Curva de rendimientos

Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting   The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Aspectos destacados ¿Reducción del BCE?: Los temores de los inversores de que el BCE pueda seguir al Banco de Canadá y al Banco de Inglaterra y comenzar a reducir sus compras de bonos antes de lo esperado – quizá ya en la reunión de política monetaria del próximo mes – están fuera de lugar. Lo último que desea ver el BCE es el repunte del euro y de los rendimientos de los bonos italianos que seguramente seguiría a cualquier movimiento para comenzar de forma preventiva a reducir la acomodación monetaria en respuesta a un crecimiento y una inflación europeos más rápidos. Estrategia de bonos de la zona euro: Mantenemos nuestras recomendaciones actuales sobre bonos europeos: sobreponderar Europa dentro de las carteras globales de renta fija - favoreciendo a los soberanos y corporativos periféricos frente a la deuda gubernamental de los países del núcleo - y, además, sobreponderar los bonos ligados a la inflación en Francia, Italia y Alemania, donde los breakevens están infravalorados. También proponemos una nueva operación táctica para desvanecer la valoración actual del mercado sobre subidas de tipos del BCE, tomando una posición larga en el contrato de futuros de tipos de interés Euribor de diciembre de 2023. Reportaje Estimado cliente, La próxima semana publicaremos conjuntamente un Informe Especial, en el que discutiremos las implicaciones para la inversión del actual boom inmobiliario global, con nuestros colegas de la publicación mensual Bank Credit Analyst. Recibirá ese informe el viernes 28 de mayo. Volveremos al calendario semanal habitual de publicaciones el martes 1 de junio. - Rob Robis Gráfico de la semana Un aumento decepcionante de los rendimientos de los bonos europeos Un repunte decepcionante en los rendimientos de los bonos europeos Un repunte decepcionante en los rendimientos de los bonos europeos Para la reunión de política monetaria del próximo mes, la presidenta del Banco Central Europeo (BCE), Christine Lagarde, planea supuestamente invitar a los miembros del Consejo de Gobierno a reunirse en persona por primera vez desde el inicio de la pandemia. Eso añade un subtexto interesante a una reunión que sin duda incluirá un debate sobre cuánta ayuda monetaria sigue siendo necesaria para una Europa cada vez más vacunada que está saliendo de las profundidades del COVID-19. Según las actas de la última reunión del BCE en abril, algunos funcionarios del BCE ya han señalado que los riesgos para el crecimiento económico y las expectativas de inflación ahora estaban “inclinados al alza”. Con la mejora de la confianza económica en Europa, los rendimientos de los bonos europeos han subido en respuesta (Gráfico de la semana). El rendimiento de referencia del bund alemán a 10 años se sitúa ahora en -0.11%, 46 puntos básicos en lo que va de año, aunque la mitad de ese movimiento se ha producido en el último mes. El repunte de los rendimientos no se ha limitado a los países del núcleo como Alemania y Francia: el rendimiento del bono gubernamental italiano a 10 años ha subido hasta el 1.11%, más del doble del nivel con el que empezó 2021 (0.52%). Las expectativas de inflación han aumentado con fuerza, y el swap del IPC a 5 años/5 años a plazo del euro se sitúa ahora en 1.63%, un nivel no visto desde diciembre de 2018. Estos aumentos de los rendimientos han estado rezagados respecto a los grandes movimientos observados en otros países; los rendimientos de los bonos gubernamentales a 10 años en EEUU y Canadá han registrado incrementos en lo que va de año de 72 y 90 puntos básicos, respectivamente. En esos países, los rendimientos se han disparado debido al aumento de las expectativas de inflación y a las preocupaciones por una reducción ("tapering") de las compras de bonos por parte de los bancos centrales, preocupaciones que resultaron ser acertadas en el caso de Canadá, donde el Banco de Canadá anunció, de hecho, un ritmo más lento de compras de bonos el mes pasado. En nuestra opinión, aún es demasiado pronto para que el BCE contemple un cambio hacia una postura de política menos acomodaticia. Este mensaje lo corrobora nuestro Monitor del BCE, que ha subido pero aún no señala la necesidad de una política monetaria más restrictiva. La venta masiva de bonos en Europa parece un caso de "demasiado, demasiado rápido". El BCE ahora tiene mucho que considerar Los datos económicos recientes de la zona del euro no solo han alcanzado la fortaleza anterior visible en EEUU, sino que en algunos casos han vuelto a niveles no vistos en muchos años. El componente de expectativas de la encuesta ZEW alemana se disparó casi 14 puntos en mayo y se encuentra ahora en niveles no vistos desde 2000. El PMI manufacturero de Markit alcanzó un máximo histórico de 62.9 en abril. El índice de confianza del consumidor de la Comisión Europea para la zona del euro está casi de vuelta a los niveles previos a la pandemia (Gráfico 2), lo que augura una recuperación continuada del PMI de servicios de Markit. Las noticias más positivas sobre la pandemia están impulsando el aumento de las expectativas de crecimiento. El ritmo de nuevos casos de COVID-19 ha caído de forma constante, y en Italia —una de las regiones más afectadas durante los primeros meses de la pandemia— se registra ahora la tasa más baja de nuevos casos desde octubre (en base móvil de 7 días). Mientras tanto, el ritmo de las vacunaciones se ha acelerado después de un despliegue inicial lento; el número de dosis diarias administradas (por cada 100 personas) es ahora mayor en Alemania, Francia e Italia que en EEUU (Gráfico 3). Gráfico 2 El crecimiento europeo se está recuperando El crecimiento europeo se está recuperando El crecimiento europeo se está recuperando Gráfico 3 Aceleración de la vacunación en Europa Aceleración de la inoculación en Europa Aceleración de la inoculación en Europa Gráfico 4 ¿Cuánta capacidad ociosa hay en Europa? ¿Cuánta capacidad excedente hay en Europa? ¿Cuánta capacidad excedente hay en Europa? El rápido aumento de las vacunaciones está preparando a Europa para una recuperación sólida de la recesión en forma de doble caída impulsada por los confinamientos en el 4T/2020 y 1T/2021. La Comisión Europea mejoró sus previsiones de crecimiento para la zona del euro la semana pasada, y ahora se espera que el PIB real crezca un 4.3% en 2021 y un 4.4% en 2022, frente a las previsiones anteriores del 3.8% en ambos años. Se espera que todos los países de la zona del euro vuelvan al nivel de producción económica previo a la pandemia para finales de 2022, una cifra potenciada por un aumento de la inversión pública a través del paquete Next Generation EU (NGEU), que se espera comience a desembolsar fondos a finales de este verano. Sin duda el BCE revisará al alza sus propias previsiones en la reunión de junio, tanto para el crecimiento económico como para la inflación. Las perspectivas para esta última probablemente se convertirán en la mayor fuente de debate dentro del Consejo de Gobierno del BCE. A pesar de la recuperación bastante coordinada de los datos de encuestas como los PMI manufactureros, persiste una amplia divergencia en las tasas de desempleo —y en las medidas de capacidad ociosa, en términos generales— dentro de la zona del euro (Gráfico 4). Esto dificultará que el BCE determine si el actual aumento de la inflación realizada, que ha llevado el crecimiento anual de la inflación HICP general hacia el nivel del 2% en muchas naciones de la eurozona, puede persistir cuando países como Italia y España siguen sufriendo un desempleo muy elevado. La amplia dispersión de las tasas de desempleo dentro de la zona del euro también sugiere que el nivel actual de los tipos de política (en o por debajo del 0%) es apropiado. Una métrica simple para medir la “amplitud” de la fortaleza del mercado laboral europeo es observar el porcentaje de países de la zona del euro que tienen una tasa de desempleo por debajo de la estimación de la OCDE del NAIRU.1 Esa métrica se correlaciona bien con una estimación del nivel apropiado de los tipos de interés a corto plazo de la zona del euro generada por una Regla de Taylor básica. Actualmente, solo el 43% de los países de la eurozona superan el pleno empleo, lo que es consistente con un tipo de política del BCE alrededor del 0% (Gráfico 5). Gráfico 5 Los tipos de política cercanos al 0% siguen siendo apropiados Las tasas de política cercanas al 0% siguen siendo apropiadas Las tasas de política cercanas al 0% siguen siendo apropiadas Una parte ligeramente mayor de países (47%) está experimentando una aceleración en el crecimiento salarial (panel inferior). Esto podría significar que algunas de las estimaciones del NAIRU para los países individuales son demasiado bajas, lo que encajaría con la aceleración del crecimiento salarial en toda la zona del euro observada desde 2015. Sin embargo, dado que tantos países de la zona del euro aún están absorbiendo el aumento del desempleo generado por la pandemia, llevará algún tiempo al BCE obtener una lectura lo bastante clara sobre la dinámica del mercado laboral para determinar si deben realizarse ajustes necesarios en la política monetaria. La “amplitud” de las tendencias de los datos no solo se correlaciona con medidas teóricas de tipos de interés como la Regla de Taylor. Las decisiones reales de política del BCE están motivadas por el grado en que un mayor crecimiento y la inflación son evidentes en toda la zona del euro. En el Gráfico 6 mostramos una métrica similar a las medidas de amplitud del mercado laboral del Gráfico 5, pero usando otros datos económicos y de inflación. Específicamente, mostramos el porcentaje de países de la zona del euro que están experimentando: Gráfico 6 El BCE normalmente endurece cuando el crecimiento Y la inflación son generalizados El BCE suele endurecer la política monetaria cuando el crecimiento y la inflación son generalizados. El BCE suele endurecer la política monetaria cuando el crecimiento y la inflación son generalizados. a) Un impulso de crecimiento acelerado, indicado por un indicador económico líder de la OCDE que es superior al nivel de hace un año; b) Un impulso de inflación acelerado, comparando la última lectura de la inflación HICP general con la de hace un año; c) Inflación relativamente alta, medida por la inflación HICP general por encima del objetivo del BCE de “algo por debajo del 2%”. Mirando todos los periodos anteriores de endurecimiento monetario del BCE desde la creación del euro en 1998 —que han tomado la forma de subidas efectivas de los tipos de interés o una tendencia plana o decreciente en el balance del BCE—, queda claro que el BCE no endurece sin que al menos el 75% de los países de la zona del euro experimenten tanto un aceleramiento del crecimiento económico como de la inflación. Las subidas reales de tipos se producen cuando al menos el 75% de los países tenían una inflación por encima del 2%, como ocurrió durante los ciclos alcistas de 2000, 2005-2007 y 2011. Más recientemente, el BCE pausó la expansión de su balance en 2017 cuando el crecimiento y la inflación se aceleraron, pero no realizó ajustes en los tipos de política porque solo el 50% de los países tenían una inflación por encima del 2%. Hoy, esencialmente todos los países de la zona del euro están viendo un impulso de crecimiento en aceleración en comparación con los niveles deprimidos por la pandemia de hace un año. El 59% de la zona del euro está experimentando una inflación más rápida, una cifra que probablemente aumente a medida que más países reabran tras los confinamientos en medio de un aumento de los precios mundiales de las materias primas. Sin embargo, solo el 12% de los países de la zona del euro tienen una inflación general por encima del 2%, lo que sugiere que la inflación realizada aún no es lo bastante fuerte como para desencadenar incluso un ajuste del balance del BCE, basándonos en la experiencia de 2017. No apueste a una reducción del BCE en junio Por tanto, a juzgar por el comportamiento pasado del BCE, un anuncio para reducir las compras de bonos en la reunión de política de junio sería muy prematuro. Un escenario más probable es que una mejora de las previsiones de crecimiento e inflación del BCE provoque una discusión sobre qué hacer con las distintas partes del estímulo monetario del BCE: la flexibilización cuantitativa, los programas de financiación bancaria como los TLTRO, así como los tipos de interés de política. No obstante, será imposible que el Consejo de Gobierno del BCE alcance conclusiones sobre sus próximos pasos en la reunión de junio porque la propia naturaleza del objetivo de inflación del BCE podría cambiar pronto. El BCE está actualmente llevando a cabo una revisión de su estrategia de política monetaria —la primera desde 2003— que tiene previsto completarse a finales de este año. Se espera algún ajuste del objetivo de inflación del BCE para permitir más flexibilidad, pero aún no está claro cómo será ese cambio. ¿Podría el BCE seguir el ejemplo de la Reserva Federal y pasar a un régimen de “objetivo de inflación promedio”, tolerando excesos de la meta de inflación tras periodos de inflación por debajo del objetivo? El economista jefe del BCE, Philip Lane, señaló en marzo que “había una lógica muy sólida” en el nuevo enfoque de la Fed. También dijo que las “historias de inflación muy diferentes” en algunos países europeos pueden dificultar alcanzar un acuerdo sobre cualquier sistema que permita incluso periodos temporales de inflación más alta.2 Más recientemente, el gobernador del Banco de Finlandia, Olli Rehn —un miembro moderado del Consejo de Gobierno que fue considerado candidato a la actual presidencia del BCE— se manifestó a favor de que el BCE cambiara a un objetivo de inflación promedio al estilo de la Fed para Europa en una reciente entrevista con el Financial Times.3 Rehn señaló que un enfoque similar al de la Fed en busca del desempleo máximo “tiene sentido en el contexto actual de una tasa natural de interés más baja.” Rehn continuó describiendo la redacción actual del objetivo de inflación del BCE como que ha “generado una percepción de asimetría” de modo que “el 2 por ciento se percibe como un techo y eso está amortiguando las expectativas de inflación”. Imaginamos que Jens Weidmann, del Bundesbank, se opondría vehementemente a cualquier movimiento para cambiar el objetivo de inflación del BCE para tolerar incluso un periodo temporal de inflación por encima del 2%. La inflación general alemana HICP ya alcanzó el 2.1% en abril, con más aumentos probables a medida que la economía alemana se reabra tras prolongados confinamientos. Sin embargo, incluso si Weidmann no se atrincherara contra cualquier “aflojamiento” del objetivo de inflación del BCE, la inminente conclusión de la revisión de la estrategia del BCE hace muy poco probable que cualquier cambio de política —como una reducción de compras— pueda anunciarse de forma creíble antes de entonces. Si se va a tolerar una inflación más alta, ¿para qué molestarse en reducir compras? Más allá de la revisión de la estrategia de inflación, hay otros factores que podrían pesar en las deliberaciones del BCE sobre el próximo movimiento de política monetaria: Endurecimiento de la política en China: China – el mayor socio comercial de Europa – ha visto que sus responsables políticos comienzan a frenar el crecimiento del crédito y el gasto fiscal, tras permitir un auge del endeudamiento en 2020 para ayudar a impulsar el crecimiento durante la pandemia. Nuestra medida del impulso crediticio en China adelanta la tasa de crecimiento anual de las exportaciones europeas a China por alrededor de nueve meses (Gráfico 7), y está avisando de una desaceleración drástica de las exportaciones en la segunda mitad de este año. Esto representa un riesgo a la baja para el crecimiento de la zona del euro, particularmente en países que exportan más a China como Alemania. Desaceleración del crecimiento de los préstamos: La tasa de crecimiento anual del conjunto de la concesión de crédito bancario en la zona del euro alcanzó un máximo del 12.2% en febrero y ahora ha bajado al 10.9% (Gráfico 8). Gran parte del debilitamiento se ha producido en Alemania y Francia, países que habían registrado una gran utilización de la financiación bancaria subsidiada a través de los TLTRO del BCE. Los incentivos de precios establecidos por el BCE para el último programa de TLTRO fueron muy atractivos, y parece que los bancos alemanes y franceses aprovecharon la financiación barata para aumentar la actividad de préstamo. Esto hace que la interpretación económica de los datos de préstamos bancarios sea más desafiante para el BCE, especialmente con el crecimiento de los préstamos en Italia —y el uso de TLTRO— acelerándose ahora. Gráfico 7 Señales de alarma para la demanda de exportaciones europeas Señales de advertencia para la demanda de exportaciones europeas Señales de advertencia para la demanda de exportaciones europeas Gráfico 8 Los TLTRO del BCE se están centrando en Italia Las LTRO del BCE se están centrando en Italia. Las LTRO del BCE se están centrando en Italia. Gasto del NGEU: Como se mencionó antes, se espera que los desembolsos del NGEU de €750bn (también conocido como “fondo de recuperación”) comiencen a finales de este año, pendiente la aprobación por parte de la UE de las propuestas de inversión de los gobiernos. Los fondos del NGEU están destinados a financiar iniciativas que puedan impulsar el crecimiento económico futuro, como inversiones en programas digitales y verdes. La mayoría de los países de la zona del euro ya han presentado sus propuestas, encabezadas por la solicitud de Italia de €192bn. Gráfico 9 El NGEU dará un gran impulso al crecimiento europeo durante los próximos cinco años Perspectivas del BCE: Caminando sobre cáscaras de huevo Perspectivas del BCE: Caminando sobre cáscaras de huevo Gráfico 10 El impacto del NGEU se concentrará en la primera fase El impacto del NGEU se concentrará al principio. El impacto del NGEU se concentrará al principio. Un estudio reciente de S&P Global concluyó que las inversiones del NGEU podrían aumentar el crecimiento agregado de la zona del euro entre 1.3 y 3.9 puntos porcentuales, de forma acumulada, entre 2021 y 2026 (Gráfico 9).4 Ese mismo estudio también señaló que los impactos del gasto estarán concentrados en los próximos dos años (Gráfico 10). El gobierno italiano cree que la inversión del NGEU podría duplicar la anémica tasa de crecimiento tendencial de Italia hasta el 1.5%. Muchos funcionarios del BCE han señalado que el NGEU es el tipo de estímulo fiscal estructural que hace menos necesario mantener una política monetaria altamente acomodaticia. Sin embargo, hasta que las propuestas del NGEU no se finalicen y las cantidades finales aprobadas no se desembolsen, el BCE no podrá ajustar sus previsiones económicas para tener en cuenta más inversión pública. Dadas todas estas incertidumbres inmediatas, incluida la capacidad de Europa para reabrir con éxito tras los confinamientos por la pandemia, no vemos un escenario plausible en el que el Consejo de Gobierno del BCE pueda concluir en la reunión de política de junio que era necesario un cambio inmediato en las herramientas y la orientación de la política monetaria actual. Conclusión: Los temores de los inversores de que el BCE pueda seguir al Banco de Canadá y al Banco de Inglaterra y comenzar a reducir sus compras de bonos antes de lo esperado – quizás ya en la reunión de política del próximo mes – están fuera de lugar. Probables próximos movimientos del BCE e implicaciones para la inversión Aunque es poco probable un anuncio de reducción en junio por parte del BCE, es bastante posible algún indicio sobre un movimiento futuro. El BCE es conocido por preparar a los mercados con mucha antelación ante cualquier cambio de política, por lo que la declaración oficial tras la reunión de junio —así como la rueda de prensa de la presidenta del BCE, Lagarde— podría contener pistas sobre lo que el BCE hará a continuación. Gráfico 11 La flexibilización del BCE adopta muchas formas La flexibilización del BCE adopta muchas formas La flexibilización del BCE adopta muchas formas Cabe la posibilidad de que en junio se debata qué pasará con el Programa de Compras de Emergencia Pandémica (PEPP), que está previsto que finalice el próximo marzo. Consideramos más probable que el tema se plantee en la reunión de política de septiembre, cuando habrá más claridad sobre el éxito de la reapertura de la economía europea y sobre el tamaño final aprobado de los fondos NGEU, lo que determinará la necesidad de mantener un programa de compras de activos introducido por el shock del COVID-19. Sin duda existen muchas opciones de política entre las que el BCE puede elegir cuando decida reducir la acomodación. Hay varios tipos de interés de política que podrían ajustarse. Aunque es probable que cuando el BCE intente subir los tipos por próxima vez, el primer tipo en moverse sea el tipo de depósito a la noche, que actualmente está en -0.5% y representa el “suelo” para los tipos de interés a corto plazo en Europa (Gráfico 11). Sin embargo, las subidas de tipos no se producirán antes de que se reduzcan o deshagan las herramientas del balance, lo que significa que las compras de activos se reducirán primero. Los participantes del mercado son bien conscientes de ese orden de opciones de política, ya que actualmente en la curva de swaps de tipo overnight europea (OIS) se descuenta una trayectoria muy plana para los tipos de interés a corto plazo. La diferencia entre las tasas a plazo en las curvas OIS y los swaps de IPC puede usarse como un proxy para la valoración a futuro en mercado de las tasas de interés reales. Actualmente, la tasa de política real implícita por el mercado para el BCE se espera que se mantenga entre -2% y -1% durante la próxima década (Gráfico 12). Dicho de otro modo, los mercados están descontando una trayectoria muy plana para los tipos de política del BCE que permanecerán por debajo de la inflación esperada durante los próximos diez años. Aunque la tasa real natural de interés en Europa probablemente sea muy baja dado el bajo crecimiento tendencial, una tasa real tan baja como -2% descuenta muchas malas noticias estructurales para la economía europea. En comparación, la última estimación del NY Fed de la tasa real natural (r-star) para Europa —calculada en el 2T/2020 antes de que la volatilidad económica en torno a la pandemia hiciera la estimación de r-star menos fiable— fue positiva en +0.6%. La prolongada trayectoria de expectativas de tasas reales negativas en Europa explica en gran medida la persistencia de rendimientos reales negativos en la curva de rendimiento de referencia del gobierno alemán. En pocas palabras, hay poca creencia de que el BCE alguna vez pueda articular un ciclo de subidas de tipos completo —un resultado con el que los inversores de renta fija japoneses están muy familiarizados. Dada la preocupación constante del BCE por el nivel del euro y su papel en el impacto sobre el crecimiento y las expectativas de inflación europeas, los mercados tienen razón al pensar que será difícil para el BCE subir los tipos mucho sin provocar una apreciación no deseada de la divisa. No es coincidencia que el euro haya estado consistentemente infravalorado en términos de paridad de poder adquisitivo (PPP) desde que el BCE pasó a una política de tipos de interés negativos en 2014 (Gráfico 13). Gráfico 12 Los mercados esperan tasas reales negativas en Europa durante la próxima década Los mercados esperan tasas reales europeas negativas durante la próxima década Los mercados esperan tasas reales europeas negativas durante la próxima década De cara al futuro, el BCE deberá ser prudente al señalizar cualquier cambio en la política monetaria, incluida una reducción de compras, que obligue a los mercados a revisar al alza la trayectoria futura de los tipos de interés europeos y dé un fuerte impulso al euro. Gráfico 13 Los bajos tipos del BCE mantienen al euro infravalorado Bajas tasas del BCE mantienen al euro infravalorado Bajas tasas del BCE mantienen al euro infravalorado Eso significa que los rendimientos reales de los bonos europeos probablemente seguirán profundamente negativos durante al menos la segunda mitad de 2021, con cualquier aumento adicional del rendimiento nominal procedente de mayores expectativas de inflación (Gráfico 14). Esto limitará cuánto más pueden subir los rendimientos de los bonos europeos desde los niveles actuales. Gráfico 14 Resumen de la estrategia de bonos europeos Resumen de la estrategia de bonos europeos Resumen de la estrategia de bonos europeos Seguimos creyendo que los rendimientos de los bonos del núcleo europeo se comportarán con una “beta de bajo rendimiento” respecto a los rendimientos del Tesoro estadounidense durante al menos la segunda mitad de 2021 y probablemente hasta 2022, cuando esperamos que la Fed comience a reducir sus compras de bonos. Por tanto, mantenemos nuestra recomendación estratégica de sobreponderar los bonos gubernamentales del núcleo europeo frente a los bonos del Tesoro de EEUU en las carteras globales de bonos. Simplemente vemos mayores probabilidades de que se produzca una reducción en EEUU que en Europa, y que la Fed sea más propensa a ejecutar posteriores subidas de tipos tras la reducción que el BCE. Seguimos recomendando una postura de duración moderadamente por debajo del índice de referencia dentro de carteras dedicadas de bonos europeos, aunque si el rendimiento del bund alemán a 10 años sube significativamente a territorio positivo, probablemente consideraríamos aumentar nuestra exposición de duración europea sugerida. También mantenemos nuestra sobreponderación recomendada en bonos europeos ligados a la inflación, ya que los diferenciales breakeven en Alemania, Francia e Italia son los únicos que permanecen por debajo de su valor justo en nuestra suite de modelos de valoración globales. En crédito europeo, seguimos recomendando sobreponderar productos con spread frente a bonos soberanos. Esto incluye bonos gubernamentales italianos y españoles, así como deuda corporativa tanto investment grade como high yield. El momento de volverse más bajista en esos mercados será cuando el BCE comience a reducir sus compras de activos, ya que los spreads de crédito tienden a ensancharse durante los periodos en que el crecimiento del balance del BCE se está desacelerando (Gráfico 15). Esperamos que cuando el BCE finalmente decida reducir compras, la cifra neta de TLTROs probablemente se mantenga cerca de los niveles actuales (introduciendo nuevos TLTROs para reemplazar a los que expiran). Esto garantizará que los costes de financiación en los países más frágiles, como Italia, no se disparen por el doble efecto de la reducción de la compra de bonos italianos por parte del BCE y el acceso disminuido a la financiación bancaria barata del BCE. Una última nota – estamos introduciendo una nueva operación en nuestra cartera Tactical Overlay en la página 19 esta semana, como forma de contrarrestar la valoración del mercado de un BCE más agresivo. Una subida de 10 puntos básicos – el tamaño más probable de cualquier primer intento del BCE por subir los tipos – ya está descontada en la curva OIS alrededor de mediados de 2023. Para finales de 2023, casi 25 puntos básicos de subidas están descontados en las curvas de tipos a plazo. No esperamos que el BCE suba los tipos en 2023, pero incluso si se incrementaran, es improbable que se entreguen 25 puntos básicos acumulados en seis meses. Por tanto, recomendamos abrir una posición larga en el contrato de futuros Euribor a 3 meses de diciembre de 2023 a un precio de entrada de 100.27 (Gráfico 16). Gráfico 15 La reducción del BCE sería mala noticia para el crédito europeo El tapering del BCE sería una mala noticia para el crédito europeo El tapering del BCE sería una mala noticia para el crédito europeo Gráfico 16 Tomar posición larga en futuros Euribor dic/2023 Comprar futuros Euribor dic/2023 Comprar futuros Euribor dic/2023 Conclusión: Lo último que desea ver el BCE es el repunte del euro y de los rendimientos de los bonos italianos que seguramente seguiría a cualquier movimiento para comenzar de forma preventiva a reducir la acomodación monetaria en respuesta a un crecimiento y una inflación europeos más rápidos. Mantenemos nuestras recomendaciones actuales sobre bonos europeos: sobreponderar Europa dentro de las carteras globales de renta fija - favoreciendo a los soberanos y corporativos periféricos frente a la deuda gubernamental de los países del núcleo - y, además, sobreponderar los bonos ligados a la inflación en Francia, Italia y Alemania, donde los breakevens están infravalorados.   Robert Robis, CFA Jefe de Estrategia de Renta Fija rrobis@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 NAIRU es un acrónimo de la expresión inglesa "Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment" (tasa de desempleo que no acelera la inflación). 2 Los comentarios de Lane proceden de una entrevista de amplio alcance con el Financial Times publicada el 16 de marzo de 2021, que puede consultarse aquí: https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 Los comentarios de Rehn se publicaron a principios de este mes, el 9 de mayo, y pueden consultarse aquí: https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 El informe de S&P Global, titulado “Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear”, puede consultarse aquí: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 Recomendaciones La cartera recomendada por GFIS frente al índice de referencia personalizado Perspectiva del BCE: Caminando sobre cáscaras de huevo Perspectiva del BCE: Caminando sobre cáscaras de huevo Duración Asignación regional Producto de spread Operaciones tácticas Rendimientos y rentabilidades Rendimientos de bonos globales Rentabilidades históricas

Informe especial

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 19 at 10:00 AM EDT, 3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 11:00 PM HKT). 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

Highlights The US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. On a multi-year horizon, a deflationary shock is a near-certainty. The shock will be deflationary, because even if it starts inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields resulting from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Hence, the US 30-year bond will ultimately deliver an absolute return approaching 100 percent, in absolute terms… …and relative to core European and Japanese bonds. Fractal trade shortlist: Stocks to consolidate versus bonds; Commodities look dangerously frothy; Buy USD/CAD. Feature Chart of The WeekThe Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks Ten years ago, 30-year bond yields in the US, UK and Germany stood at near-identical levels, around 3 percent. Today though, those yields are widely dispersed: the US at 2.3 percent, the UK at 1.3 percent, and Germany at 0.3 percent. What happened? In 2012, the German bond yield decoupled from the UK and the US, because the deflationary shock from the euro debt crisis was focussed in the euro area. Then, in 2016, the UK bond yield decoupled from the US, because the deflationary shock from Brexit was focussed in the UK and EU27 (Chart Of The Week). The ‘Shock Theory’ Of Bond Yields Welcome to a new concept – the ‘shock theory’ of bond yields. According to this theory, the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that the economy has suffered. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level until it can go no lower (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Since 2011, US, UK and German bond yields have decoupled because the US has suffered the legacies of one fewer deflationary shock than the UK, and two fewer deflationary shocks than Germany. But the important corollary is that the US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. When that deflationary shock arrives and the US 30-year bond yield reaches the recent low achieved in the UK, it will equate to a price gain of over 50 percent. And if the yield reaches the recent low achieved in Germany, it will equate to a price gain of well over 100 percent. Many people say that such gains are impossible. Yet ten years ago these same people were saying that UK and German long-duration bonds could never reach near-zero yields, and look what happened! Our high-conviction view is that the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. The simple reason is that another deflationary shock is just a matter of time away. Long-Term Investors Must Always Plan For A Shock Most strategists and investors claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable, and therefore that you cannot plan for them. We disagree. Yes, the timing and nature of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. What constitutes a shock? There is no established definition, so our definition is any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 25 percent.1 (Chart I-3) Using this definition through the last 50 years, we can say that the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the statistical distribution of the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-3A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years It follows that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-4). And even in any five-year period, the likelihood of a shock is an extremely high 81 percent. Chart I-4On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty For many people, this creates a cognitive dissonance. Even though a shock is a near-certainty, they cannot visualise its exact nature or timing, so they resist planning for it. Yet long-term investors must always plan for shocks. Not to do so is unforgiveable. An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock The crucial question is, will the next shock be deflationary, or inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if the shock starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields that would come from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. The 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. As prices doubled almost everywhere, the value of global real estate surged by $150 trillion (Chart I-5), of which $75 trillion was due to the valuation uplift from lower bond yields (Chart I-6). To put this into context, lower bond yields have boosted the value of global real estate by the equivalent of world GDP! Chart I-5In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Surged By $150 Trillion… Chart I-6…Of Which $75 Trillion Was Due To Lower Bond Yields Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock is much lower than during price stability. For example, for equities in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But in the inflation shock of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed How much can bond yields rise before undermining the value of global real estate? Over the past decade the global rental yield has not been able to deviate from the global long-duration bond yield by more than 100 bps.2 Given that the bond yield is already around 25 bps above the rental yield, we deduce that the long-duration bond yield can rise by no more than 75 bps before global real estate prices start getting hurt (Chart I-8).  Chart I-8The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt To repeat our key structural recommendation, the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week we note that the rally in stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) is likely to consolidate in the coming months – given the fragility in the 260-day fractal structure similar to previous turning points in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months We also repeat our warning to steer clear of commodities. The rally in all commodities is becoming dangerously frothy, displaying the extremes of fractal fragility seen in 2008. (Chart I-10and Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... Chart I-11...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 A good trade right now is to short the Canadian dollar. Based on the loonie’s composite fractal structure, a lot of good news is already priced in, including the dangerously frothy commodity markets and the Bank of Canada’s (hawkish) taper of asset purchases. As such we expect the Canadian dollar to reverse in the coming months (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short The Canadian Dollar Go long USD/CAD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 Here, the global long-duration bond yield is defined as the average of the 30-year yields in the US and China. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Global Tapering: The Bank of England has joined the Bank of Canada as central banks tapering the pace of bond buying. Markets are now trying to sort out who is next and concluding that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. US Treasury Curve: We are adding a new recommended US butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell using US Treasury futures. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Feature Heading into 2021, one of our key investment themes for the year was that no major central bank would shift to a less dovish monetary policy stance before the Fed. Not even five months into the year, our theme has already been proven incorrect. Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) announced a slower pace of its asset purchases, following a similar tapering decision by the Bank of Canada (BoC) last month. Chart of the WeekUS Jobs Recovery Lagging, Despite Vaccine Success We had assumed that no central bank could tolerate the currency strength that would inevitably occur by tapering ahead of the Fed. That was clearly not the case in Canada, and the Canadian dollar has already appreciated 4.6% versus the greenback since the BoC taper announcement April 21. The British pound also rallied solidly against both the US dollar and euro immediately after the BoE taper announcement last week. Markets are beginning to speculate on future taper candidates, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), with the New Zealand dollar being one of the strongest currencies in the G10 versus the US dollar since the end of March (+4.4%). Investors had been debating the possibility that the Fed could begin tapering sometime in the second half of 2020, largely based on what has to date been a successful US vaccination campaign. Yet while that led to optimism that the US economy can quickly reopen and return to normal, the fact remains that the recovery in US employment from the COVID shock has lagged other major economies (Chart of the Week). The big downside miss on the April US payrolls report highlights how the Fed can be patient before joining the tapering club. US Treasury yields are likely to continue trading sideways, and the US dollar will trade soft, until markets can sort out the true state of US labor demand versus supply. Which Central Bank Could Follow The BoC And BoE? Back in March, we published a report that discussed what we called the “pecking order of global liftoff”.1 We looked at how interest rate markets were pricing in an increasingly diverse path out of the coordinated global monetary easing enacted last year during the COVID recession (Chart 2). We looked at both the timing of “liftoff” (the first rate hike) and the pace of hikes afterward to the end of 2024. We then ranked the countries by the market-implied timing of liftoff. Chart 2Sorting Out The Relative Hawks & Doves Among Global CBs At the time, overnight index swap (OIS) curves were discounting the earliest liftoff from the RBNZ (June 2022) and BoC (August 2022). The Fed was expected to hike in January 2023, followed by the BoE in June 2023 and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in July 2023. The European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) were the laggards, with no rate hiked discounted until September 2023 and February 2025, respectively. In terms of the pace of rate hikes after liftoff through 2024, our list was broken into two groups. The more aggressive central banks were expected to be the BoC (+175bps), RBA (+156bps), RBNZ (+140bps) and the Fed (+139bps). Much smaller amounts of rate hikes were anticipated from the BoE (+63bps), ECB (+25bps) and BoJ (+9bps). In the two months since our March report, the market timing of liftoff, and the pace of subsequent hikes, has shifted for all those countries (Table 1). The BoC is now expected to move in September 2022, ahead of the RBNZ (October 2022). In 2023, the Fed is now priced for liftoff in March 2023, followed by the BoE and RBA (both in July 2023). The ECB liftoff date is little changed (now August 2023), while the market has dramatically pushed out the timing of any BoJ hike (now November 2025). The cumulative rate hikes through 2024 are moderately lower for all countries except Australia (a reduction in total tightening of 56bps). Table 1The Fed Is Sliding Down The “Pecking Order Of Liftoff” List What is interesting about these changes is that the market has pulled forward the timing of liftoff for the BoE and RBA, while pushing it out for the BoC, RBNZ, BoJ and, most importantly, the Fed. The Fed is now drifting down the “pecking order” for liftoff, expected to lift rates only a couple of months before the BoE or RBA. This is a major change from previous monetary policy cycles, when the Fed would typically be a first mover when it comes to tightening policy. Chart 3The Momentum Of Global QE Has Already Been Slowing While the BoC and BoE decisions to taper quantitative easing (QE) have garnered the headlines, the pace of global central bank balance sheet expansion had already peaked at the start of 2021 (Chart 3). The pace has slowed most dramatically in Canada and the US, but this was a result of certain emergency programs expiring – most notably the Fed’s corporate bond buying vehicles late last year and the BoC’s short-term repo facilities more recently. Greater financial market stability was the reason cited to end those programs, while still leaving government bond QE buying in place unchanged. The year-over-year pace of global QE was set to slow, simply from less favorable comparisons to 2020 after the surge in central bank balance sheet expansion last year. Yet now we are starting to see actual tapering of government bond purchases from some central banks. Is such “early tightening” warranted? Back in that same March report where we discussed the order of global liftoff, we gave our assessment of the most important factors that could drive central banks to consider a shift to a less dovish stance (like tapering). For the BoC, we cited booming house prices and robust business confidence as reasons the BoC could turn less dovish sooner (Chart 4). For the BoE, we noted a sharper-than-expected recovery in domestic investment and consumer spending, as the locked-down UK economy reopens, as reasons why the BoE could begin to tweak its policy settings. For both central banks, all those indicators were mentioned as factors leading to their decision to taper. For the Fed, we determined that rising inflation expectations and increasing labor market tightness would both be required for the Fed to turn less dovish. Only inflation expectations have reached that goal, with the US Employment/Population ratio still well below the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 5). For the RBA, we looked solely at realized inflation measures, as the RBA has explicitly noted that Australian wage growth must rise sustainably towards 3% - nearly double current levels - before realized CPI inflation could return to the 2-3% target range. For both the Fed and RBA, the necessary conditions for a change in current policy settings have not yet been met. Chart 4What The More Hawkish CBs Are Watching Chart 5What The More Dovish CBs Are Watching For the ECB, we noted that realized inflation (and the ECB’s inflation forecasts), along with the Italy-Germany government bond spread as a measure of financial conditions, were the most important indicators to watch before the ECB could consider any move to taper its QE programs (Chart 6). Italian spreads have widened a bit in recent months, while the latest set of ECB economic forecasts still call for headline euro area inflation to remain well south of the 2% target out to 2023. For the BoJ, we simply cited a rise in realized inflation as the only possible development that could lead to a BoJ taper. The BoJ now forecasts that Japanese inflation will not reach the 2% central bank target until at least 2024. So for both the ECB and BoJ, the conditions do not warrant any imminent tapering of bond buying. Chart 6What The Most Dovish CBs Are Watching As another way to determine who could taper next, we turn to our Central Bank Monitors, which are designed to measure the pressure on policymakers to ease or tighten monetary setting. All the Monitors have responded to the recovery in global growth and inflation, along with the easing of financial conditions implied by booming markets, over the past year. Yet only the RBA Monitor is calling for tightening (Chart 7), indicating that the RBA’s current focus on only wages and realized inflation is a departure from their behavior in the past. The Fed and BoE Monitors have risen to the zero line, suggesting no further pressure to ease policy but no tightening is needed either. The ECB, BoJ and RBNZ Monitors are all close, but just below, the zero line, suggesting diminishing need for more monetary stimulus (Chart 8). Chart 7Bond Yields Have Moved Ahead Of Our CB Monitors Chart 8Yields Overshooting Tightening Pressures Here Too Based on our assessment of the above indicators, we judge the RBNZ to be the next central bank most likely to taper, sometime in the 2nd half of 2021. We still see the Fed starting to signal tapering later this year, but with actual slowing of US Treasury (and Agency MBS) purchases not occurring until early 2022. The year-over-year momentum of bond yields correlates strongly with the Central Bank Monitors. The rise in global bond yields seen over the past year has exceeded the pace implied by the Monitors. This is unsurprising given how rapidly the global economy has recovered from pandemic-fueled recession in 2020. Supply chain disruptions and surging commodity prices have also given a lift to bond yields via rising inflation expectations, even as central banks have promised to keep rates on hold for at least the next couple of years. Yet purely from a monetary policy perspective, the surge in global bond yields looks to have gone a bit too far, too fast. Bottom Line: Markets are now trying to sort out who will taper next after the BoC and BoE, and have concluded that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. Bond yields in other developed markets appear to have overshot economic momentum, and a period of consolidation is needed before yields can begin moving higher again. US Treasury Curve: How Much Steepening Left? Chart 9A Pause In The UST Bear-Steepening Trend For most of the past year, the primary trend in the US Treasury curve has been one of bear steepening. Longer maturity yields have borne the brunt of the upward pressure stemming from the rapid recovery in US (and global) economic growth from the depths of the 2020 COVID-19 recession. In recent weeks, however, the surge in longer-maturity Treasury yields has stalled, as have the immediate steepening pressures (Chart 9). Purely from a fundamental economic perspective, a steepening Treasury curve is an expected result of the reflationary mix of growth, inflation and monetary policy currently at work in the US. For example, since the 2020 lows, 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from the TIPS market have risen 143bps while the ISM manufacturing index surged from a low of 41 to a high of 65 in March of this year (Chart 10). Combine that with the Fed cutting rates to 0% last year, while promising to keep rates unchanged through 2023 and reinforcing that commitment through QE, and it is no surprise to see a steeper US Treasury curve. Chart 10UST Curve Steepening Has Been Driven By Reflation Yet even despite these obvious steepening pressures, the pace of the Treasury curve steepening does seem to be a bit rapid compared to history. In Chart 11, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis, comparing the slope of various US Treasury curve segments (2-year versus 5-year, 5-year versus 10-year, 10-year versus 30-year) to the average of the previous five US business cycles, dating back to the 1970s. The curves are lined up to the start date of the previous recession, with the vertical line in the chart representing that date. Thus, this chart allows us to see how the Treasury curve evolved heading into, and coming out of, economic downturns. Chart 11 shows that the current 2-year/5-year curve, with a steepness of 63bps, is in line with past steepening moves coming out of recession. For the curve segments at longer maturities, the pace of steepening has been much more rapid than in the past. In fact, the current 5-year/10-year slope of 82bps is already above the average past peak level, as is the 10-year/30-year curve of 72bps. If we do the same cycle-on-cycle analysis for the three previous US recessions dating back to 1990, the current curve slopes are more in line with levels seen one year into the economic expansion (Chart 12). During those previous cycles, the curve steepening trend ended around two years into the expansion. This suggests that the current curve steepening could continue into 2022, except for one major difference – the Fed cut rates to 0% very rapidly last year, far faster than in the previous easing cycles. This suggests that additional curve steepening from current levels can only occur through a surge in US inflation. Chart 11Current UST Steepening Has Moved Fast Compared To Past Cycles Chart 12Can More UST Curve Steepening Occur With A 0% Funds Rate? The slope of the Treasury curve is typically correlated to the level of the nominal fed funds rate, but is even more strongly correlated to the funds rate minus actual inflation, or the real fed funds rate. When the real funds rate is below the natural real rate of interest, a.k.a. r-star, the Treasury curve has historically exhibited its strongest steepening trend. That can be seen in Chart 13, where we show the real fed funds rate (adjusted by US core CPI inflation) compared to the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star. The gap between the two series is shown in the bottom panel, correlating very strongly to the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve slope. Chart 13Curve Steepening Results When Real Rates Are Below R* With the nominal funds rate at zero, that gap between r-star and the real fed funds rate can only widen in a fashion that would support more curve steepening if a) realized US inflation moves higher or b) r-star moves higher. Both outcomes are possible as the US economic recovery, fueled by expanding vaccinations and fiscal stimulus. Both real rates and r-star are much lower in the current cycle than in previous economic recoveries, although the r-star/real funds rate gap appears to be following a more typical path that suggests potential additional steepening pressure (Chart 14). The wild card in this analysis is the Fed itself. If US economic growth and inflation evolve in way that makes it more likely the Fed would have to begin tapering QE and, eventually, signal future rate hikes, the Treasury curve may shift to a more typical bear-flattening trend seen during tightening cycles. We saw an example of that after the release of the March US employment report, where over a million jobs were created in a single month, causing 5-year Treasury yields to jump higher than longer-maturity Treasuries (i.e. curve flattening). Looking ahead, it appears that the US yield curve is more likely to slowly transition to a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime than continue the bear-steepening/bull-flattening: trend of the past twelve months. One way to position for this is to enter into butterfly curve trades that offer attractive carry or valuation. For that, we turn to our Treasury curve valuation models. We have been recommending a Treasury yield curve trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19, going long a 7-year bullet versus going short a 5-year/10-year barbell (Chart 15). This barbell is now very cheap on our models, which measure value by regressing the butterfly spread on the underlying slope of the curve. In this case, the spread between the 5/7/10 butterfly is unusually wide compared to the slope of the 5/10 Treasury curve. According to our model, this butterfly spread discounts nearly 100bps of additional 5/10 steepening, an excessive amount compared to past cycles. Chart 14R* - Real Funds Rate Gap Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Chart 15Maintain Our Current 5/7/10 UST Butterfly Trade While the valuation is attractive on the 5/7/10 butterfly (Table 2), the carry on this position is a modest 12bps. A butterfly with more attractive carry is the 2/5/30 butterfly. Table 2US Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 3US Butterfly Strategies: Carry Chart 16Enter A New 2/5/30 UST Butterfly Trade This butterfly has a neutral valuation (Chart 16) on our model, but offers 35bps of carry - the most attractive among all butterflies involving a 5-year bullet (Table 3). With US Treasury yields, and the Treasury curve slope, likely to remain rangebound for the next few months, going for higher carry trades is an attractive strategy – particularly if used in conjunction with a below-benchmark duration stance, which we still advocate. The 2/5/30 butterfly represents an attractive near-term hedge to that more defensive duration posture. Bottom Line: We are adding a new recommended US Treasury butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", dated March 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Despite last month’s weak employment growth, we continue to expect the economy to reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Yield Curve: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. April Payrolls Shock The Bond Market In the current environment, there is probably nothing more important for US bond investors than keeping a close eye on the monthly employment data. The Federal Reserve has made the first rate hike contingent on a return to “maximum employment”, and bond yield fluctuations reflect the market’s changing assessment of the timing and pace of future Fed rate hikes. Chart 1A Big Miss On Payrolls With that in mind, investors got a shock last Friday when April’s employment report disappointed expectations by one of the widest margins ever. The economy added only 266 thousand jobs to nonfarm payrolls in April while the Bloomberg consensus estimate was calling for 1 million! At present, the market is looking for Fed liftoff in February 2023 (Chart 2). We calculate that monthly employment growth must average at least 412 thousand for the Fed to reach its maximum employment goal by the end of 2022, in time to lift rates in early-2023 (Chart 1 on page 1). Average monthly employment growth of at least 698 thousand is required to hit the Fed’s maximum employment target by the end of this year.1   Chart 2Market Priced For Liftoff In February 2023 The last section of this report (titled “Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report”) explores possible reasons for the weaker-than-expected employment data and concludes that payroll growth will be stronger in the second half of this year. We continue to expect that the economy will reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, and as such, we advise bond investors to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Peak Inflation Last week, we downgraded our allocation to TIPS from overweight to neutral and closed two yield curve positions – an inflation curve flattener and a real yield curve steepener – that had been in place since April 2020.2 We made these moves for two reasons: There is a good chance that realized inflation won’t match the aggressive expectations that are already discounted in the front-end of the inflation curve. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now consistent with the Fed’s target. In other words, they can’t rise much further without the Fed acting to bring them back down. On the first point, we continue to expect that inflation will be relatively strong between now and the end of the year, but the market has already more than priced-in this outcome. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 3.18% and the 2-year CPI swap rate sits at 2.99% (Chart 3). Even if we assume that core CPI increases by a robust +0.2% per month going forward, that will only cause 12-month core CPI inflation to reach 2.29% by the end of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3An Inflation Snapback Is Priced In Chart 4Inflation In 2021 Chart 5TIPS Are Very Expensive To further that point, this week we unveil our new TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator (Chart 5). The indicator is based on the theory of adaptive expectations – the theory that inflation expectations are formed based on recent trends in the actual inflation data. In essence, the indicator compares the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to different measures of inflation and determines whether 10-year TIPS are currently cheap or expensive relative to 10-year nominal bonds. A negative reading indicates that TIPS are expensive, while a positive reading suggests that TIPS are cheap. At present, the indicator sits at -0.88. Historically, when TIPS are this expensive on our indicator there are strong odds that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will fall during the next 12 months (Table 1). Table 1TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator Track Record On the second point, we have often noted that a range of 2.3% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakevens (levels seen during the mid-2000s) is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates haven’t spent much time near those levels during the past decade, but that is starting to change. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate recently shot up to 2.52%, above the top-end of our target band, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits near the low-end of the range at 2.34% (Chart 6). Even Fed Chair Powell acknowledged that TIPS breakeven rates are “pretty close to mandate consistent” in the press conference that followed the April FOMC meeting.3 This is not to say that we expect the Fed to pivot quickly towards tightening. However, once the economy reaches maximum employment and the Fed starts to lift rates, the pace of rate hikes will be much quicker if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are threatening to break above 2.5%. This puts a long-run ceiling on TIPS breakevens, one that we are quickly approaching. As for our inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions, neither makes sense unless TIPS breakeven rates continue to rise (Chart 7). Chart 6Long-Maturity Breakevens Are At Target Chart 7Exit Inflation Curve Flattener And Real Yield Curve Steepener   The cost of inflation compensation is much more volatile at the front-end of the curve than at the long end, which means that the inflation curve tends to flatten when breakevens rise and steepen when they fall. In other words, the inflation curve will not flatten further unless breakevens move higher. While we don’t see room for further inflation curve flattening, we also think that the curve will remain inverted. With the Fed targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the Fed’s stated goals than a positively sloped one. As for the real yield curve, it’s easiest to think of a real yield curve steepener as the combination of a nominal curve steepener and an inflation curve flattener. If the inflation curve holds steady, then there is no difference between a real yield curve steepener and a nominal yield curve steepener. On that note, the next section of this report discusses why the case for a nominal yield curve steepener is also starting to break down. Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Nominal Treasury Curve: Pick Up Carry In Bullets The average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index troughed on August 4th 2020 and rose by 92 basis points until it peaked on April 2nd. The Treasury curve steepened dramatically during that period, with increases in the 10-year and 30-year yields far outpacing the rise in the 5-year yield (Table 2). Table 2Treasury Yield Changes Since The August 2020 Trough But the shape of the yield curve has behaved differently since yields peaked on April 2nd. The average index yield is down 11 bps since then, but the decline has been led by the 5-year while the 10-year and 30-year yields have been relatively sticky. We view this as evidence that, as we edge closer to an eventual rate hike cycle, the yield curve is entering a new regime. This is a natural progression. When rate hikes are only expected to occur far into the future, there will be very little volatility at the front-end of the curve and the yield curve will tend to steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. But over time, as we get closer to expected rate hikes, volatility will shift toward shorter and shorter maturities. This will eventually cause the yield curve to flatten when yields rise and steepen when they fall. Chart 8Buy 5-Year Versus 2/30 While there is still very little volatility in 1-3 year yields, it looks like the curve beyond the 5-year maturity point has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. That is, when yields rise we should expect the 5/30 slope to flatten and when yields fall we should expect the 5/30 slope to steepen. Indeed, we see that a gap has recently opened up between the trends in the 5/30 slope and the Treasury index yield, while the 2/5 slope remains tightly correlated with the level of yields (Chart 8). The big implication of this regime shift is that we should no longer expect our current recommended yield curve position, long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, to perform well in a rising yield environment. To profit from rising yields, investors would be better off positioning for a flatter 5/30 curve by going short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. However, this is not the strategy we’d recommend for investors who are already running below-benchmark portfolio duration and are thus already exposed to rising yields. The reason is that while we think the market’s current expected fed funds rate path is slightly too dovish, it is not that far from a reasonable forecast. Put differently, we see bond yields as biased higher but the near-term upside could be limited. For this reason, and since we are already exposed to higher yields through our portfolio duration call, we prefer to enter a yield curve position that will profit from an environment of stable yields. That is, a carry trade that offers a large amount of yield pick-up. The best trade in that regard is a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell (Chart 8, bottom panel). This position offers a positive yield pick-up of 31 bps, a nice cushion against the risk of capital losses from further 2/30 steepening. Bottom Line: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report Given the well-founded optimism about the pace of US economic recovery (real GDP grew 6.4% in the first quarter after all) it was very surprising that only 266 thousand jobs were added in April. One possible reason for the weak job growth is that a lack of labor supply is holding it back. We explored this issue in a recent report and concluded that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim.4 While it is a bad idea to read too much into any single datapoint, we think it’s likely that the labor shortage played a significant role in April’s poor employment number. At first blush, the industry breakdown of April’s employment report appears to refute the labor shortage narrative. For example, the Leisure & Hospitality sector added 331 thousand jobs on the month, by far the most of all the industry groups (Table 3). This is interesting because the Leisure & Hospitality sector – primarily restaurants and bars – is a close-contact service industry with low average wages, the exact sort of industry where we would expect to see evidence of a labor shortage. Table 3Employment By Industry But we don’t think strong Leisure & Hospitality job growth refutes the labor shortage narrative. For one thing, while +331k is a lot of new jobs in a single month, it could have been a lot more. The third column of Table 3 shows that the Leisure & Hospitality industry is still 2.8 million jobs short of where it was prior to COVID. Further, other indicators within the Leisure & Hospitality sector clearly point toward a lack of labor supply. The Job Openings Rate is much higher in the Leisure & Hospitality sector than in the economy as a whole (Chart 9) and Leisure & Hospitality wages have grown much more quickly during the past few months (Chart 9, bottom panel). It seems highly likely that Leisure & Hospitality job growth would be stronger if not for supply side constraints. More generally, economy-wide measures of labor demand have recovered much more quickly than the actual employment data (Chart 10). The job openings rate and the NFIB Jobs Hard To Fill survey have both surpassed their pre-COVID peaks, and more households describe jobs as “plentiful” than as “hard to get”. The one outlier is the unemployment rate which, after controlling for furloughed workers, has barely budged off its peak (Chart 10, bottom panel). This points strongly to labor supply being the limiting factor, not demand. Chart 9Leisure & Hospitality Wages Are Accelerating Chart 10Evidence Of A Labor Shortage   Bottom Line: There is a lot of evidence that a lack of labor supply is holding back job growth. However, we expect that supply constraints will be cleared up relatively soon as widespread vaccination makes people more comfortable re-entering the labor force, and as expanded unemployment benefits lapse. We expect that job growth will be much stronger in the second half of 2021 and into 2022.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We define maximum employment as an unemployment rate of 4.5% and a labor force participation rate equal to its pre-COVID level of 63.3%. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20210428.p… 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Pressures Building As expected, base effects kicked in and pushed 12-month core PCE inflation from 1.37% to 1.83% in March. But a favorable comparison to last year’s depressed price level only explains part of inflation’s jump. Core PCE also rose at an annualized monthly rate of 4.4% in March, one of the highest readings seen during the past few years (Chart 1). Jerome Powell spoke about the Fed’s view of inflation at last week’s FOMC press conference and he reiterated that the Fed views current upward price pressures as transitory, the result of both base effects and temporary bottlenecks resulting from an economic re-opening where demand recovers more quickly than supply. Powell’s message is that the Fed won’t lift rates until the labor market returns to “maximum employment” and it won’t start tapering asset purchases until it sees “substantial further progress” toward that goal. Our view remains that the Fed will see enough improvement in the labor market to start tapering asset purchases in late-2021 or early-2022. It will also begin lifting rates before the end of 2022. As a result, we continue to recommend below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 149 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.26% – almost, but not quite, equal to the lower-end of the 2.3% - 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready to turn monetary policy more restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is down to its 1st percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 1% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have only been more expensive 2% of the time (panel 3). We don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, but we see better opportunities outside of the investment grade corporate space. Specifically, we advise investors to favor both tax-exempt and taxable municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 9). We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 8). Finally, the supportive macro environment means we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors to pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates (see page 6). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +335 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.1 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (aka pre-tax profits over debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s debt binge will be followed by relatively weak corporate debt growth in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 5 bps in April. This spread remains wide compared to levels seen during the past few years, but it is still tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 11 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds, the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 24 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, the value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at recent MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.2 We noted that high coupon MBS have delivered strong excess returns versus Treasuries since bond yields troughed last August, while low coupon MBS have lagged (panel 4). This divergence occurred because the higher coupon securities are less negatively convex and thus their durations didn’t extend as much during the back-up in yields. Looking ahead, we recommend favoring 4% and 4.5% coupons and avoiding 2%, 2.5% and 3% coupons. The higher OAS and less negative convexity of those higher coupon securities will cause them to outperform in an environment of flat or rising bond yields. Lower coupon MBS only look poised to outperform in an environment of falling bond yields, which is not our base case. Chart 4MBS Market Overview Government-Related: Neutral The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 19 bps in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 41 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +329 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.3 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +308 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at recent municipal bond performance and valuation in last week’s report and came to the following conclusions.4 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently passed American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. Though these increases may not pass before the 2022 midterm, the threat of higher tax rates could increase interest in municipal bonds. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down the quality spectrum to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates, while GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage versus investment grade corporates (panel 3), one that investors should take advantage of. Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering investors a breakeven tax rate of 19% (panel 4). Despite the attractive spread, we only recommend a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates since high-yield munis’ deep negative convexity makes the sector prone to extension risk if bond yields should rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in April, even as the economic data continued to surprise on the upside. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 9 bps to end the month at 149 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps (Chart 7). As we showed in a recent report, the Treasury curve continues to trade directionally with yields out to the 10-year maturity point.5 Beyond 10 years, the curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime where higher yields coincide with a flatter curve and vice-versa (bottom panel). For now, we are content to stick with our recommended steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. However, we will eventually be close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that the 5/10 slope will follow the 10/30 slope and transition into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. When that happens, it will make more sense to either position in a steepener at the front-end of the curve (long 3-year bullet / short 2/5 barbell) or a flattener at the long-end of the curve (long 5/30 barbell / short 10-year bullet). We don’t yet see sufficient evidence of 5/10 bear-flattening to shift out of our current recommended position and into these new ones, and so we stay the course for now. TIPS: Overweight Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview​​​​​​ TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 52 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +394 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 4 bps and 5 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.43%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). This week, we are downgrading our TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral for two reasons. First, as noted above, long-maturity breakevens are consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. Second, TIPS breakevens and CPI swap rates are even higher at the front-end of the curve – the 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.93% – and there is a good chance that those lofty expectations will not be confirmed by the realized inflation data. In addition to shifting from overweight to neutral on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we also book profits on our inflation curve flattener trade (panel 4) and on our real yield curve steepener (bottom panel). The inflation curve will likely stay inverted, but it will have difficulty flattening further unless short-maturity inflation expectations move even higher. The real yield curve may continue to steepen as bond yields rise, but without additional inflation curve flattening it is better to position for that outcome along the nominal Treasury curve. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 4 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed last April. This excess savings has still not been spent and already the most recent round of stimulus is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, with many households using their windfalls to pay down debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 44 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +121 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 36 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +50 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 70 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +365 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month and it currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered to their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: 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 April 30TH, 2021) 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 April 30TH, 2021) 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 47 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 47 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) Appendix B: 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 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 30TH, 2021)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021.

Highlights Duration: Foreign inflows and dollar strength may give us a reason to turn bullish on US bonds at some point in the future, but not yet. For now, investor sentiment toward the dollar is more consistent with rising US bond yields than falling US bond yields. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Municipal Bonds: The economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bonds, but value is not universally attractive. Investors should favor long maturity General Obligation and Revenue bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Investors should also overweight taxable municipal bonds versus investment grade corporate credit. High-Yield Munis are fairly valued relative to High-Yield corporates. Economy: The US economy is currently suffering from a shortage of labor. That is, job openings are unusually high given the current unemployment rate. Feature The recent pullback in US bond yields continues to confound commentators. As we noted in last week’s report, the 10-year Treasury yield’s 8 basis point drop on April 15th occurred on a day when the US economic data surprised to the upside.1 Since then, bond yields have held steady even as the trend toward stronger economic data has persisted. Our explanation for the divergence between bond yields and the economic data is that the yield curve had already discounted a rapid economic recovery and the incoming data are simply confirming that narrative. But many alternative explanations have also been put forth to explain the drop in yields. One of those explanations is that the attractiveness of US bonds to foreign investors has resulted in a wave of foreign buying that has pushed US yields lower. Our view is that foreign interest might become a reason to turn bullish on bonds at some point, but it is not currently a meaningful factor weighing on US yields.    Foreign Inflows Are Not To Blame For Falling US Bond Yields Chart 1 illustrates that US bond yields are significantly higher than yields in Germany and Japan (two of the other major developed bond markets), a dynamic that has been in place since 2013. However, US yields have both risen and fallen at different times since 2013, so the fact that they are higher than yields in Germany and Japan is not a sufficient reason to expect that foreign inflows will push US bond yields lower. One potential problem with Chart 1 is that it shows local currency bond yields. That is, if a German investor buys a 10-year US Treasury note today with a plan to sell it in three months, he is exposed to both the risk that the 10-year US yield will rise during the next three months and to the risk that the US dollar will depreciate against the euro. For this reason, many global fixed income investors choose to hedge the currency risk in their portfolios, an action that significantly alters the attractiveness of foreign bonds. The second and third panels of Chart 2 show the yield advantage in the 10-year US Treasury note compared to the 10-year German bund and 10-year JGB, respectively, after hedging all yields into a common currency. We assume a 3-month investment horizon. The message is that US yields are still highly attractive to foreign investors, even after the currency risk is hedged. Chart 1Higher Yields In US Bonds Chart 2Dollar Sentiment Supports Higher Yields In common-currency terms, German investors can pick up an extra 108 bps in the 10-year US Treasury note compared to the 10-year German bund, about the same amount of extra compensation that was available in 2014 and 2003 (Chart 2, panel 2). Japanese investors can pick-up even more extra compensation (115 bps) by moving out of 10-year JGBs and into US Treasuries, though US Treasuries looked even more attractive relative to JGBs in 2014 and 2003 (Chart 2, panel 3). Whether they hedge currency risk or not, there’s no doubt that foreign investors can gain a significant yield pick-up by moving into the US bond market. The more important question, however, is whether these international yield spreads tell us anything about the future direction of US bond yields. To answer that question, we look at two other periods when US yields were very attractive to foreign investors: 2003 and 2014. Hedged US yields were elevated in 2003, but the US dollar was also near the beginning of a multi-year bear market (Chart 2, panel 4) and investor sentiment toward the US dollar was deeply bearish (Chart 2, bottom panel). In that environment, the 10-year US Treasury yield moved higher for several years, despite its attractiveness to foreign investors. The opposite occurred in 2014. US bonds once again offered an attractive yield pick-up to foreign investors, but this time the US dollar was near the beginning of a bull run (Chart 2, panel 4) and investor sentiment was tilted in favor of a stronger dollar (Chart 2, bottom panel). The result is that US bond yields fell, aided by greater foreign demand. Looking at the contrast between 2003 and 2014, it is clear the spread between US yields and foreign yields is much less predictive of future bond moves than the path of the US dollar and investor sentiment toward the dollar. At present, with dollar sentiment deep into bearish territory (Chart 2, bottom panel), it is unlikely that foreign demand is weighing on US bond yields in any meaningful way. Bottom Line: Foreign inflows and dollar strength may give us a reason to turn bullish on US bonds at some point in the future, but not yet. For now, investor sentiment toward the dollar is more consistent with rising US bond yields than falling US bond yields. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Municipal Bonds: Better Than Credit The performance of municipal bonds since US Treasury yields troughed last August has been truly remarkable (Table 1). The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index has returned +2.02% while comparable Treasury and Credit indexes booked losses. The outperformance has extended into Taxable Munis, where returns have been less negative than in Aa-rated Credit, and to High-Yield Munis which have outperformed their corporate counterparts. Table 1Total Returns Since The Bottom In Treasury Yields Two main factors are responsible for the outperformance of municipal bonds. First, state & local government tax revenues recovered much more quickly than many anticipated at this time last year. In fact, they have already taken out their pre-COVID highs and are growing at a pace of 5.25% per year (Chart 3). Second, the federal government stepped in and delivered $350 billion of funding (~1.6% of GDP) to state & local governments as part of the recently enacted American Rescue Plan. This support comes on top of the spike in Federal Grants-In-Aid that resulted from the passage of last year’s CARES act (Chart 3, panel 3). It’s certainly true that state & local governments also faced incredibly high expenses last year as they battled the pandemic, yet they still managed to eke out positive net savings in 2020 as a whole (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3S&L Government Balance Sheets Healing Quickly The outlook for state & local government balance sheets will continue to brighten as the rapid economic recovery pushes up tax revenues and the American Rescue Plan’s transfers are doled out. This will support municipal bond returns. What’s more, President Biden’s recently announced plan to increase the income tax rate on high income individuals could bolster municipal bond performance. Granted, there is no guarantee that this proposed tax change will occur. The President will include the income tax hike in the American Families Plan, a proposal that will not hit the legislative agenda until 2022 as the government concentrates on passing the infrastructure-focused American Jobs Plan this year. There is a good chance that there won’t be enough time to pass the American Families Plan before the 2022 midterm election, after which the composition of Congress could change. Our US Political Strategy service puts the odds of the American Families Plan passing before the 2022 midterm at 50/50.2 Nevertheless, the mere threat of higher income taxes might be all it takes to drive interest toward tax-exempt municipal bonds. All in all, we see the President’s rhetoric as providing a tailwind to muni returns. Clearly, our view is that the economic landscape is positive for municipal bond performance. But value has deteriorated markedly in some parts of the sector, and investors need to be selective. The rest of this section considers where the most attractive municipal bond opportunities lie. Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Investors should shy away from Aaa-rated municipal bonds. Aaa-rated Muni / Treasury yield ratios have already collapsed, particularly at the long-end of the curve (Chart 4). As is the case in corporate credit, investors need to move down the quality spectrum to find compelling opportunities. Chart 4Aaa Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Investment Grade Munis Versus Credit Some of those compelling opportunities can be found in lower-rated investment grade municipals, particularly relative to investment grade credit. If we match the credit rating and duration between the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation (GO) Municipal Index and the Bloomberg Barclays Credit Index, we find that long-maturity GOs look very attractive (Chart 5). Investors facing a tax rate of 2% or higher receive a greater after-tax yield in GO Munis than in Credit at the very long-end of the curve (17+ years to maturity). GO Munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket also look attractive relative to Credit, with a breakeven tax rate of 10%. The after-tax yield pick-up in GO Munis is less favorable in the belly of the curve. Investors in the 8-12 year maturity bucket face a breakeven tax rate of 28% and those in the 6-8 year maturity bucket face a breakeven tax rate of 39%. Revenue bonds offer better value than GOs. In fact, revenue Munis with maturities above 12 years offer a before-tax yield pick-up compared to Credit with the same credit rating and duration (Chart 6). Even at shorter maturities, the breakeven tax rate for revenue bonds versus Credit is fairly attractive. Investors in the 6-8 year maturity bucket face a breakeven tax rate of 28% and those in the 8-12 year maturity bucket face a breakeven tax rate of 18% Chart 5GO Munis Versus Credit Chart 6Revenue Munis Versus Credit   Taxable Munis Chart 7Taxable Muni Spread Versus Credit Rating And Duration Matched Credit Even though they won’t benefit from any upcoming changes to the tax code, taxable municipal bonds are an attractively priced alternative to investment grade Credit (Chart 7). After matching the duration and credit rating, the Bloomberg Barclays Taxable Municipal Index offers a yield pick-up of 43 bps versus investment grade Credit. Shorter maturities offer a yield pick-up of 30 bps and longer maturities offer 55 bps. These seem like yield premiums worth grabbing given the favorable economic environment for state & local government balance sheets. High-Yield Munis   Chart 8High-Yield Munis Versus Corporates Finally, we look at high-yield municipal bonds and find that they are fairly valued compared to high-yield corporate bonds. The High-Yield Municipal Index offers a yield that is only 88 bps below that of the credit rating and duration matched High-Yield Corporate Index, which is relatively high compared to recent years (Chart 8). That 88 bps yield differential translates to a breakeven tax rate of 21%. That is, any investor facing a tax rate above 21% will get a greater after-tax yield in high-yield Munis than in high-yield corporates. While the yield spread is reasonably attractive, it’s important to note that the High-Yield Municipal Index is extremely negatively convex (Chart 8, bottom panel) and thus prone to extension risk if bond yields rise. This means that the appearance of attractive relative value in high-yield Munis will quickly evaporate as bond yields rise and muni yields start getting compared to a longer-duration benchmark. All in all, we judge value in high-yield Munis to be neutral relative to high-yield corporates. Bottom Line: The economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bonds, but value is not universally attractive. Investors should favor long maturity General Obligation and Revenue bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Investors should also overweight taxable municipal bonds versus investment grade corporate credit. High-Yield Munis are fairly valued relative to High-Yield corporates. Economy: The Labor Shortage Won't Last Chart 9Help Wanted! An interesting recent economic development has been increased concern about the availability of labor. The Fed’s April 2021 Beige Book noted that “hiring remained a widespread challenge” and the number of small businesses having difficulty filling vacancies has spiked (Chart 9). This seems odd given that the economy is still missing 8.4 million jobs compared to February 2020. So what exactly is going on? The Beveridge Curve – the relationship between job openings and the unemployment rate – is the classic way to track shifts in structural unemployment (Chart 10). Notice that the curve has shifted sharply to the right during the past few months. This confirms the anecdotes from the Beige Book and the NFIB survey. There are, in fact, significantly more available jobs for the same unemployment rate. Chart 10The Beveridge Curve If this rightward shift in the Beveridge Curve proves to be permanent, it would mean that the natural rate of unemployment is higher than we thought and that we should expect wage-driven inflationary pressures to emerge earlier in the recovery. However, we suspect that the recent rightward shift in the Beveridge Curve is not permanent and that it will move back toward more normal levels as COVID’s impact subsides. We see two possible reasons for the Beveridge Curve’s rightward shift. First, the combination of expanded unemployment benefits and stimulus checks on offer from the federal government may be discouraging people from going back to work, even as jobs become available. To the extent that this is a factor holding back job growth, it will soon subside. The last of the COVID stimulus checks are currently being delivered and expanded unemployment benefits will expire in September. Second, there are many other COVID-related reasons why people may be reluctant to go back to work. They could fear getting sick or may have increased responsibilities at home due to school or daycare closures. These factors too will eventually subside as the nation reaches herd immunity and slowly returns to normal. An industry breakdown of job openings provides some evidence that the rightward shift in the Beveridge Curve will prove transitory. Chart 11A shows that the ‘Leisure & Hospitality’ and ‘Education & Healthcare’ sectors have the highest rates of job openings, and Chart 11B shows that they have both seen large increases in job openings since the pandemic began. This tells us that the increase in job openings has been concentrated in those sectors most impacted by the pandemic. It stands to reason that the dynamic will reverse as COVID becomes less of a concern. Chart 11AJob Openings Rate By Industry Chart 11BChange In Job Openings Rate By Industry For bond investors, it’s worth noting that the current labor shortage means that the downward trend in the unemployment rate will not immediately be offset by a rapidly rising labor force participation rate. That is, we could see the unemployment rate reach the Fed’s target range relatively soon, but with a labor force participation rate that is well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 12). Fortunately, the Fed has told us that it wants to see both 3.5% - 4.5% unemployment and a return to pre-COVID participation rates before it will lift interest rates. Chart 12Fed Targets Both The Unemployment Rate And The Part Rate In other words, the Fed also believes that the rightward shift in the Beveridge Curve will be transitory and it will not rush to tighten policy if the labor force participation rate remains low. Our own expectation is that labor shortage issues will be resolved by next year and that the Fed will be comfortable lifting rates before the end of 2022.3   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And Legislative Agenda”, dated April 1, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our outlook for Fed policy please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights On a timeframe of a few years, a net deflationary shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature or its precise timing. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this presents a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should steer towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Fractal trade shortlist: Taiwan versus China, Netherlands versus China, and Sweden versus Finland. Feature Chart I-1For Long-Term Investors, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty Predicting shocks is easy. The precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. This means that the longer our investment timeframe, the more certain we are of encountering at least one shock – even if we cannot predict its precise nature or timing. Many economists and strategists blame their forecasting errors on shocks, such as the pandemic, which they point out are ‘unforecastable.’ Absent the shocks, they argue, their predictions of the economy and the markets would have turned out right. This is a valid excuse for short-term forecasting errors, but it is not a valid excuse for long-term forecasting errors. On a long-term horizon, encountering a major shock, or several major shocks, is a near-certainty. Hence, economists and strategists who are not incorporating the well-defined statistical distribution of shocks into their long-term investment forecasts and strategies are making a mistake. Individual Shocks Are Not Predictable In the 21 years of this century so far, there have been five shocks whose economic/financial consequences have been felt worldwide: the dot com bust (2000); the global financial crisis (2007/8); the euro debt crisis (2011/12); the emerging markets recession (2014/15); and the global pandemic (2020). To these we can add two wide-reaching political shocks: the Brexit vote (2016); and Donald Trump’s shock victory in the US presidential election (2016). In total, this constitutes seven shocks, four economic/financial, two political, and one natural (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) Some people argue that economic/financial shocks are predictable, because they arise from vulnerabilities in the economy or financial markets, which should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, though such vulnerabilities are obvious in hindsight, the greatest economic minds cannot see them in real time. The greatest economic minds cannot see economic vulnerabilities. Infamously, on the eve of the global financial crisis, Ben Bernanke was insisting that “there’s not much indication that subprime mortgage issues have spread into the broader mortgage market.” Equally infamously, on the eve of the euro debt crisis, Mario Draghi was asking “what makes you think that the ECB must become lender of last resort to governments to keep the eurozone together?” (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Chart I-4Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Which begs the question, what is the current vulnerability that today’s great economic minds cannot see? As we have documented many times, most recently in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, the current vulnerability is the exponential relationship between rising bond yields and the risk premiums on equities and other risk-assets (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Meaning that $500 trillion of risk-assets are vulnerable to any substantial further rise in bond yields. Chart I-5A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-6...Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent The second type of shock – political shocks – should be predictable as they mostly arise from well-defined events such as elections and referenda, which an army of political experts analyses ad nauseam. Yet the greatest political minds could not see Brexit or President Trump coming. Indeed, even ‘Team Brexit’ didn’t see Brexit coming, because it had no plan on how to implement Brexit once the vote was won. The third type of shocks – natural shocks – are clearly unpredictable as individual events. Nobody knows when the next major pandemic, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami, solar flare, or asteroid strike is going happen. Yet, to repeat, while the precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Highly Predictable The good news is that shocks follow well-defined statistical ‘power laws’ which allow us to accurately forecast how many shocks to expect in any long timeframe. The 7 shocks experienced through the past 21 years equates to a shock every three years on average, or 3.33 shocks in any 10-year period. The expected wait to the next shock is three years. The next few paragraphs delve into some necessary mathematics, but don’t worry, you don’t need to understand the maths to appreciate the key takeaways. If the past 21 years is representative, we propose that the number of shocks in any 10-year period follows a so-called Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33. From this distribution, it follows that the probability of going through a 5-year period without a shock is just 19 percent, and the probability of going through a 10-year period without a shock is a negligible 4 percent (Chart of the Week). The result is that if you are a long-term investor, then encountering a shock is a near-certainty and should be built into your investment strategy. How can we test our assumption that the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution? The maths tells us that if the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33, then the ‘waiting time’ between shocks follows a so-called Exponential distribution also with parameter 3.33. On this basis, 63 percent of the waits between shocks should be up to three years, 23 percent should be four to six years, and 14 percent should be over six years. Now we can compare this expected distribution with the actual distribution of waits between the 7 shocks encountered so far in this century. We find that the theory lines up closely with the practice, validating our assumption of a Poisson distribution (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Theoretical Waiting Time Between Shocks… Chart II-8…Is Close To The Actual Waiting Time Between Shocks To repeat the key takeaways, on a long-term timeframe, encountering at least one shock is a near-certainty, and the expected wait to the next shock is three years. A Shock Is A Near-Certainty, And It Will End Up Deflationary Nevertheless, there remains a pressing question: Will the next shock(s) be deflationary or reflationary? It turns out that all shocks end up with both deflationary and reflationary components: either a deflationary impulse followed by a reflationary backlash or, as we highlighted in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation, a reflationary impulse followed by a deflationary backlash. But the crucial point is that the deflationary component will swamp the reflationary component. In the seven shocks of this century so far, six have been deflationary impulses with a weaker reflationary backlash; and one – the reflation trade of 2017-18 – was a reflationary impulse with a stronger deflationary backlash. It is our high conviction view that in the next shock(s), the deflationary component will continue to hold the upper hand (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate The simple reason is that as financial asset prices, real estate prices, and debt servicing costs get addicted to ever lower bond yields, the economy and financial markets cannot tolerate bond yields reaching previous tightening highs and, just like all addicts, need a new extreme loosening to feel any stimulus. This means that when the next shock comes – as it surely will – it will require lower lows and lower highs in the bond yield cycle. Let’s sum up. On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature – economic/financial, political, or natural – or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this constitutes a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week we have noticed an unusual decoupling among the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan, Netherlands, and China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China Among these three markets, the strong short-term outperformance of both Taiwan and Netherlands are due to supply bottlenecks in the semiconductor sector that have boosted Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and ASML, but we expect these bottlenecks ultimately to resolve.  On this basis and combined with extremely fragile 130-day fractal structures, Taiwan versus China and Netherlands versus China are vulnerable to reversals (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Underweight Taiwan Versus China Chart I-12Underweight Netherlands Versus China Our first recommended trade is to underweight Netherlands versus China, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Another outperformance that looks fragile on its 130-day fractal structure is Sweden versus Finland, driven by industrials and financials versus energy and materials (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Our second recommended trade is to underweight Sweden versus Finland, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.7 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics and the yield curve discounts a much quicker pace of rate hikes than is currently signaled by the Fed’s “dot plot”. However, the economic data continue to beat expectations by a wide margin. This suggests that bond yields could overshoot their fair value in the near term. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Employment: The US employment boom is just getting started. Total employment is still 8.4 million below pre-pandemic levels, but 37% of missing jobs are from the Leisure & Hospitality sector where demand is about to surge. Fed: The US economy will reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” in 2022. This will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, an event that will be preceded by an announcement of asset purchase tapering either late this year or early next year. Feature Chart 1Price Pressures Building The past two weeks brought us a couple of interesting developments directly related to the Treasury market. First, long-dated Treasury yields declined somewhat, presumably because many investors concluded that the yield curve is already priced for the full extent of future Fed rate hikes. Second, we received further evidence – from March’s +916k employment report, the 12% year-over-year increase in producer prices and continued elevated readings from PMI Prices Paid indexes – that economic activity is recovering more quickly than even the most optimistic forecasters anticipated (Chart 1). These two opposing forces highlight a tension in the current outlook for US Treasury yields. Yields now look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics, a fact that justifies keeping bond portfolio duration close to benchmark. However, cyclical economic indicators are surging, a fact that suggests yields will keep rising in the near-term, causing them to overshoot fair value for a time. This week’s report looks at this tension between valuation indicators and cyclical economic indicators through the lens of our Checklist To Increase Portfolio Duration. While we think there are convincing arguments in favor of both “At Benchmark” and “Below Benchmark” portfolio duration stances on a 6-12 month investment horizon, we are deciding to stick with our recommended “Below Benchmark” stance for now, until the economic data are more in line with market expectations. Checking In With Our Checklist Back in February, following the big jump in bond yields, we unveiled a Checklist of several criteria that would cause us to increase our recommended portfolio duration stance from “Below Benchmark” to “At Benchmark”.1 As is shown in Table 1, the Checklist contains seven items that can be grouped into two categories: Valuation Indicators that compare the level of Treasury yields to some estimate of fair value Cyclical Indicators that look at whether trends in the economic data are consistent with rising or falling bond yields Table 1Checklist For Increasing Duration Valuation Indicators Chart 2Valuation Indicators As mentioned above, valuation indicators show that Treasury yields are roughly consistent with fair value, suggesting that a neutral duration stance is appropriate. First, consider the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield relative to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 2). Last week, survey estimates from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers were updated to March, and while there was some upward movement in the estimated long-run neutral rate ranges, the median estimates in both surveys were unchanged from January. The result is that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield remains near the top-end of its survey-derived fair value band (Chart 2, top 2 panels). Second, the same two surveys also ask respondents to forecast what the average fed funds rate will be over the next 10 years. We can derive an estimate of the 10-year term premium by subtracting those forecasts from the 10-year spot Treasury yield (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). In this case, respondents did raise their average fed funds rate forecasts and our term premium estimates were revised down as a result. While both term premium estimates are now below their 2018 peaks, they remain elevated compared to recent historical averages. Third, we turn to the front-end of the yield curve to look at what sort of Fed rate hike path is priced into the market (Chart 3). We see that the market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in December 2022 and for a total of four 25 basis point rate hikes by the end of 2023. Only a handful of FOMC participants forecasted a similar path at the March Fed meeting. Chart 3Market Priced For December 2022 Liftoff We discussed the wide divergence between market expectations and the Fed’s “dot plot” in a recent report.2 Essentially, the divergence boils down to the Fed focusing more on actual economic outcomes while the market takes its cues from economic forecasts. We think there’s good reason for optimism about the economy, and therefore expect that the Fed will revise its interest rate forecasts higher in the coming months as the “hard” economic data improve. However, we should point out that respondents to the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers and Survey of Market Participants also have much more benign interest rate forecasts than the market, and respondents to those surveys do not share the Fed’s bias toward actual economic outcomes. Table 2 shows that the average respondent to the Survey of Market Participants only sees a 35% chance that the Fed will lift rates before the end of 2022 and the Survey of Primary Dealers displays a similar result. Table 2Odds Of A Fed Rate Hike By End Of Year The wide gap between rate hike expectations embedded in the yield curve and forecasts from both the FOMC and the New York Fed’s surveys suggests that Treasury yields are at least fairly valued, and perhaps too high. However, the most important question is whether the market’s rate hike expectations look lofty compared to our own forecast. As is explained in the below section (titled “The Employment Boom Is Just Getting Started”), we think that the jobs market will be strong enough for the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022 and that the market’s anticipated rate hike path looks reasonable. However, even this view is only consistent with a neutral stance toward portfolio duration. Chart 4Higher Inflation Is Priced In For our final valuation indicator we focus specifically on the outlook for inflation compared to what is already priced into the forward CPI swap curve (Chart 4). The forward CPI swap curve is priced for headline CPI inflation to rise to 2.7% by May 2022 before falling back down only slightly. In reality, year-over-year headline CPI will probably spike to even higher levels during the next two months but will then recede more quickly. We think it’s reasonable to expect headline CPI inflation to be between 2.4% and 2.5% in 2022, a range consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE target, but the forward CPI swap curve reveals that this outcome is already priced. All in all, the message from the valuation indicators in our Checklist is that a robust economic recovery is already reflected in market prices. Thus, even with our optimistic economic outlook, Treasury yields look fairly valued, consistent with an “At Benchmark” portfolio duration stance.  Cyclical Indicators While valuation indicators perform well over longer time horizons, they are notoriously bad at pinpointing market turning points. It’s for this reason that we augment our Checklist with cyclical economic indicators, specifically high-frequency cyclical economic indicators that correlate tightly with bond yields. First, we look at the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index and gold (Chart 5). The CRB index is a good proxy for global economic growth and gold is inversely correlated with the stance of Federal Reserve policy – gold falls when policy is perceived to be getting more restrictive and rises when policy is perceived to be easing. This ratio has shown little evidence of rolling over and further gains are likely as the economy emerges from the pandemic. We also look at other high-frequency global growth indicators like the relative performance between cyclical and defensive equities and the performance of Emerging Market currencies (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). The trend of cyclical equity sector outperformance continues while EM currencies have shown some tentative signs of weakness. The US dollar is one particularly important indicator for bond yields. As US yields rise relative to yields in the rest of the world it makes the US bond market a more attractive destination for foreign investors. When US yields are attractive enough, these foreign inflows can stop them from rising. One good indication that US yields are sufficiently high to attract a large amount of foreign interest is when investor sentiment toward the dollar turns bullish. For now, the survey of dollar sentiment we track shows that investors are still bearish on the US dollar (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bearish dollar sentiment supports further increases in bond yields. Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Chart 6Data Surprises Still Positive Finally, we track the US Economic Surprise Index as an excellent summary indicator of the US data flow relative to market expectations. The index also correlates tightly with changes in bond yields (Chart 6). Though the index has fallen significantly from the absurd highs seen late last year, it is still elevated compared to typical historical levels. In general, bond yields tend to rise when the economic data are beating expectations, as indicated by a positive Surprise Index. All in all, we see that the cyclical indicators in our Checklist are sending a very different signal than the valuation indicators. This suggests a high probability that yields could overshoot fair value in the near term. Bottom Line: Treasury yields look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics and the yield curve discounts a much quicker pace of rate hikes than is currently signaled by the Fed’s “dot plot”. However, the economic data continue to beat expectations by a wide margin. This suggests that bond yields could overshoot their fair value in the near term. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Employment Boom Is Just Getting Started Chart 7Defining "Maximum Employment" The Fed has conditioned the first rate hike of the cycle on both (i) 12-month PCE inflation being at or above 2% and (ii) the labor market being at “maximum employment”. As we’ve previously written, we see strong odds that the inflation trigger will be met in time for a 2022 rate hike.3 This week, we assess the likelihood that “maximum employment” will be reached in time for the Fed to lift rates next year. Fed communications have made it clear that the FOMC’s definition of “maximum employment” is equivalent to an environment where the unemployment rate is between 3.5% and 4.5% - the range of FOMC participants’ NAIRU estimates – and the labor force participation rate has made a more-or-less complete recovery to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 7). Following March’s blockbuster employment report, we update our calculations of the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that must occur to hit “maximum employment” by different future dates (Tables 3A-3C). Table 3AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table 3BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table 3CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date For example, to reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” by December 2022, nonfarm payroll growth must average between +410k and +487k per month between now and then. To reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year, payroll growth must average between +701k and +833k over the remaining nine months of 2021. It’s probably unrealistic to expect a return to “maximum employment” by the end of this year, but we do expect at least a couple more monthly payroll reports that are even stronger than last month’s +916k. Our optimism stems from the industry breakdown of the current jobs shortfall. Table 4 shows the change in overall nonfarm payrolls between February 2020 and March 2021. In total, we see that the US economy is missing 8.4 million jobs compared to pre-pandemic. We also see that 3.1 million (or 37%) of those jobs come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector. That sector is predominantly made up of restaurants and bars, two services where demand is about to ramp up significantly as COVID vaccination spreads across the US. A few months in a row of 1 million or more jobs added is highly likely in the near future. Table 4Employment By Industry Bottom Line: We see the boom in employment as just getting started and we expect that the US economy will reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” in 2022. This will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, an event that will be preceded by an announcement of asset purchase tapering either late this year or early next year.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/387 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Limit Rate Risk, Load Up On Credit”, dated March 16, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification