historically had a leading relationship to the momentum (annual change) in developed market bond yields (Chart 9). The Duration Indicator contains both the global LEI and its diffusion index, as well as the ZEW expectations indices for the US and Europe. Three of those four indicators remain at depressed levels suggesting waning bond yield momentum. Overshooting global inflation has weakened the correlation between bond yield momentum and our Duration Indicator over the past year. However, with global commodity and goods inflation now clearly decelerating, we expect bond momentum to begin tracking growth dynamics more closely again. This leads us to expect bond yields to remain trapped in ranges over at least the balance of 2022, defined most prominently by the 10-year US Treasury yield trading between 2.5% and 3%. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   Details on how the OECD calculates the individual country leading economic indicators can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/sdd/leading-indicators/compositeleadingindicatorsclifrequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm\   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 16 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST). 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 Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Three mega moats will protect the US economy over the next 12 months: 1) A high number of job openings; 2) Significant pent-up demand; and 3) Strong Fed credibility, which has kept bond yields from rising more than they otherwise would have in response to higher inflation. Ironically, a recession will only occur when investors start believing that a recession will not occur. Without more economic optimism, real yields will not rise into restrictive territory. The double-dip 1980/82 recessions, the 1990-91 recession, the 2001 recession, and the 2007-09 Great Recession were all preceded by an almost identical 21-to-23-month period of a flat unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has been fairly stable since March when it hit 3.6%. Given the three moats, we suspect that it will move sideways well into next year. At that point, the trajectory of inflation will determine the path for the unemployment rate and the broader economy. Inflation will fall significantly over the coming months thanks to lower food and energy prices and easing supply-chain pressures. However, falling inflation could sow the seeds of its own demise. As prices at the pump and the grocery store decline, real wage growth will turn positive. This will bolster consumer confidence, leading to more spending, and ultimately, a reacceleration in core inflation.​​​​ Bottom Line: Stocks will rise over the next six months as recession risks abate, but then decline over the subsequent six months as it becomes clear that the Fed has no intention of cutting rates in 2023 and may even need to raise them further. On balance, we recommend a neutral exposure to global equities over a 12-month horizon.   Don’t Bet on a US Recession Just Yet Many investors continue to expect the US economy to slip into recession this year. The OIS curve is discounting over 100 basis points in rate cuts starting in 2023, something that would probably only happen in a recessionary environment (Chart 1). In contrast to the consensus view, we think that the US will avoid a recession. This is good news for stocks in the near term because it means that earnings estimates, which have already fallen meaningfully this year, are unlikely to be cut any further (Chart 2). It is bad news for stocks down the road because it means that rather than cutting rates in 2023, the Fed could very well have to raise them. Chart 1Investors Expect Fed Tightening To Give Way To An Easing Cycle In 2023 Investors Expect Fed Tightening To Give Way To An Easing Cycle In 2023 Investors Expect Fed Tightening To Give Way To An Easing Cycle In 2023 Image These two conflicting considerations lead us to expect stocks to rise over the next six months but then to fall over the subsequent six months. As such, we recommend an above-benchmark exposure to global equities over a short-term tactical horizon but a neutral exposure over a 12-month horizon. Three mega moats will protect the US economy over the next 12 months: 1) A high number of job openings; 2) Significant pent-up demand; and 3) Strong Fed credibility, which has kept bond yields from rising more than they otherwise would have in response to higher inflation. Let’s explore each in turn.   Moat #1: A High Number of Job Openings While job openings have fallen over the past few months, they are still very high by historic standards (Chart 3). In June, there were 1.8 job openings for every unemployed worker, up from 1.2 in February 2020. At the peak of the dotcom bubble, there were 1.1 job openings per unemployed worker. A high job openings rate means that many workers who lose their jobs will have little difficulty finding new ones. This should keep the unemployment rate from rising significantly as labor demand cools on the back of higher interest rates. Some investors have argued that the ease with which companies can advertise for workers these days has artificially boosted reported job openings. We are skeptical of this claim. For one thing, it does not explain why the number of job openings has risen dramatically over the past two years since, presumably, the cost of job advertising has not changed that much. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its estimates of job openings not on a tabulation of online job postings but on a formal survey of firms. For a job opening to be counted, a firm must have a specific position that it is seeking to fill within the next 30 days. This rules out general job postings for positions that may not exist. We are also skeptical of claims that increased layoffs could significantly push up “frictional” unemployment, a form of unemployment stemming from the time it takes workers to move from one job to another. There is a great deal of churn in the US labor market (Chart 4). In a typical month, net flows in and out of employment represent less than 10% of gross flows. In June, for example, US firms hired 6.4 million workers. On the flipside “separations” totaled 5.9 million in June, 71% of which represented workers quitting their jobs. Chart 3A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market Chart 4Labor Market Churn Tends To Increase As Unemployment Falls Labor Market Churn Tends To Increase As Unemployment Falls Labor Market Churn Tends To Increase As Unemployment Falls   In fact, total separations (and hence frictional unemployment) tend to rise when the labor market strengthens since that is when workers feel the most emboldened to quit. The reason that the unemployment rate increases during recessions is not because laid-off workers need time to find a new job but because there are simply not enough new jobs available. Fortunately, that is not much of a problem today.   Moat #2: Significant Pent-Up Demand US households have accumulated $2.2 trillion (9% of GDP) of excess savings since the start of the pandemic, most of which reside in highly liquid bank deposits (Chart 5). Admittedly, most of these savings are skewed towards middle- and upper-income households who tend to spend less out of every dollar of income than the poor (Chart 6). Nevertheless, even the top 10% of income earners spend about 80% of their income (Chart 7). This suggests that most of these excess savings will be deployed, supporting consumption in the process. Chart 5Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Chart 6Unlike The Poor, Middle-To-Upper Income Households Still Hold Much Of Their Pandemic Savings Unlike The Poor, Middle-To-Upper Income Households Still Hold Much Of Their Pandemic Savings Unlike The Poor, Middle-To-Upper Income Households Still Hold Much Of Their Pandemic Savings Some commentators have argued that high inventories will restrain production, even if consumer spending remains buoyant. We doubt that will happen. While retail inventories have risen of late, the retail inventory-to-sales ratio is still near all-time lows (Chart 8). Moreover, real retail sales have returned to their pre-pandemic trend (Chart 9A). Overall goods spending is still above trend, but has retraced two-thirds of its pandemic surge with little ill-effect on the labor market (Chart 9B). Chart 7Even The Wealthy Spend Most Of Their Income Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Chart 8Retail Inventory-To-Sales Ratios Have Rebounded, But Remain Low Retail Inventory-To-Sales Ratios Have Rebounded, But Remain Low Retail Inventory-To-Sales Ratios Have Rebounded, But Remain Low Chart 9ASpending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (I) Spending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (I) Spending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (I) Chart 9BSpending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (II) Spending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (II) Spending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (II) The latest capex intention surveys point to a deceleration in business investment (Chart 10). Nevertheless, we doubt that capex will decline by very much. Following the dotcom boom, core capital goods orders moved sideways for two decades (Chart 11). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock rose by over two years during this period (Chart 12). Excluding investment in intellectual property, business capex as a share of GDP is barely higher now than it was during the Great Recession. Not only is there a dire need to replenish the existing capital stock, but there is an urgent need to invest in new energy infrastructure and increased domestic manufacturing capacity. Chart 10Capex Intentions Have Dipped Capex Intentions Have Dipped Capex Intentions Have Dipped Chart 11Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (I) Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (I) Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (I) With regards to residential investment, the homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to a record low. The average age of US homes stands at 31 years, the highest since 1948. Chart 13 shows that housing activity has weakened somewhat less than one would have expected based on the significant increase in mortgage rates in the first six months of 2022. Given the recent stabilization in mortgage rates, the chart suggests that housing activity should rebound by the end of the year. Chart 12Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (II) Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (II) Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (II) Chart 13Housing Activity Should Rebound On The Back Of Low Vacancy Rates, An Aging Housing Stock, And Stabilizing Mortgage Rates Housing Activity Should Rebound On The Back Of Low Vacancy Rates, An Aging Housing Stock, And Stabilizing Mortgage Rates Housing Activity Should Rebound On The Back Of Low Vacancy Rates, An Aging Housing Stock, And Stabilizing Mortgage Rates Moat #3: Strong Fed Credibility Even though headline inflation is running at over 8% and most measures of core inflation are in the vicinity of 5%-to-6%, the 10-year bond yield still stands at 2.87%. Two things help explain why bond yields have failed to keep up with inflation. First, investors regard the Fed’s commitment to bringing down inflation as highly credible. The TIPS market is pricing in a rapid decline in inflation over the next two years (Chart 14). The widely-followed 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate is still near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone. Chart 14AWell-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Chart 14BWell-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Well-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Well-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Households tend to agree with the market’s assessment. While households expect inflation to average over 5% over the next 12 months, they expect it to fall to 2.9% over the long term. As Chart 15 illustrates, expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey is in line with where it was between the mid-1990s and 2015. This is a major difference from the early 1980s, when households expected inflation to remain near 10%. Back then, Paul Volcker had to engineer a deep recession in order to bring long-term inflation expectations back down to acceptable levels. Such pain is unlikely to be necessary today. Chart 15Households Expect Inflation To Come Back Down Households Expect Inflation To Come Back Down Households Expect Inflation To Come Back Down Chart 16Markets Think That The Real Neutral Rate Is Low Markets Think That The Real Neutral Rate Is Low Markets Think That The Real Neutral Rate Is Low The second factor that is suppressing bond yields is the market’s perception that the real neutral rate of interest is quite low. The 5-year, 5-year TIPS yield – a good proxy for the market’s estimate of the real neutral rate – currently stands at 0.40%, well below its pre-GFC average of 2.5% (Chart 16). Ironically, a recession will only occur when investors start believing that a recession will not occur. Without more economic optimism, real yields will not rise into restrictive territory. When Will the Moats Dry Up? The US unemployment rate is a mean-reverting series. When unemployment is very low, it is more likely to rise than to fall. And when the unemployment rate starts rising, it keeps rising. In the post-war era, the US has never avoided a recession when the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point over a three-month period (Chart 17). Chart 17When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising ​​​​​With the unemployment rate falling to a 53-year low of 3.5% in July, it is safe to say that we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. When will the unemployment rate move decisively higher? While it is impossible to say with certainty, history does offer some clues. Remarkably, the double-dip 1980/82 recessions, the 1990-91 recession, the 2001 recession, and the 2007-09 Great Recession were all preceded by an almost identical 21-to-23-month period of a flat unemployment rate (Chart 18 and Table 1). Coincidentally, the Covid-19 recession was also preceded by 22 months of a stable unemployment rate. To the extent that the economy was not showing much strain going into the pandemic, it is reasonable to assume that the unemployment rate would have continued to move sideways for most of 2020 had the virus never emerged. Chart 18The Bottoming Phase Of The Unemployment Rate Has Only Begun The Bottoming Phase Of The Unemployment Rate Has Only Begun The Bottoming Phase Of The Unemployment Rate Has Only Begun Image Inflation is the Key The unemployment rate has been fairly stable since March when it hit 3.6%. Given the three moats discussed in this report, we suspect that it will move sideways well into next year. At that point, the trajectory of inflation will determine the path of the unemployment rate and the broader economy. As this week’s better-than-expected July CPI report foreshadows, inflation will fall significantly over the coming months, thanks to lower food and energy prices and easing supply-chain pressures. The GSCI Agricultural Index has dropped 24% from its highs and is now below where it was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Chart 19). Retail gasoline prices have fallen 19% since June, with the futures market pointing to a substantial further decline over the next 12 months. In general, there is an extremely strong correlation between the change in gasoline prices and headline inflation (Chart 20). Supplier delivery times have also dropped sharply (Chart 21). Chart 19Agricultural Prices Have Started Falling Agricultural Prices Have Started Falling Agricultural Prices Have Started Falling Chart 20Headline Inflation Tends To Track Gasoline Prices Headline Inflation Tends To Track Gasoline Prices Headline Inflation Tends To Track Gasoline Prices Falling inflation could sow the seeds of its own demise, however. As prices at the pump and the grocery store decline, real wage growth will turn positive. That will bolster consumer confidence, leading to more spending (Chart 22). Core inflation, which is likely to decrease only modestly over the coming months, will start to accelerate in 2023, prompting the Fed to turn hawkish again. Stocks will falter at that point. Chart 21Supplier Delivery Times Have Declined Supplier Delivery Times Have Declined Supplier Delivery Times Have Declined Chart 22Falling Inflation Will Boost Real Wages And Consumer Confidence Falling Inflation Will Boost Real Wages And Consumer Confidence Falling Inflation Will Boost Real Wages And Consumer Confidence Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn and Twitter     Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy Three Mega Moats Around The US Economy

Executive Summary Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Policymakers must continue engineering higher real interest rates, and tighter financial conditions, to help cool off growth and bring down overshooting inflation. This will inevitably lead to inverted yield curves across most of the developed world, following the recent trend of US Treasuries. US growth expectations remain overly pessimistic, which opens up the potential for more near-term bond-bearish upside data surprises like the July employment and ISM Services reports. The Bank of England – under increasing political pressure for its relatively timid response to the massive UK inflation overshoot – is now forecasting a long policy-induced recession as the only way to tame UK inflation expected to reach 13% by year-end. Expect UK Gilts to be a relative outperformer within developed bond markets over the next 12-18 months. Bottom Line: Stay overweight UK Gilts versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, but increase exposure to yield curve flattening in both countries. The Fed and Bank of England are both on course to push monetary policy into restrictive, growth-damaging territory. Don’t Get TOO Comfortable Taking Risk In a bit of a summer surprise, global financial markets have been staging a mild recovery from the stagflationary doom that prevailed during the first half of 2022. In the US, the S&P 500 index is up 14% from the year-to-date intraday low reached on June 16, with the VIX index back down to low-20s zone last seen in April (Chart 1). High-yield corporate bond spreads in the US and euro area are down 97bps and 36bps, respectively, since that mid-June trough in US equities. Even emerging market equities and credit – the most unloved of asset classes in 2022 – have stabilized. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyIt’s Time To Flip The Script - Upgrade UK Gilts Some of this risk rally is surely short-covering, but there are some valid reasons to be less pessimistic on growth-sensitive risk assets. In the US, where the back-to-back contractions in GDP in the first two quarters of the year have stoked recession fears, the latest data releases have seen upside surprises suggesting an expanding, not contracting, economy (Chart 2). The July ISM non-manufacturing (services) index rose +1.4 points in July to 56.7, a broad-based move that included increases in Production, New Orders and New Export Orders. Core durable goods orders rose +0.5% in June for the second straight month. The biggest surprise was the July Payrolls report, which showed a whopping +528,000 increase in employment – over twice the expected gain of +250,000 – with a downtick in the unemployment rate to 3.5%. Chart 1Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss ​​​​​​ Chart 2The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature ​​​​​​ Chart 3Goods Inflation Pressures Easing Goods Inflation Pressures Easing Goods Inflation Pressures Easing There was also some good news on the inflation front in the latest US data. The Prices Paid components of both the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing indices showed big declines, 18.5pts and 7.8pts respectively, in July, continuing the downtrends that began in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 3). This is not just a US story. The Prices Paid components of the S&P Global manufacturing PMIs in the euro area, the UK, Japan and China have also been falling. Lower global commodity prices, particularly for oil, are playing a large role in the pullback in reported business input costs. The Supplier Deliveries components of both ISM reports also fell on the month, continuing a trend seen throughout 2022 as global supply chain pressures have eased. Combined with the drop in the Prices Paid data, global PMIs are sending a strong message - inflationary pressures on the traded goods side of the global economy are finally easing. Slower goods inflation, however, does not provide an all-clear for risk assets on a cyclical basis. Non-goods price pressures are showing little sign of peaking across most of the developed world. Labor markets remain tight, and both wage inflation and services inflation rates continue to accelerate in the major economies of the US, UK and euro area at a pace well above central bank inflation targets (Chart 4). Until these domestic sources of inflation show signs of peaking, central banks will continue to push up policy rates to slow growth, generate higher unemployment and, eventually, bring domestically driven inflation back down to central bank targets. Expect the so-called Misery Index, summing headline inflation and the unemployment rate, to remain elevated across the major developed economies until negative real interest rates begin to rise through a combination of more nominal rate hikes and, eventually, slower inflation (Chart 5). Chart 4Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating ​​​​​ Chart 5Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise ​​​​​​As we discussed in last week’s report, bond markets were getting way ahead of themselves in pricing in aggressive rate cuts in 2023, especially in the US. This was setting up for a potential move higher in yields on any positive data news. Within the “Big 3” developed economies, US Treasuries look most vulnerable to a rebound in bond yield momentum, judging by what looks like a true bottom in the mean-reverting Citigroup US Data Surprise Index (Chart 6). The flow of data surprises is more mixed in the euro area and UK and is not yet at the stretched extremes that would signal a sustainable increase in bond yields. Taken at face value, this fits with our current recommendation to underweight the US, and overweight core Europe and the UK, within global government bond portfolios. With central banks now on track to push policy rates into restrictive territory, there is the potential for additional flattening of already very flat yield curves across the Big 3. Forward rates are not priced for additional curve flattening in those markets, looking at both the 2-year/10-year and 5-year/30-year government bond curves (Chart 7). This makes positioning for more curve flattening in the US, UK and euro area a positive carry trade by leaning against the pricing of forward rates. Chart 6Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US ​​​​​​ Chart 7Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' We are adjusting the positioning within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Model Bond Portfolio this week to benefit from the trend towards additional curve flattening in the US, the UK and core Europe (Germany and France). With the 2-year/10-year curve already inverted by -45bps in the US, we see better value by adding flattening exposure between the 5-year and 30-year points – a curve segment that is not yet in inversion. In the UK and euro area, we see a case for positioning for flattening across the entire yield curve. Bottom Line: Stay overweight both UK Gilts and core European government bonds versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, but increase exposure to yield curve flattening in all countries. The Fed and Bank of England are both clearly on course to push monetary policy into restrictive, growth-damaging territory, and the ECB may be forced to do the same. Painful Honesty From The Bank Of England The Bank of England (BoE) delivered its largest rate hike since 1995 last week, raising Bank Rate by 50bps to 1.75%. Planned sales of UK Gilts accumulated by the BoE during the quantitative easing phase of pandemic stimulus, at a pace of £10bn per quarter starting in September, were also announced. While those moves were largely expected by markets, the BoE’s new set of economic forecasts contained quite a shocker – an expectation of recession starting in Q4 of this year, running through the end of 2023 (Chart 8). The UK unemployment rate is expected to rise substantially from the current 3.8% to 6.3% by Q3/2025. Chart 8Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts ​​​​​​ Chart 9Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts We are hard pressed to remember the last time a major central bank announced a forecast of a prolonged economic downturn as part of its baseline scenario to bring inflation to its target. Such is the predicament that the BoE finds itself in, with headline UK inflation expected to soar to 13% by the end of 2022 – a mere 11 percentage points above the central bank’s inflation target. The BoE has been forced to sharply ratchet up that expected peak in UK inflation at both the May and August policy meetings this year. This is largely due to the massive increase in UK energy prices with the Energy component of the UK CPI index up over 50% in year-over-year terms. According to analysis published in the BoE August 2022 Monetary Policy Report, the direct impact of higher energy prices was projected to account for roughly half of that expected 13% peak in UK inflation this year (Chart 9). At the same time, falling energy prices embedded into futures curves are expected to full unwind that effect in 2023. The BoE’s recession call is also conditioned on a market-implied path for interest rates, with a 2023 peak in Bank Rate of just over 3% priced into the UK OIS curve. Looking beyond the energy price surge, there are signs that the BoE will not have to tighten as aggressively as interest rate markets are currently expecting. Our BoE Monitor, constructed using growth, inflation and financial market variables that would typically pressure the central bank to tighten or loosen monetary policy, has clearly peaked (Chart 10). All three components of the Monitor have rolled over, although inflation pressures remain the strongest contributor to the elevated absolute level of the Monitor. From a growth perspective, there are many reasons to expect the UK economy to enter a recession without much more prodding from BoE rate hikes (Chart 11): Chart 10Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates ​​​​​​ Chart 11A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth ​​​​​​ Both the S&P Global manufacturing and services PMIs are on target to soon fall below the 50 level that indicates positive growth (top panel) Consumer confidence has collapsed as surging inflation has overwhelmed household income growth, leading to a contraction in retail sales volume growth (middle panel) The BoE’s Agents’ Survey of individual businesses shows a sharp deterioration in business investment spending plans (bottom panel). Yet even with growth clearly slowing already, the sheer magnitude of the inflation overshoot is forcing markets to discount a fairly aggressive path for UK interest rates over the next year. This is not only evident in the OIS curve, but also in the BoE’s own Market Participants Survey (MPS) of UK investors. According to the just released August MPS, the median expectation is for Bank Rate to peak at 2.5% next year (Chart 12). This is a sizeable increase from the previous expected peak of 1.75% from the last MPS in May, but is still below the discounted peak in rates from the OIS curve of 3.1%. The bigger news is that the, according to the August MPS, the median survey participant now believes that the neutral range for Bank Rate is now 2-2.5%, up from the 1.5-2.0% range in the May MPS. Therefore, the August MPS forecasted peak Bank Rate of 2.5% is only at the high end of neutral and not restrictive. Yet both the OIS curve and the August MPS expect the BoE to immediately pivot from rate hikes to rate cuts in the second half of 2023. Chart 12UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations Chart 13The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The notion that the BoE would pivot so quickly next year, when their own forecasts still call for UK inflation to be over 9% in the third quarter of 2023, seem somewhat optimistic. Especially with the BoE under tremendous public and political pressure because of runaway UK inflation. The leading candidate to become the next UK Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, has already gone on record stating that she would look to change the BoE’s remit as Prime Minister to focus solely on keeping inflation low. Meanwhile, the latest BoE Inflation Attitudes Survey shows more respondents are now dissatisfied with the BoE than satisfied (Chart 13). 1-year-ahead inflation expectations from that same survey are now at 4.6%, while 5-year/5-year forward breakevens from UK index-linked Gilts are still at 3.8%. With inflation expectations still so elevated, and with the BoE’s own forecasts calling for headline UK inflation to not fall back to the 2% BoE target until Q3/2024, it is unlikely that the BoE will revert to rate cuts as quickly as markets expect – especially given the accelerating wage dynamics in the UK labor market. According to the BoE’s measure of “underlying” wage growth, which adjusts headline wage inflation data for pandemic effects from furloughs and shifting labor composition, wages are growing at a 4.2% year-over-year rate (Chart 14). The BoE’s own modeling work indicates that 2.9 percentage points of that wage growth is due to the level of short-term inflation expectations, with only 0.9 percentage points coming from productivity growth. Thus, the BoE cannot let its foot off the monetary brake until short-term inflation expectations fall substantially from current elevated levels – especially with employment indicators still pointing to a very tight supply-constrained, post-COVID UK labor market. Chart 14A Wage-Price Spiral In The UK? Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company Given that interplay of rising headline inflation, elevated inflation expectations and tight labor markets, the BoE will likely be forced to begin unwinding the current rate hiking cycle later than markets expect. This will eventually lead to an inversion of the UK Gilt yield curve as the BoE pushes policy rates to restrictive territory and the UK economy falls into recession faster than other countries (like the US). Chart 15Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias We still believe that the Fed is more likely than the BoE to fully follow through on market-discounted rate hikes over the next year, which was a major reason why we upgraded our cyclical recommendation on UK Gilts to overweight back in May. However, with the BoE now under more pressure to wring high inflation out of the UK economy by keeping policy tighter for longer, we also see value in positioning for that eventual inversion of the UK Gilt curve (Chart 15). We see the sequencing as being inversion first, and relative Gilt outperformance later, although we do not expect the relative performance of Gilts to worsen with the UK economy set to enter recession before other major economies. Importantly, the forward rates in the Gilt curve are still priced for a somewhat steeper yield curve, making curve flattening trades along the entire curve attractive as positive carry trades that pay you to wait for the eventual policy driven inversion. The 2-year/10-year and 2-year/30-year flatteners look particularly attractive from that carry-focused perspective. Bottom Line: The BoE– under increasing political pressure for its relatively timid response to the massive UK inflation overshoot – is now forecasting a long policy-induced recession as the only way to tame UK inflation expected to reach 13% by year-end. Expect UK Gilts to be a relative outperformer within developed bond markets over the next 12-18 months, and enter positive carry Gilt curve flatteners now to benefit from the inevitable inversion of the curve.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company

Executive Summary High profile economists Larry Summers and Olivier Blanchard have recently cast doubt on the Federal Reserve’s claim that a soft landing is possible for the US economy. We explore the arguments from both sides of the debate and conclude that the economic data will likely support the Fed’s soft landing thesis during the next six months. However, the unemployment rate will rise more significantly as we move deeper into 2023 and the Fed continues to run a restrictive monetary policy. This report also provides an update on our recommended portfolio duration and high-yield positioning, and suggests a tweak to our recommended positioning across the Treasury curve. Specifically, we advise clients to enter a duration-matched position long the 5/30 barbell and short the 10-year bullet. The Beveridge Curve Peak Fed Funds? Peak Fed Funds? Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds. Investors should also exit positions long the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched cash/5 barbell and enter a position long a 5/30 barbell versus the 10-year bullet. Feature This week’s report digs into a recent macro debate between two high profile economists – Larry Summers and Olivier Blanchard – and the Federal Reserve about whether a “soft landing” is possible for the US economy. We summarize the debate below and offer our own thoughts on its implications for investment strategy. But first, we provide a quick update on our recent thinking about US bond portfolio construction, including a change to our recommended yield curve positioning. Positioning Update Portfolio Duration In recent reports we have written that we would reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance from “at benchmark” to “below benchmark” if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation converges to our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend (Chart 1).1 The 10-year yield came close to hitting our 2.5% trigger last week but then quickly reversed course. It moved even higher after Friday’s extremely strong employment report, and it now sits at 2.78%. We are sticking with our plan. Despite July’s blockbuster job gains, trends in both initial and continuing jobless claims suggest that the unemployment rate is more likely to rise than fall during the next few months (Chart 2). Supply chain indicators also point toward falling inflation (Chart 2, bottom panel). Against this backdrop, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see bond yields experience another downleg. Chart 1Stay Neutral For Now Stay Neutral For Now Stay Neutral For Now Chart 2Unemployment Has Bottomed Unemployment Has Bottomed Unemployment Has Bottomed High-Yield Turning to credit, we continue to recommend an underweight allocation to spread product (including investment grade corporate bonds) versus Treasuries, but with a slightly higher allocation (neutral) to high-yield. We think that high-yield spreads can tighten in the near-term as recession fears are allayed and inflation rolls over. However, the medium-to-long run macro environment is negative for spread product and we will be quick to reduce junk exposure if spreads reach their 2017-19 average (Chart 3) or if core inflation converges with our 4%-5% estimate of trend. Chart 3Tracking The Junk Rally Tracking The Junk Rally Tracking The Junk Rally Treasury Curve Chart 4Buy A 5/30 Flattener Buy A 5/30 Flattener Buy A 5/30 Flattener Finally, this week we tweak our recommended yield curve positioning by closing our prior recommendation: long 2-year bullet versus duration-matched cash/5 barbell, and by initiating a new trade: long 5/30 barbell versus a duration-matched 10-year bullet. We only initiated that 2 over cash/5 trade a couple weeks ago on the view that 2/5 Treasury curve inversions don’t tend to last very long.2 However, it has since become clear that our timing was premature. In fact, we probably shouldn’t anticipate a significant 2/5 steepening until the Fed’s tightening cycle is near its end, which we do not believe to be the case. Instead, we recommend that investors shift into a duration-matched position that is overweight a 5/30 barbell versus the 10-year bullet. This trade offers a positive yield differential of 16 bps (Chart 4) and will profit from a flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope. The 5/30 slope has steepened in recent weeks, but further steepening is only likely to occur near the end of a Fed tightening cycle. Given that we see significant further tightening ahead, it’s much more likely that the 5/30 slope will fall to zero or even turn negative (Chart 4, top panel). The Battle Of The Beveridge Curves Our battle begins with a speech from Fed Governor Christopher Waller that was given back in May.3 In that speech, Waller made the case for why the large number of job vacancies gave him “reason to hope that policy tightening in current circumstances can tame inflation without causing a sharp increase in unemployment.” Waller’s argument was based on the historical relationship between the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate, a relationship known as the Beveridge Curve (Chart 5). In essence, Waller’s argument for a “soft landing” boils down to the observation that the Beveridge Curve shown in Chart 5 has shifted up since the pandemic. That is, since March 2020 we have consistently seen more job vacancies for any given unemployment rate. His contention is that, as economic activity slows, rather than moving to the right along the Beveridge Curve, the curve will shift down toward its pre-pandemic level. In other words, the job vacancy rate will decline significantly without a large uptick in the unemployment rate. Chart 5The Beveridge Curve The Great Soft Landing Debate The Great Soft Landing Debate Objection! In a paper published this month, Olivier Blanchard, Alex Domash and Larry Summers (BDS) take issue with Waller’s claims from two different angles, a theoretical one and an empirical one.4 First, from a theoretical perspective, BDS describe three factors that lead to either movements along the Beveridge Curve or shifts in the curve itself. 1) Economic Activity. Stronger economic activity leads to more job vacancies and a lower unemployment rate. In other words, a shift to the left along the Beveridge Curve, illustrated as the journey from point A to point B in Chart 6. Chart 6An Illustrated Beveridge Curve The Great Soft Landing Debate The Great Soft Landing Debate 2) Matching Efficiency. If available jobs are a worse match for the skills of the unemployed labor force, then it will lead to a higher job vacancy rate for any given unemployment rate. In other words, a shift up in the Beveridge Curve from point B to point C in Chart 6. 3) Reallocation Intensity. If people switch jobs more frequently, then there will also tend to be more vacancies for any given level of unemployment. Again, this would shift the Beveridge Curve up from point B to point C in Chart 6. Using a model and data from the JOLTS survey, BDS attempt to decompose how much of these three factors have contributed to the current positioning of the Beveridge Curve. The authors estimate that economic activity has increased significantly since the end of 2019, but also that the labor market’s matching efficiency has declined, and that reallocation intensity has increased (Chart 7). Chart 7An Illustrated Beveridge Curve An Illustrated Beveridge Curve An Illustrated Beveridge Curve   While monetary tightening can weaken economic activity, it cannot change the labor market’s matching efficiency or its reallocation intensity. Therefore, the authors argue, unless matching efficiency and reallocation intensity naturally revert to their pre-COVID levels, weaker economic activity will manifest as a movement to the right along the post-2020 Beveridge Curve, leading to a higher unemployment rate. This, in our view, is the crux of the “soft landing” debate. Are the recent changes in labor market matching efficiency and reallocation intensity temporary or permanent? Next, we move to BDS’ empirical arguments. The authors construct a time series of the job vacancy rate going back to the 1950s and then examine changes in both the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate following cyclical peaks in the vacancy rate. Their results show that a falling job vacancy rate almost always coincides with a rising unemployment rate (Table 1). In other words, if history is any guide, it is very unlikely that the Fed will be able to push the job vacancy rate down without seeing an increase in unemployment. Table 1Average Change In The Unemployment Rate And The Vacancy Rate After A Peak In The Vacancy Rate The Great Soft Landing Debate The Great Soft Landing Debate That said, the authors’ results also reveal a dynamic known as the Beveridge Loop. Notice in Table 1 that a drop in the vacancy rate leads to a much smaller increase in the unemployment rate during the first six months following the vacancy rate peak than it does during the first 12 months or first 24 months. In other words, there is some empirical validity to Fed Governor Waller’s argument that the early impact of Fed tightening will be felt primarily through a falling job vacancy rate. The 2018/19 Example We can illustrate the Beveridge Loop with a recent example, one that interestingly was not included in BDS’ empirical analysis. The job vacancy rate peaked in November 2018 and then trended lower until the pandemic struck in early 2020. Interestingly, this 2018-19 drop in the job vacancy rate occurred alongside a modest decline in the unemployment rate. Chart 8 shows what the Beveridge Curve looked like during this period. Notice that, rather than moving back to its January 2018 point in a straight line, the Beveridge Curve formed a loop after peaking in November 2018. Chart 8The 2018/19 Beveridge Loop The Great Soft Landing Debate The Great Soft Landing Debate What allowed the labor market to achieve this “soft landing” in 2018/19? The most likely answer is that labor force participation rose significantly during this period (Chart 9). The influx of workers into the labor force allowed the unemployment rate to keep falling even as continuing unemployment claims bottomed out. Chart 9The 2018/19 Soft Landing The 2018/19 Soft Landing The 2018/19 Soft Landing The BCA Verdict Our view is that the incoming economic data will appear to validate the Fed’s “soft landing” view during the next six months, but that the unemployment rate will start to rise more significantly as we move deeper into 2023. As we have stated in prior reports, a significant increase in the unemployment rate will eventually be required to tame inflation, but that increase likely won’t occur as soon as many market participants expect.5 In essence, we anticipate a large Beveridge Loop. A loop that, in fact, appears to already be forming (Chart 5). We have shown that the empirical evidence supports the idea that a Beveridge Loop will occur during the early stages of a slowdown. Further, theory and empirical evidence demonstrate that the Beveridge Curve is convex. This suggests that the Beveridge Loop could be particularly large in this cycle given that the vacancy rate is starting from such a high level. Perhaps the bigger question, though, is whether the Beveridge Curve will re-converge with its pre-pandemic level during the next 6-12 months. On this question we side more with Blanchard, Domas and Summers. While we think that matching efficiency can continue to improve along its current trend (Chart 7, panel 2), the widespread adoption of work-from-home suggests that the labor market has probably experienced a permanent increase in reallocation intensity. On matching efficiency, the best evidence for continued improvement comes from a breakdown of employment by industry (Table 2). Notice that the three sectors (other than government) that have experienced the greatest job losses since the pandemic – Health Care, Leisure & Hospitality and Other Services – also have three of the highest job openings rates. This suggests that there shouldn’t be a permanent friction between matching those missing workers to available jobs. Table 2Employment By Industry The Great Soft Landing Debate The Great Soft Landing Debate Finally, working from our 2018/19 example, we can assess the likelihood that an increase in labor force participation will cushion the upside in the unemployment rate. Here, we see some potential for the prime age participation rate to rise back to its pre-COVID level, but the re-entry of recently retired workers over the age of 55 is more in doubt. Overall, it’s highly unlikely that the overall participation rate will re-gain its pre-pandemic level (Chart 10). Chart 10Labor Force Participation Labor Force Participation Labor Force Participation The bottom line is that the next six months will likely look more like a soft landing than a hard one. The job vacancy rate will fall quickly and the unemployment rate will stay relatively low, causing the Beveridge Curve to form a large loop. However, the Beveridge Curve will not revert to its pre-COVID level any time soon. As we move deeper into 2023, the Beveridge Curve will stop looping and the unemployment rate will rise significantly.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Recession Now Or Recession Later?”, dated July 26, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 3https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/files/waller20220530a.pdf 4https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/bad-news-fed-beveridge-space#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20seeks%20to,together%20and%20remain%20unlikely%20now. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Conjectures About The US Economy”, dated July 19, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns